Opinion ID: 1877549
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: McLain's Claims Against the State.

Text: McLain asserts that the defendants failed to establish the absence of material fact issues relating to the warnings and traffic control devices in the construction area. Specifically, he claims there are fact issues as to whether the defendants agreed to monitor the effectiveness of the signs and to add, change, or modify the signs as necessary. The State argues that, because all of McLain's claims involve the placement of traffic control devices and the sufficiency of warnings, the State is immunized under Iowa Code section 668.10(1). We agree with the State.
We must determine whether McLain's claims relate to the State's failure to place, erect, or install traffic control devices. If they do, and the exceptions to immunity are not satisfied, the State is exempt from tort liability. Iowa Code section 668.10(1) provides: In any action brought pursuant to this chapter, the state or a municipality shall not be assigned a percentage of fault for any of the following: 1. The failure to place, erect, or install a stop sign, traffic control device, or other regulatory sign as defined in the uniform manual for traffic control devices adopted pursuant to section 321.252. However, once a regulatory device has been placed, created or installed, the state or municipality may be assigned a percentage of fault for its failure to maintain the device. As the statute makes clear, Iowa Code section 668.10(1) immunizes the State for decisions about whether or where to place traffic signs. Sullivan v. Wickwire, 476 N.W.2d 69, 73 (Iowa 1991); Hunt v. State, 538 N.W.2d 659, 661 (Iowa App.1995). In other words, the State is not subject to tort liability for its decisions concerning sign selection or placement. Phillips v. City of Waukee, 467 N.W.2d 218, 220 (Iowa 1991); Hunt, 538 N.W.2d at 661. This includes claims that the State improperly failed to install signs, that its signs were improperly located, or that its signs failed to adequately warn motorists. See Sullivan, 476 N.W.2d at 73; Foster v. City of Council Bluffs, 456 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Iowa 1990). Despite the different characterizations of his claims, McLain's basic claim is that the State should have monitored the effectiveness of the traffic control plan and installed additional signs. Jack Anderson, McLain's expert witness, testified in his deposition that, even though the existing signs were adequate most of the time, it was his opinion that an additional sign, preferably a changeable message board, should have been installed for use during peak traffic hours. Iowa Code section 668.10(1) does not just immunize the initial placement or installation of traffic control devices; it applies to all such placements or installations. A plaintiff cannot overcome the State's immunity by merely claiming that the State should have done more to warn motorists or should have installed more traffic control devices. As we held in Sullivan, even if a plaintiff makes a claim that the State could have done more to inform motorists of potential danger ahead, the State is still immune. Sullivan, 476 N.W.2d at 73.
McLain also argues that even if his claims relate to the State's failure to place, erect, or install traffic control devices, the State still cannot escape liability under section 668.10(1) because the recognized exceptions to governmental immunity are satisfied. We disagree. There are three exceptions to this immunity: (1) failure to maintain a device; (2) installation of a misleading sign; and (3) where the exigencies are such that ordinary care would require the State to warn of dangerous conditions by other than inanimate objects. Hunt, 538 N.W.2d at 661. If any exception is satisfied, the State cannot escape tort liability. The first exception involves the State's failure to maintain a device. This is the only statutory exception and is contained in the last sentence of section 668.10(1). Based on the plain language of the exception, McLain's argument is without merit. He has made no allegation, and there is no evidence in the record, that the warning signs were not properly maintained. In fact, the evidence indicates that, on the date of the accident, the signage complied with all State plans and specifications. However, McLain also argues that the State had a contractual duty to monitor the effectiveness of the warning signs and that this duty is a maintenance function exempted from section 668.10(1) immunity. He argues that the common meaning of maintenance includes this monitoring function. We agree that all parties contracted to monitor the effectiveness of the signs. This duty is one of the fundamental principles of specification SS-5025, which was incorporated into the contracts. However, monitoring the effectiveness of the signs relates solely to the State's ultimate decision of whether or not to erect additional warning signs. Therefore, the immunity still applies. As we stated in Saunders v. Dallas County, 420 N.W.2d 468, 472 (Iowa 1988), the decision whether to replace a sign, move it, or supplant it with additional signs, is not a matter of maintenance under the statute. On the contrary such an action is a matter of deciding to place signs, for which the [State] cannot be held liable. Saunders, 420 N.W.2d at 472. Failure to monitor only invokes the maintenance exception when the monitoring involves signs that have already been placed, erected, or installed. The second exception involves signs that are misleading. McLain claims the warning signs were misleading; therefore, the State should not be immune. We have recognized that the State may be subject to tort liability under Iowa Code chapter 668 for placing or installing misleading signs. Phillips, 467 N.W.2d at 219; Saunders, 420 N.W.2d at 472. Specifically, McLain argues that because the signs gave the specific distance until the construction zone, it misled the motoring public into thinking there would be no problems until a driver reached the construction area. As a matter of law, the signs were not misleading. As mentioned, two of the signs also notified motorists that delays were possible. The signs clearly warned motorists of the construction zone and, by warning of delays, they made it clear that traffic could be slowed or even stopped. Based on these facts, the motoring public was not misled by the DOT's signs. The final exception involves exigent circumstances. McLain argues that the exigencies exception to Iowa Code section 668.10(1) is satisfied. We have recognized that the State may not be exempt from tort liability if the exigencies are such that ordinary care would require the State to warn of dangerous conditions by other than inanimate devices. See Hershberger v. Buena Vista County, 391 N.W.2d 217, 220 (Iowa 1986). No evidence in the record suggests that this construction project was particularly unusual or that anything other than signs were needed. In fact, Jack Anderson, McLain's expert, testified that he would not have recommended a flagger for this project because of the possible danger to that person. Therefore, we conclude this exception is not satisfied. We conclude as a matter of law that McLain's claims relate to the State's failure to place, erect, or install traffic control devices and that none of the exceptions to section 668.10(1) are satisfied. Therefore, the State is immune from tort liability.