Opinion ID: 1434913
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiff's Claim Against Salt Lake County

Text: Plaintiff's averment as to fault on the part of the County does not stem from any condition upon or within the public roadway itself. Rather it is based upon his contention that weeds and brush growing alongside the roadway so obscured the view of travelers thereon that this constituted a defective, unsafe or dangerous condition of the highway, which it was the duty of the County to remedy, and for which liability was removed by our new Governmental Immunity Act. [9] This statute does not create any liability where none would have theretofore existed. Its sole purpose and effect is to remove sovereign immunity in situations where there would have been liability, but where sovereign immunity formerly prevented recovery. [10] In respect to our analysis of the claim against Salt Lake County, it is appropriate to observe that there is not here presented any such broad problem as to whether there may be some circumstances where a public road is so positioned and/or maintained in relation to adjacent conditions that there is created such a hazard as to create a defective, unsafe or dangerous condition of the highway. [11] Our concern is with the particular facts shown in this case: Where the pathway upon which plaintiff traveled and entered into Spring Lane was upon private property, and upon which were growing whatever weeds and brush obstructed his view. It would place a wholly impractical burden upon counties if they had to assume the duty of correcting such conditions with respect to every private way that enters upon a public road. [12] Considering the circumstances just discussed, together with the plaintiff's duty of due care for his own safety, it is our opinion that the trial court could properly conclude as it did, that the averments of the plaintiff failed to show that there was any defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition in the highway for which the County was responsible and had a duty to correct, or that there was any violation of such a duty which was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. [13] (All emphasis added.) Judgment affirmed. Costs to defendants (respondents). CALLISTER, TUCKETT, HENRIOD and ELLETT, JJ., concur.