Jensen v. Maricopa County
| Decision Date | 11 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 522 P.2d 1096,22 Ariz.App. 27 |
| Parties | Thomas A. JENSEN, Appellant, v. MARICOPA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, Appellee. 2486. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
The issue to be resolved in this case is whether Arizona's 'open range' rule exonerated the County from warning of the possible presence of cattle on its highway. The issue was decided below in favor of the County on a motion for summary judgment.
On May 25, 1971 at approximately 9:30 p.m., appellant, riding a motorcycle, collided with a black steer approximately one-half mile west of the intersection of Indian School Road and 91st Avenue in Phoenix, Arizona. The affidavits and depositions in support of and in response to the motion for summary judgment revealed that at the time of the accident appellant was traveling at a speed of 40 to 45 mph; that he had on prior occasions traveled the same area in the daytime and nighttime; that appellant knew that cattle were confined in pens off the roadway and although he had actual knowledge of their presence in the area he had never seen any of them straying onto the roadway prior to the evening in question.
The record further discloses that the area in which the accident took place is not in a 'no fence district' and is therefore open range.
The deposition of Wade McCassalin, a civil engineer with the Maricopa Highway Department, shows that in 1970 Mr. McCassalin undertook a study of Indian School Road between 83rd Avenue and Dysart, which is west of 91st Avenue, for the purpose of developing a speed zone change on Indian School Road. Mr. McCassalin's study resulted in the Board of Supervisors increasing speeds for this zone from 45 mph at night and 50 mph during the day to 60 mph for day and night. In the course of conducting the speed study, Mr. McCassalin compiled an accident history for Indian School between 83rd Avenue and Dysart. He specifically noted that there had been three accidents involving animals in a two-year period in that area. No sign warning of the possibility of cattle upon the highway in that area had been posted because Mr. McCassalin did not think it necessary.
In support of his opposition to the summary judgment motion, appellant submitted the affidavit of Judson S. Matthias, PhD., a professor of transportation engineering and highway design at Arizona State University. Dr. Matthias stated that based upon the factual situation the standard of care imposed by highway maintenance authorities in the traffic engineering profession in the interest of keeping public ways in a reasonably safe condition for public travel required that a sign warning of the possibility of cattle upon the highway be present on Indian School Road between 91st Avenue and 99th Avenue. He also opined that the presence of livestock after dark on a major county highway, having a posted speed limit of 60 mph constituted a condition unreasonably dangerous to motorists using the highway, in the absence of proper warning or lighting.
Also attached to appellant's response to the County's motion for summary judgment were pertinent provisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, a document which has been adopted by the State Highway Commission pursuant to A.R.S. § 28--641 and which specified the required procedures for a state agency to install traffic control devices. The manual states that the application to be made of signs warning of 'range cattle' are 'sufficiently apparent as to require no detailed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carrow Co. v. Lusby
...a result of collisions on the public highway is based on an opinion of Division One of the Court of Appeals. See Jensen v. Maricopa County, 22 Ariz.App. 27, 522 P.2d 1096 (1974). Jensen held that the fencing-out statute did not relieve the county of its duty to motorists, which requires tha......
-
Lowman v. City of Mesa, 1
...evidence insufficient to establish that the state had negligently permitted the vehicle to obstruct the road. In Jensen v. Maricopa County, 22 Ariz.App. 27, 522 P.2d 1096 (1974), a summary judgment in favor of the county was reversed where the plaintiff, a motorcyclist, had collided with a ......
-
State v. Kallio
...condition. Under these particular circumstances, the jury was justified in finding the State liable. Jensen v. Maricopa County, 22 Ariz.App. 27, 522 P.2d 1096 (Ariz.App. 1974). 2. Concurrent with filing suit against the State, Kallio also brought a separate action in federal district court ......
-
Beach v. City of Phoenix, 1
...the same position as would one originally responsible for placing it there. See Lowman v. City of Mesa, supra; Jensen v. Maricopa County, 22 Ariz.App. 27, 522 P.2d 1096 (1974); Delarosa v. State, 21 Ariz.App. 263, 518 P.2d 582 (1974). One who obstructs a public sidewalk should reasonably an......