Opinion ID: 2331362
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defective Design Claim

Text: Under the public duty doctrine, municipalities have immunity from tort liability arising out of their discretionary governmental actions that by their nature are not ordinarily performed by private persons. Quality Court Condominium Association v. Quality Hill Development Corp., 641 A.2d 746, 750 (R.I.1994). The LeBlancs have conceded that the public duty doctrine applies to the maintenance and design of roadways, but argue that the town nevertheless should be liable for its negligence because its conduct was egregious. Thus, the preliminary question before us is whether the town's actions constitute egregious conduct. This Court has recognized an exception to the public duty doctrine for the egregious conduct of a municipality that has knowledge that it has created a circumstance that forces an individual into a position of peril and subsequently chooses not to remedy the situation. Martinelli v. Hopkins, 787 A.2d 1158, 1168 (R.I.2001) (quoting Kashmanian v. Rongione, 712 A.2d 865, 867 (R.I.1998) and Houle v. Galloway School Lines, Inc., 643 A.2d 822, 826 (R.I. 1994)). The LeBlancs argued that the first element of this exception was satisfied because the town had constructive notice through its police department that Old Angell Road was perilous. The LeBlancs offered evidence that the police department patrolled the road for speedingmotorists, surmising that the police could not have failed to observe the road's dangerous condition. The evidence in the case indicated that the road was wide enough for two vehicles to pass. There was no indication that the roadway was inadequate as a two-lane highway. The police surveillance to prevent speeding could not be said to be an inadequate response to ensure safety on a highway of normal width. Simply put, the town did not ignore a perilous situation but rather properly exercised its discretion to remedy the situation. See Catri v. Hopkins, 609 A.2d 966, 968 (R.I.1992) (holding that municipalities have discretion in the remedies they apply to the maintenance of roadways and intersections). The LeBlancs further cited the town's subsequent decision to make Old Angell Road a one-way road as indicating the town's failure to remove a perilous situation of which it was aware. This fact alone, however, is not evidence that the town's regulation of the roadway was egregious. See id. at 969 (Although the state's sluggish reaction to public outcry to install a signal at the particular intersection in question is regrettable, this [C]ourt cannot invent liability from the slowest of actions.). We have never held a municipality liable for its failure to implement a foolproof remedy and will not do so today. The town's decision to intensify surveillance for speeding rather than select an alternative listed by defendants was a valid exercise of its discretionary function. Thus, the motion justice properly concluded that the egregious conduct exception did not apply and that the public duty doctrine immunized the town from liability on the defective design claim.