Hoover v. Stine
| Decision Date | 15 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 532 C.D. 2016,532 C.D. 2016 |
| Parties | Sara HOOVER, Appellant v. Seth Allen STINE, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the Borough of Waynesboro |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
John N. Zervanos, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Howard G. Hopkirk, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Harrisburg, for appellee Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
Rolf E. Kroll, Camp Hill, for appellee Borough of Waynesboro.
BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge, HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge, HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge
OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINI
Sara Hoover (Hoover) appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of the 39th Judicial District, Franklin County branch (trial court) granting the Borough of Waynesboro (Waynesboro) and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation's (PennDOT) motions for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
On the morning of May 20, 2013, Hoover was walking in the crosswalk at the T–intersection of West Main Street, a state highway, and Fairway Avenue in Waynesboro, Franklin County. When Hoover reached the intersection, she pressed a button at the crosswalk activating the Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) which are "user-actuated amber LEDs that supplement warning signs at unsignalized intersections or mid–block crosswalks"1 to signal that she was crossing the intersection. As the RRFBs were flashing, Hoover began crossing the street southbound when a westbound pick-up truck driven by Seth Allen Stine (Stine)2 approached the intersection, travelling at or below the posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Failing to notice the RRFBs or Hoover, Stine hit Hoover, causing her to become air bound and thrown against a utility pole.
Immediately after the accident, Hoover was found unconscious, bleeding from her mouth and nose, with a deep laceration
to her forehead, abrasions throughout her body and several chipped teeth. She was airlifted to the University of Maryland Shock Trauma center where she was diagnosed with a left kidney laceration, a grade 3 splenic laceration, a left femur fracture, a renal hematoma, tears of the anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments, and tears of the collateral ligament with avulsion of a large fracture fragment from the anterior lateral plateau.
After the accident, the investigating Waynesboro detectives tested the RRFBs and found that the lights were operating correctly, stating that "[a]s soon as the button is pushed, the lights are activated and they continue to flash for approximately thirty seconds." (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 716b.)3 They also took measurements to determine the distance between the relevant RRFBs and the point at which drivers travelling westbound on West Main Street can initially see the RRFBs' flashing lights. (Id. at 719b.) The detectives found that "while operating a motor vehicle, both lights for the crosswalk on the north side of West Main Street could not be seen until you were 256.8 feet from the sign." (Id. ) The detectives also "discovered that there were numerous other signs and foliage blocking the view of the crosswalk sign ... [and] that you could not see a pedestrian standing at the crosswalk because of the actual crosswalk sign itself." (Id. ) The detectives noted that the "sign was blocking the view of a pedestrian waiting to cross from the motor vehicle operators [sic] point of view." (Id. )
The Vehicle Code4 grants PennDOT and local municipalities the authority to install traffic signals and other traffic control devices on state roads. 75 Pa.C.S. § 6122(a). Before installing a traffic control device on a state highway, however, a municipality must first obtain approval from PennDOT. 75 Pa.C.S. § 6122(a)(1). In turn, PennDOT must establish rules and regulations that set forth minimum standards and factors to be considered in determining whether a local authority shall be given approval for the installation and maintenance of official traffic control devices. 75 Pa.C.S. § 6122(b).5 PennDOT's regulations must comply with the standards endorsed by the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and by the FHWA's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
In July 2008, the FHWA published a memorandum providing interim approval for the use of the RRFBs, noting that the interim approval would be granted:
[F]or the optional use of the RRFB[s] as a warning beacon to supplement standard pedestrian crossing or school crossing signs or crosswalks across uncontrolled approaches to any jurisdiction that submits a written request to the office of transportation operations.
(R.R. at 328a.) In July 2009, PennDOT issued an Interim Approval for the use of the RRFBs to reduce pedestrian-vehicle collisions as part of a pilot program. The Interim Approval for the use of those flashing beacons required a municipality to, inter alia , obtain written approval to install the RRFBs from PennDOT. PennDOT also promulgated certain physical requirements concerning the design and installation of the RRFBs, including that the RRFBs must be installed in a location where they are clearly visible to approaching traffic from at least 200 feet away.
