Court Opinion

ID: 9547137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:42:10.347505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:22.496165
License: Public Domain

LIVERMORE, Judge,
Dissenting.
The majority holds that the county, knowing that an intersection has a large *30number of accidents and knowing that available precautionary measures would reduce substantially the number of accidents, has no obligation to utilize those precautionary measures. No jury, it is said, could reasonably find that the failure to correct this dangerous situation violated the county’s duty to keep its roads reasonably safe for travel. I believe this holding inconsistent with Arizona case law, Coburn v. City of Tucson, 143 Ariz. 50, 691 P.2d 1078 (1984); Bach v. State, 152 Ariz. 145, 730 P.2d 854 (App.1986), and the weight of authority elsewhere. See Annot., 34 A.L. R.3d 1008 (Supp.1987)..