Liability Aspects of Bikeways (2010) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 9-12
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 9... ...
Public entities are more likely to have immunity when making decisions that involve discretion, such as when to install traffic control devices, and public entities may be more likely to incur liability for alleged negligence involving the bikeway surface,88 such as the failure to correct a known dangerous condition in or on a bikeway.89 Also, as illustrated by the Nawrocki case, even if a state legislature has consented to tort claims against the state or other public entities, the state's consent to suit does not mean necessarily that consent has been given to being held liable for the alleged wrong at issue. For instance, a statute may waive immunity for a dangerous condition caused by a pothole but not for one caused by the absence of a guardrail.90 A public entity may have statutory immunity from liability for the failure to replace a missing sign if the tort claims act provides that the public entity is not liable "for an injury caused by the failure to provide ordinary traffic signals, signs, markings or other similar devices."91 82 463 Mich.
|
From page 10... ...
at 774, 775. action or response was appropriate.98 The reason that states have no general obligation to place signs or warnings is that such decisions are policy or planning level in nature and must be made by the legislative or executive branches of the government.99 Nevertheless, after a decision is made to provide signs, signals, or markings, there is a duty to place and maintain them with reasonable care.100 Furthermore, a duty may arise to install or provide them at the location of a dangerous condition of which the public entity had actual or constructive notice.101 When a highway agency must maintain highways or bikeways free of hazards, its duty may include the proper maintenance of directional signs, traffic signals, or stop signs.102 Two sections of the California Government Code applicable to the liability of public entities illustrate that there is no general duty to provide certain highway warning or traffic control features or devices.
|
From page 11... ...
that was necessary to warn of a dangerous condition which endangered the safe movement of traffic and which would not be reasonably apparent to, and would not have been anticipated by, a person exercising due care."103 It may not be sufficient in some cases that a public entity has complied with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
|
From page 12... ...
Town of Westport,117 while the plaintiff was riding his bicycle on a public street in Westport, the front wheel of the bicycle fell into a grate located on the street.118 The town prevailed in the action because there was no evidence that "the defect has existed long enough for the town to be charged with notice of it,"119 no evidence that the "grate had changed after the date of its installation,"120 and no "evidence of a negligent continuance by the town of the design defect after the town knew or should have known of it."121 The majority rule in most jurisdictions appears to be that a public entity responsible for highways and bikeways has a duty to provide signs when they are required by law or when they are needed to warn of a dangerous condition of a highway or bikeway. Public entities are deemed to know of a dangerous condition created as a result of their own action.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.