Opinion ID: 1266346
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: does the pre-accident transfer of jurisdiction by the county of hawaii to the state of hawaii of the highway here in question bar a finding of liability against the county as a matter of law?

Text: Plaintiffs alleged in their amended complaint that ... County of Hawaii negligently designed, constructed, maintained and inspected and/or [is] otherwise responsible for the road, highway and areas adjacent thereto in the vicinity of where the ... accident occurred. The trial court apparently accepted the County's contention that the transfer of jurisdiction of the highway to the State, effective July 1, 1969, established a bar for the County from any liability for the design, construction, maintenance, inspection or other responsibility it may have had for the highway. We are of the opinion that the record does show that there is a genuine issue as to a material fact and that the County is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Technicolor Inc. v. Traeger, 57 Haw. 113, 551 P.2d 163 (1976); Gum v. Nakamura, 57 Haw. 39, 549 P.2d 471 (1976). The test to be applied by this court on review of summary judgment was stated in Technicolor, Inc. v. Traeger, supra, at 118-19, 551 P.2d at 168, as follows: ... the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts alleged in the materials (such as depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and affidavits) considered by the court in making its determination must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. [Citations omitted.] Further, in considering the validity of the granting of summary judgment under H.R.C.P. Rule 56(c), the appellate court must determine whether any genuine issue as to a material fact was raised and, if not raised, whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Citation omitted.] The existence of any duties in the County for the negligent design, construction, maintenance or inspection of the highway prior to July 1, 1969, depends upon the extent of authority and control the County exercised over the highway. Levy v. Kimball, 50 Haw. 497, 443 P.2d 142 (1968); see In re Taxes Victoria Ward, 33 Haw. 235 (1934). Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and the State, the record shows that the County exercised sufficient control and authority over the highway to raise a question of its liability for the dangerous nature of the road. The County was responsible for general repair and maintenance of the highway. It had the authority to realign the highway. In 1966 the County improved the grade of another part of the same road transferred to the State in 1969. Subsequently, the Hawaii County Department of Public Works prepared a cost estimate for the realignment of the highway in 1968 at the request of the Hawaii County Council. The designation of the highway as part of the Federal-Aid Highway system authorizes the State to take certain actions regarding the road. [2] The effectiveness of the highway being designated as part of the Federal-Aid Highway system in granting the State jurisdiction over the design of the highway to the exclusion of the County's duties and responsibilities in uncertain. [3] The possibility of State involvement does not dispel the question of the County's culpability raised by the preceding facts. The record does indicate that jurisdiction over the highway was transferred to the State on July 1, 1969, but it is silent on the substance of the responsibilities, control and authority given by the County, if any, to the State. The substantive provisions of the document transferring jurisdiction to the State are essential to establish the extent of the authority and control relinquished by the County. HRS §§ 265-1 and 265-2. The absence of this clearly material factual evidence leaves the issue of the County's authority and control over the highway unresolved. Even if the transfer of jurisdiction effectively granted the State sole authority and control over the highway the County may not prevail on its motion. The accident occurred approximately 14 months after the effective date of transfer. Generally, the State's liability for defects and dangerous conditions which existed on the road prior to and which continue after the transfer is not absolute. The State has a reasonable time after the transfer to discover and remedy unsafe conditions before any liability for the condition will attach. City of Decatur v. Gilliam, 222 Ala. 377, 133 So. 25 (1931). 19 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3rd ed.) § 54.30, states that [t]he duty of a city with respect to streets in the annexed area ... is the same as the duty owed with respect to other streets in the city. But the municipality is allowed a reasonable time in which to discover and remedy unsafe conditions; thereafter liability will attach. (Footnotes omitted.) The question of whether, under the circumstances of this case, 14 months was a reasonable time within which the State should have discovered and remedied the dangerous condition of the road is one upon which reasonable persons may differ, and thus, for a finder of fact to decide upon careful deliberation of the evidence presented at trial. Young v. Price, 48 Haw. 22, 395 P.2d 365 (1964). The County remains potentially liable during this reasonable period. Its liability turns on the questions of whether it breached a duty owed to the plaintiffs and whether such a breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries. Hargis v. Dearborn Heights, 34 Mich. App. 594, 192 N.W.2d 44 (1971). As the Court of Appeals of Michigan succinctly stated, Whether [the] death was caused by the negligence of the County [transferor of jurisdiction] or of the City [transferee], or of both, or neither was a jury question. In resolving the causation question the time interval between the transfer of jurisdiction and the accident was a factor to be considered, but the passage of time did not necessarily break the chain of causation. [Id. at 601, 192 N.W.2d at 49] It is clear that even if the record shows the transfer of jurisdiction effectively granted the State sole authority and control over the highway, such a transfer does not bar the County's liability as a matter of law. For the reasons given we are of the opinion that the trial court erred in granting County's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' complaint and State's crossclaim.