Dunham v. Pima County
| Decision Date | 22 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-88-0121-PR,CV-88-0121-PR |
| Citation | 778 P.2d 1200,161 Ariz. 304 |
| Parties | Donna M. DUNHAM and Gary L. Dunham, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. PIMA COUNTY, a body politic, Defendant/Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Donna Dunham suffered serious physical injuries when another motorist failed to yield at a stop sign and a flashing red light. The Dunhams brought suit against Pima County alleging negligence in failing to provide traffic warnings and other controls at the intersection near Tucson. The trial court directed a verdict against the plaintiffs and in favor of the county. Following affirmance by a divided court of appeals, Division Two in Dunham v. Pima County, 157 Ariz. 27, 754 P.2d 761 (App.1988), we granted review. We reverse.
In summary, the evidence showed that vehicles traversing the intersection in question--where Hughes Access and Valencia Roads (south of Tucson) cross at a right angle--were controlled by stop signs on Valencia and a traffic light suspended over the intersection which flashed red for traffic on Valencia and yellow for traffic on Hughes Access Road. White lines led up to painted stop bars on the pavement on both sides of Valencia leading up to the Hughes Access intersection. Traffic on Valencia was required to stop at the intersection and yield to traffic on Hughes Access Road, the through street. Hughes Access Road was level and straight approaching the intersection, and there were no visual obstructions for drivers crossing or entering Hughes from Valencia.
On April 26, 1982, Gilbert Mekan was eastbound on Valencia and came to a stop at the stop sign. Inexplicably, and without yielding, he entered the intersection directly into the path of plaintiff Donna Dunham, who was traveling north on Hughes Access Road within the posted speed limit and with the right of way. A collision followed. Mekan could offer no explanation as to why the accident happened. He testified that he remembered stopping and then waking up in the hospital.
The county's traffic engineer testified that the intersection had experienced an "inordinate number of accidents relative to other intersections," and that it had been on the list of "intersections of concern" since 1977. The majority of the accidents at the intersection were, like this one, right-angle collisions classified as "failure to yield" accidents. He also admitted on cross-examination that he had testified at his deposition that the intersection was dangerous. Dunhams' expert testified that the intersection did not meet acceptable traffic engineering standards. According to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, published by the United States Department of Commerce, if there are more than five accidents per year at an intersection, traffic engineers should be alerted that there is a difficulty in the intersection's operation. The Dunhams' expert testified that this intersection met that criterion.
On this evidence, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the county, concluding that the county could not have been negligent as it was entitled to presume that Mekan would have stopped and waited until traffic had cleared. Since a jury question was presented concerning the county's negligence, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
The county owes a duty to those using its roads to keep them reasonably safe for travel. 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). That a motorist (either a party or non-party, like Mekan) might be negligent in using a road, and thereby contribute to the accident, does not necessarily absolve the county from its negligence, if any; rather, the two inquiries are separate. Bach, 152 Ariz. at 149, 730 P.2d at 858. Where, as here, evidence is offered from which the fact-finder could reasonably conclude that the public agency or jurisdiction should have foreseen a danger to plaintiff from the negligent or inattentive conduct of plaintiff or of another, then the question of the county's negligence is one for the jury. Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Bd., 146 Ariz. 352, 706 P.2d 364 (1985).
Nevertheless, the county argues that this court's decision in Coburn v. City of Tucson, 143 Ariz. 50, 691 P.2d 1078 (1984), clearly exonerates it. This attempt to read Coburn so broadly cannot succeed. In Coburn this court upheld the trial court's ruling that, as a matter of law, the City of Tucson could not have foreseen that a bicyclist would approach and enter an intersection both in the wrong lane and headed in the wrong direction, resulting in an obscuring of his view, in the absence of any evidence that those unusual circumstances had occurred before. We observed that "[w]hat is 'reasonably safe' takes into consideration certain minimal expectations that travelers follow the usual rules of the road." Id. at 54, 691 P.2d at 1082 (emphasis added). We affirmed the summary judgment because no fact issue existed on the question of whether the City of Tucson ought to have foreseen the kind of conduct that led to the intersectional collision. Thus, like any decision concerned with the absence, presence, or weighing of evidence of foreseeability of harm, Coburn turns on its unique facts. 1
In this case, however, and as summarized above, there was sufficient evidence to get to the jury on the question whether the county foresaw or should have foreseen the danger to motorists like Dunham arising out of conduct like Mekan's, given the kind and amount of traffic signals present. Prior decisions of this and other courts have upheld a defendant's liability where the conduct of another which contributed to the injury was admittedly inattentive, or worse, and where the evidence supported a finding that the subpar behavior should have been anticipated. See, e.g., Markowitz; Bach; State v. Watson, 7 Ariz.App. 81, 436 P.2d 175 (1967); McKenna v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 57 Haw. 460, 558 P.2d 1018 (1977). In the few years prior to the accident in question, there had been sixty-five accidents at the intersection, fifty-two of which had been similar to the case before us. Certainly, a jury could hold a defendant liable for failing to foresee that which had happened on fifty-two prior occasions.
Given the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florez v. Sargeant
...why an expert witness can properly testify to the ultimate issue that an intersection is "dangerous"--see Dunham v. Pima County, 161 Ariz. 304, 307, 778 P.2d 1200, 1203 (1989)--but cannot swear in opposition to a motion for summary judgment that a patient suffering from diagnosed mental and......
-
Glazer v. State
...The Arizona Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized this common law duty for nearly ninety years. See, e.g., Dunham v. Pima County, 161 Ariz. 304, 306, 778 P.2d 1200, 1202 (1989); Barnes v. City of Tucson, 157 Ariz. 566, 568, 760 P.2d 566, 568 (1988); Coburn v. City of Tucson, 143 Ariz. 50,......
-
Glazer v. State
...¶ 13 The state owes a common-law duty to travelers to keep its roadways reasonably safe for travel. See Dunham v. Pima County, 161 Ariz. 304, 306, 778 P.2d 1200, 1202 (1989) ; Bach v. State, 152 Ariz. 145, 147, 730 P.2d 854, 856 (App.1986). But, despite that overarching obligation, the stat......
-
Booth v. State
...and the state concedes that it has a duty to keep the highways reasonably safe for the traveling public. See Dunham v. Pima County, 161 Ariz. 304, 306, 778 P.2d 1200, 1202 (1989); Bach v. State, 152 Ariz. 145, 147, 730 P.2d 854, 856 (App.1986). It also concedes that reasonableness is genera......