This case concerns the extent of liability protection afforded municipalities for alleged defects in a pedestrian crosswalk due to the lack of warning signs, signals or traffic controls. Plaintiff’s wife was injured and later died from her injuries after she was struck by a motor vehicle while using a painted crosswalk that was without accompanying warning signs, signals or traffic controls. Her husband sued for her injuries and death alleging that the City failed to design, monitor and maintain the crosswalk in a reasonably safe condition in part due to the failure to install warning signs, lights or other signals. The City moved to dismiss the claim based on the limited liability protections provided by RSA 231:92. That statute only imposes liability for insufficiencies in highways and sidewalks where the municipality received prior notice, or had actual notice, of a road or sidewalk being not passable in any safe manner or harbors a hidden defect not noticeable by highway or sidewalk users. RSA 231:90, II. The trial court construed these limited liability provisions to only afford protection from claims arising out of the crosswalk itself but not affording protection from claims arising out the lack of pedestrian warning signs.
On appeal, the City argued that the plain meaning of “highways,” when read in the context of the statutory scheme and in light of the legislature’s purpose in enacting RSA 231:90-:92, includes pedestrian warning signs, crossing signals, and other traffic controls (hereinafter, pedestrian warning signs). The NH Supreme Court agreed that the plain meaning of the word “highway” was not limited to just the surface of the road or exclude from its scope pedestrian warning signs existing above the surface of the road. The court also concluded that the definition of what is considered an “insufficiency” contemplates that warning signs are part of the condition or state of the highway itself and not separate from it. Finally, the court resolved that “A broad construction of the term “highway” that includes pedestrian warning signs is consistent with this purpose in that it does not upset the balance struck between protecting municipalities and permitting limited recovery: claims arising from insufficiencies related to pedestrian warning signs will be subject to the same notice and pleading standards as claims premised upon insufficiencies in the surface of the traveled way.”
READ MORE IN COURT DECISION!
Practice Pointer: Municipalities are subject to liability for personal and property damages arising out of insufficiencies in highways and sidewalks where the municipality received prior notice, or had actual notice, of a road or sidewalk being not passable in any safe manner or harbors a hidden defect not noticeable by highway or sidewalk users. This liability protection also includes all aspects of the highway and sidewalk systems, including crosswalk warning signs and signals.