Court Opinion

ID: 9709852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:56:10.022205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:52.072550
License: Public Domain

NEAL, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In City of Tell City v. Noble (1986), Ind.App., 489 N.E.2d 958 we held that a city is immune from Hability for tort under IND.CODE 34-4-16.5-3(6) and (7) of the Tort Claims Act for failure to erect a STOP sign at an intersection because such an act is discretionary and legislative. Our opinion was based upon the statutory scheme contained in IND.CODE 9-4, the uniform act regulating traffic on highways. In that act, traffic control devices consist of all signs and marking devices placed or erected by authority of a public body, or other officials having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning and guiding traffic. Such authority to erect traffic control devices could be exercised by the public body *1091or the commissioners only by ordinance after traffic surveys and studies are concluded. Because the grant of power to the local legislative body is preceded by the word "may", the exercise thereof was dis-eretionary.
The majority attempts to distinguish between regulatory signs, i.e., stop signs, and warning signs. The power to erect any kind of a traffic control device, including warning signs, upon a public highway must be exercised by the local legislative body by ordinance, which is a discretionary act. No such distinction exists.
I would affirm the trial court's judgment.