Opinion ID: 1671607
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Breach of Duty Inquiry

Text: The alleged breach of duty in this case was the DOTD's failure to set the signal timing so as to allow pedestrians sufficient time to complete the crossing of the entire highway, in the absence of a median that offered a safe haven. Breach of duty is a question of fact, or a mixed question of law and fact, and the reviewing court must accord great deference to the facts found and the inferences drawn by the finder of fact. In the present case, much of the expert evidence was directed to the cause-in-fact issue, as was a great deal of the argument in the appellate court and this court. The trial court and the court of appeal also directed most of their attention to determining whether the accident would have been avoided if the DOTD had set a longer red signal for highway traffic in the timing cycle. On the breach issue, the experts presented by the plaintiff opined that there was insufficient protected time for a pedestrian to cross the highway completely and that this deficiency was a breach of the DOTD's duty. They pointed out that a pedestrian walking at four feet per second would take twelve seconds to cross the highway, in addition to the perception and reaction time between the changing of the signal and the pedestrian's beginning to walk. The principal expert, who attempted several crossings in preparing for trial, observed that [t]he only way I found I could safely go across this intersection is to break the law and pass [while the light is green for highway traffic] when the gaps in traffic occur. The determination of whether the DOTD violated its duty of reasonable care to pedestrians includes balancing the probability and seriousness of any expectable injury with the burden of taking adequate precautions against the risk of such injury and any adverse consequences of such precautions. In making this determination, one must keep in mind the nature of the area (a suburban highway as opposed to a downtown business district street) and the nature of all of the risks at the particular intersection. Prior to the DOTD's installing the signal initially at the intersection, pedestrians presumably crossed the highway without the protection of a red signal for highway traffic by timing their crossings between gaps in traffic. Moreover, at the intersections one block in either direction, and at numerous other intersections in the area, there are still no traffic control devices which might assist pedestrian crossings by stopping traffic. The signal at the pertinent intersection was installed initially to prevent the risk to vehicular traffic of right angle collisions, and the timing was subsequently changed to prevent the risk of collisions with stopped vehicles. The design change of the timing of the red signal for highway traffic to as little as eleven seconds balanced the benefit to highway traffic safety against concerns for pedestrian safety. Such concerns are significant where there are pedestrian dangers. At this intersection, however, there was a very low volume of pedestrian traffic and a total absence of previous pedestrian injuries. Of course, there are always risks to pedestrians who must cross the path of vehicular traffic. Under the timing cycle set by the DOTD, an average pedestrian could reach the last of the four lanes while the light was red for highway traffic. [11] However, when the pedestrian has legally entered the fourth lane of the unmarked cross-walk at the intersection, a highway motorist is required to yield the right of way to the pedestrian to complete the crossing. La.Rev.Stat. 32:232(1)(a). Moreover, the risk that a north-to-south pedestrian would be struck by an eastbound motorist violating the pedestrian's right-of-way was not the risk that materialized in this case to cause plaintiff's injury, namely, the risk that a westbound motorist would ignore the red signal and strike an inattentive pedestrian. [12] Finally, a risk-benefit analysis undermines plaintiff's theory and supports the DOTD's design decision. The principal concern of a design engineer in setting the timing cycle at this intersection was to avoid the hazards created by unnecessary stopping of vehicles traveling the busy highway. The longer the red signal for highway traffic, the greater the number of vehicles stopped; and the greater the number of vehicles stopped on the highway, the greater the risk of a collision with a stopped vehicle. A timing design that increased the length of the red signal for highway traffic may have enhanced slightly the safety of the few pedestrians who crossed at that intersection, but clearly would have created greater dangers for the heavy volume of highway traffic. Considering the very low volume of pedestrian traffic (the bus stop was the only destination for pedestrians on the south side of the highway) and the total absence of any history of pedestrian accidents or complaints at this particular crossing, we conclude that the DOTD was not negligent in its design of the timing cycle for the traffic light cycle at this intersectionthat is, the DOTD did not breach its duty to provide a signal-controlled intersection that was reasonably safe for motorists and pedestrians. In view of the balance struck by the DOTD in the light of all the considerations in this record, the trier of fact's determination that the DOTD negligently designed the timing cycle was not supported by the record and was clearly erroneous. For these reasons, the judgments of the lower courts are reversed, and the action is dismissed. KNOLL, J., concurs with reasons. TRAYLOR, J., concurs for reasons assigned by KNOLL, J. JOHNSON, J., dissents and assigns reasons. KNOLL, Judge, concurring. I concur in the above captioned opinion. In my view, the tortfeasor's running the red light was the sole cause of the accident. There was no record evidence to support the plaintiff's contention that the timing of the light deprived her of the opportunity to keep a lookout. Therefore, discussion of DOTD's duty with regard to the timing of the light is not triggered. I find that regardless of the timing of the light, the inattentive motorist was an overriding and intervening cause of the plaintiff's injuries. JOHNSON, Judge, dissenting. Tammie Jo Boykin suffered multiple injuries, including a severe brain injury when she was struck by an automobile while attempting to cross Airline Highway where it intersects with North Howard Avenue in Jefferson Parish. In my mind, the record established that the State Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) owes a duty to pedestrians at intersections using trafficactuated signals. (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Section 4C-12). The signal was set to accommodate a smooth flow of vehicular traffic, without proper regard for those pedestrians who crossed Airline Highway to board buses. The Trial Court found that DOTD had notice of the improper timing of the signals and chose to ignore the Manual requirements. I would affirm the decisions of the trial court and appellate court. DOTD owed a duty to this pedestrian and breached that duty. The state's negligence resulted in injury to this plaintiff, and she is entitled to relief. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.