Opinion ID: 2593851
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Superior Court Properly Granted DOT's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Text: Walden contends that the superior court erred in granting DOT's motion for partial summary judgment on her claim that DOT was negligent in failing to place a curve warning sign and speed advisory plate at the Mile 54 curve. [9] But DOT was entitled to judgment as a matter of law unless Walden could establish each element of her prima facie negligence case. Here, she failed to establish a crucial elementthe existence of a duty on DOT's part to place a curve warning sign and advisory speed plate at the subject curve. In order to successfully resist DOT's motion for summary judgment, Walden was required to set forth specific facts showing that (1) DOT owed her a duty of care; (2) DOT breached this duty; (3) the breach was a legal cause of the accident; and (4) she suffered damages as a result. [10] Walden failed to set forth facts showing that DOT had a duty to post warning signs at the curve. In support of its motion for summary judgment, DOT argued that it did not have a duty to place a curve warning sign and speed advisory plate at the subject curve. Alaska Statute 19.10.040 states that DOT must follow the Alaska Traffic Manual, which consists of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Alaska supplement. [11] According to the MUTCD, curve warning signs  may be used where engineering investigations ... show the recommended speed on the curve to be greater than 30 m.p.h. and equal to or less than the speed limit established by law or by regulation for that section of the highway. [12] The Alaska Supplement sets out ball bank testing as a method for determining the recommended or safe speed on existing curves. [13] DOT expert Ken Jacobson conducted ball bank testing on the Mile 54 curve and concluded that it is safe to drive it at 50 m.p.h. The MUTCD provides that a curve warning sign may be used in situations such as the instant case, in which the recommended speed of the curve determined by ball bank testing, 50 m.p.h., is greater than 30 m.p.h. and less than the posted speed limit of 55 m.p.h. Because the MUTCD defines may as a permissive condition for which no requirement for design or application is intended, [14] DOT argues that the permissive language of this MUTCD section clearly does not impose a duty upon DOT to install a curve warning sign. Walden failed to establish facts that dispute DOT's claim and demonstrate that DOT had a duty to place a warning sign at the curve. Edward Stevens, Walden's only expert providing evidence on this issue, conducted ball bank testing on the Mile 54 curve and reached the same result as DOT's experts, concluding that drivers can safely enter the corner and not feel discomfort on the curve at a speed of 50 m.p.h. The posted speed limit for the section of the Parks Highway at issue is 55 m.p.h. The Alaska Supplement states that all curve signs  shall be accompanied by an Advisory Speed Plate ... when the safe speed on the curve is 8 or more m.p.h. below the posted speed limit, utilizing the Safe Speed on Curves Procedures described in the supplement. [15] The MUTCD defines shall as a mandatory condition. [16] In the instant case, the safe speed around the curve was 50 m.p.h., only 5 m.p.h. below the posted speed. Therefore, the condition requiring an advisory plate specified in the supplementa safe speed of 8 or more m.p.h. below the posted speedis not met here. Since the provision sets out in certain terms when an advisory speed plate is necessary, DOT argues that it has no duty to place a speed advisory plate at a curve where the difference between the safe speed and posted speed is less than 8 m.p.h. Because Walden's own expert concurs with DOT's expert regarding the safe speed of the curve, there is no dispute that the safe speed is 50 m.p.h. At this speed, there is no legal requirement that DOT place a curve warning sign and a speed advisory plate at the subject curve. Because Walden cannot demonstrate that DOT had a duty to place any signs at the Mile 54 curve, she has failed to establish a necessary element of her prima facie negligence case. Absent any showing that DOT had a duty to post a curve warning sign and speed advisory plate at the Mile 54 curve, partial summary judgment was properly entered against Walden.