Court Opinion

ID: 9730674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:20:36.683821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:08.506282
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
concurring.
While I concur in the judgment of the court, I believe the decision of the trial court that the design of the highway was a discretionary function or duty within the statutory exception was correct.
Although there is some conflict in the authorities, the majority of the cases which have considered this issue support a rule that, generally, highway design involves a discretionary function. See, Smith v. Cooper, 256 Or. 485, 475 P.2d 78, 84 (1970); Donnelly v. Ives, 159 Conn. 163, 268 A.2d 406 (1970); D. Bennett & D. Sather, State Tort Liability — The Design, Construction and Maintenance of Public Highways —Vehicular Accidents, 19 Drake L. Rev. 33 (1969).
In Richardson & Gillispie v. State, 200 Neb. 225, 263 N.W.2d 442 (1978), the allegation of negligence involved the curve in the highway where the accident had occurred. We held that “the decision to adhere to *173the former design involved a discretionary function or duty which fell within the statutory exceptions under the State Tort Claims Act.”