Municipalities' Duty to Install Traffic-Control Devices Limited

At the time of the accident, Starr was driving on the township’s Sandy Hill Road, preparing to turn left onto southbound Route 8. She had to cross the two northbound lanes of the four-lane roadway to get there. As Starr was making the turn, her car was struck broadside in the northbound passing lane by a truck driven by defendant Ottavio Veneziano in the course of his work for a construction company.



Starr sued Veneziano, his employer and PennDOT. Her complaint against PennDOT alleged improper design of the intersection, including inadequate sight distances, excessive permissible speed and failure to provide a traffic signal.



PennDOT then joined Richland Township, alleging that it, not PennDOT, was responsible for the accident because of its failure to install a sign prohibiting left turns from Sandy Hill Road onto Route 8.



There was a history of communications between the township and PennDOT concerning the intersection in question. Citizens had written to township officials about the danger of trying to turn onto Route 8 from Sandy Hill Road and other roads nearby, and the township had requested that PennDOT investigate the site with the objective of installing a traffic signal.



PennDOT conducted traffic studies but determined the intersection did not meet the volume requirements for installation of a traffic signal. The township met with PennDOT to press for the traffic signal, but nothing was done before the accident.



At trial, Starr settled her claims against Veneziano and his employer. The jury later returned a verdict in excess of $3 million, assessing all liability against PennDOT and the township. The Commonwealth Court affirmed unanimously.

Three-Part Test

In its appeal to the high court, the township insisted that it had no duty to install a traffic-control device at the intersection, especially because it could not erect a “no left turn” sign without PennDOT’s approval, which there was no guarantee it would have secured.



In the case Bendas v. Township of White Deer, 611 A.2d 1184 (1992), the state Supreme Court first found that there was a duty on the commonwealth to install traffic-control devices at dangerous intersections.



Saylor said it would not be unreasonable to extend that duty to municipalities.



“We discern no principled basis upon which to distinguish PennDOT’s duty to install appropriate traffic control devices on roadways within its purview from a municipality’s responsibilities relative to streets that it controls,” Saylor said.



The McCalla decision came two years after Bendas.



Saylor then relayed the three-part test a plaintiff must pass to establish a municipality’s duty of care to install a traffic-control device. The plaintiff must prove that:



* The municipality had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff’s injuries.



* The pertinent device would have constituted an appropriate remedial measure.



* The municipality’s authority was such that it could be fairly charged with the failure to install the device.



Starr satisfied the first requirement since the township was aware of problems at the intersection, Saylor said. But she did not fare as well with the second element.



In order to meet the second requirement of the test, Saylor said, Starr would have had to show that the traffic-control device would have constituted a proper and effective means of appeasing the traffic problem.



“This requirement arises naturally from the nature of the duty alleged, as it would be both illogical and contrary to public policy to deem a governmental entity obligated to install or erect a device which would be inappropriate to the location at issue,” Saylor said.



Because of the complexities inherent in such an issue, plaintiffs must provide testimony from an expert with an engineering background in order to meet this standard.



Starr’s expert testified that a “no left turn” sign could remedy the traffic problems at the intersection, but his theory was not backed up by any traffic or engineering investigations. And although he said a sign would have prevented Starr’s accident, Saylor said, the expert did not address whether a left-turn prohibition was appropriate at the intersection.



“Specifically, no expert opinion evidence was offered to establish the feasibility of a no-left turn sign, or that the net effect of a left turn prohibition upon the larger system of traffic control in the vicinity of the intersection would have been beneficial,” Saylor said.



The Starr case was a prime example of why a showing of appropriateness is essential, Saylor said. Evidence was presented that a large number of drivers turned left at the intersection in order to gain access to Route 8′s southbound land. When they were forced by heavy traffic to turn right, many drivers simply chose to wait in the northbound lane for an opportunity to turn left, placing them in danger of being rear-ended by other vehicles.



As for the township’s authority, Saylor said that although it did have legal authorization to install the sign on Sandy Hill Road, it could not do so without first getting approval from PennDOT.



A plaintiff seeking to establish a municipality’s authority to install a traffic-control device must first show that PennDOT’s approval was inevitable, Saylor said. Such evidence can be established only with an expert’s opinion, he said.



“In other words, where the duty alleged is a duty to erect or install a traffic control device, the ‘authority’ requirement will necessarily subsume the ‘appropriateness’ requirement,” Saylor wrote.

Burden Satisfied