PennDOT invited Waynesboro to apply to install the RRFBs at crosswalks as part of its pilot program and also offered to finance the costs of the project. Waynesboro and PennDOT entered into a contract regarding the installation of the RRFBs and associated signage and poles on West Main Street, under which Waynesboro agreed to install the RRFBs and associated poles and signage, the design and installation of which would all be subject to the ultimate approval of PennDOT. Upon completion of installation, Waynesboro would also operate and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, all necessary improvements. Waynesboro applied for permission to install the RRFBs at four locations in Waynesboro, including the crosswalk at issue, and PennDOT granted Waynesboro permission to proceed in January 2012. Waynesboro submitted a design plan for the installation of the RRFBs at the subject crosswalk with associated poles and signage and PennDOT, after approving those plans, issued a permit for Waynesboro to install the beacons and the associated poles and signage. Waynesboro installed the RRFBs and associated poles and signage at the intersection of West Main Street and Fairview Avenue on January 18, 2013, and the RRFBs were fully operational within one to two days of installation.
In November 2013, Hoover filed suit against Stine,6 Waynesboro and PennDOT, alleging generally that she sustained severe damages and injuries as a result of the parties' negligence and carelessness.
With respect to Waynesboro, Hoover contended that it was liable because the RRFBs located at the crosswalk were improperly obstructed by a tree on the right side of the road and a utility pole on the left side of the road, thereby resulting in inadequate sight distance. She argued that that conduct falls within the "trees and traffic control exception" of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (Tort Claims Act)7 which imposes liability on a local government or agency for:
A dangerous condition of trees, traffic signs, lights or other traffic controls, street lights or street lighting systems under the care, custody or control of the local agency, except that the claimant to recover must establish that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred and that the local agency had actual notice or could reasonably be charged with notice under the circumstances of the dangerous condition at a sufficient time prior to the event to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(4) (emphasis added).
As to PennDOT, she alleged that it was negligent in approving the installation of the RRFBs by Waynesboro in violation of the sight line standards with which PennDOT was responsible for ensuring compliance. She argued that PennDOT should have discovered the obstructions which created dangerous conditions at the intersection either during a site inspection or upon review of Waynesboro's flawed design documents. Hoover alleged that the dangerous conditions at the intersection were caused by PennDOT's faulty and negligent approval of traffic controls in violation of its own mandatory minimum sight distances and because of Waynesboro's negligent and careless installation of the RRFBs by failing to achieve the minimum proper sight line of 325 feet.8
In her deposition taken as part of discovery, Hoover testified that on the day of the accident, she arrived at the pedestrian crossing and she pressed the button to activate the RRFBs. While she saw at least one person on her right stop for her, she could not see anyone to her left, the direction from which Stine hit her. She testified that once she made sure that the traffic was either a safe distance away or had stopped, she walked maybe three or four steps into the crosswalk when she heard the sound of an oncoming car to her left. When she turned her head, she saw a blur of red because of how fast the vehicle was going, and then she blacked out.
In his deposition, Stine testified that he never noticed the flashing RRFBs or Hoover at any point prior to the impact, and he stated that he did not know why he did not see the flashing lights at the crosswalk. In fact, Stine stated that he did not realize he hit a pedestrian until after he stopped his vehicle to check on what he thought to be a mechanical failure. He stated that his pickup truck was equipped with daytime running lights, and he had no reason to believe that the lights were not operating properly as he approached the intersection on the day of the accident. Stine acknowledged that he has lived in Waynesboro for over 50 years, knew there was a crosswalk at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FP Willow Ridge Assocs., L.P. v. Allen Twp., 1846 C.D. 2016
...of an order granting summary judgment is limited to considering whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion. Hoover v. Stine, 153 A.3d 1145, 1153 n.9 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). "Summary judgment may only be granted when, after examining the record in the light most favorable to the non-......