Opinion ID: 2635221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of McClure

Text: McClure was employed as the DOT's district engineer for Hawai`i County from April 1996 through June 1997 and had overall responsibility for administration of the P&amacr;hoa Bypass. McClure testified that, even when road construction standards are met, a state engineer who notices a dangerous condition on the highway should alert the department so that necessary remedial actions could be taken and McClure would have expected Haymore to have done so. Beginning in April or May 1996, McClure began attending meetings of the Safety Council, where he received complaints from citizens and police officers about water crossing the P&amacr;hoa Bypass. In response, he ordered his staff to review accidents that had occurred in the vicinity. After his staff informed him that more than one wet-weather accident had occurred near the location, he recommended that warning signs immediately be installed a quarter of a mile northward and southward of the site of the water flow because water crossing the roadway would create a dangerous and unexpected condition. McClure's department considered the intermediate measure of grooving the pavement but, McClure testified, the best measure is always to try to get the water at its source and not have it cross the road, if possible. At the request of the Appellants' counsel, McClure then read into the record part of the August 1, 1996 e-mail from Haymore: [8] The other two accidents were probably caused by the water the greenhouse dumps over the top of the cut bank on the high side of the superelevated curve. This is not a new phenomenon but I did not realize it was a problem. About the only cure for this is to put a drainage facility on the high side of the super. . . . Possibly a gutter would work, but the slope on the low side of the super shows evidence of heavy water flow which would suggest a ditch on the top of the cut bank. My memory of the right of way in this area suggests that we do not have adequate room for a ditch on the top of the cut bank. This leads me to conclude that it may be necessary to move the top of the cut bank back to the right of way so as to widen the area available for the largest possible gutter. From the accident records it is imperative that we make some sort of drainage facility. Perhaps you should add this to my list of desirable projects. On the memo, in response, McClure wrote the following message: How about installing a `Road Floods During Rain' sign now[?] And how much would it cost to groove the road (to mitigate any hydroplaning, if it occurs,) until [we] could build an interceptor ditch[?]