Mickle v. NY State Thruway Authority, 92756
| Decision Date | 07 September 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 92756,92756 |
| Citation | 701 N.Y.S.2d 782 |
| Parties | (Ct.Cl. 1999) James L. Mickle et al., Claimants, v. New York State Thruway Authority, <A HREF="#fr1-1" name="fn1-1">1 Defendant. Claim |
| Court | New York Court of Claims |
Featherstonhaugh, Conway, Wiley & Clyne, L.L.P. (Thomas A. Conway and Dennis R. Hurley, Jr., of counsel), for Claimants.
Elliot Spitzer, Attorney General (Michael W. Friedman of counsel), for Defendant.
The present claim arises out of a head-on collision of motor vehicles operated by claimant, James L. Mickle (hereinafter "claimant"), and Leroy Haverly on Interstate Route 787 southbound leading to the toll plaza at Interchange 23 of the New York State Thruway2 on July 29, 1994, at approximately :30 p.m. When the accident occurred Mr. Haverly was traveling the wrong way on Route 787 southbound. The basic facts surrounding the accident are essentially undisputed. The claim was bifurcated and this decision addresses only issues relating to liability.
On the accident date the toll plaza at Interchange 23 consisted of seven lanes and six toll booths. Two of the lanes leading to the toll booths were entrance lanes, a third lane was used, depending on the time of day, as an entrance or exit lane, and the remaining four lanes were exit lanes. From left to right the lanes were designated 1E, 2E 3E, or 3X, 4X, 5X, 6X, and 7X. Lane 3 was utilized on the first shift of toll booth operators, the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift, as an entrance lane and was designated 3E. On the remaining two shifts lane 3 was used to exit the Thruway and was designated 3X. For purposes of this decision motor vehicles entering the Thruway at Interchange 23 2ill be deemed to have traveled in a southerly direction, and vehicles leaving the Thruway will be deemed to have traveled in a northerly direction.3
North and to the extreme left (west) of the exit lanes one-way traffic could enter the toll plaza from New York State Route 9W via a down ramp, at the bottom of which appeared "DO NOT ENTER" signs. In addition, a "WRONG WAY" sign was located between the right "DO NOT ENTER" sign and the beginning of the entrance ramp. North and to the extreme right (east) of the exit lanes an up ramp was located for motor vehicle operators who wished to travel in either direction on Route 9W. Route 787, consisting of two southbound lanes adjacent to the down ramp of Route 9W and two northbound lanes adjacent to the up ramp of Route 9W, was available for motorists who wished to enter the Thruway from the north at Interchange 23 or exit the Thruway at the interchange and travel north.
A structure called a jersey barrier located a distance of approximately 310 feel from the toll booths separated the northbound and southbound lanes of Route 787. A keep right sign and a no U-turn sign, both consisting of symbols, were located to the front of the jersey barrier. A large "DO NOT ENTER" sign was located on a sign bridge above the rifht exit lane for motor vehicles exiting Route 787 from the north. However, a ground-mounted "DO NOT ENTER" sign was not located in front of the jersey barrier. Furthermore, a "WRONG WAY" sign(s) was not present on the north on Route 787 southbound beyond the jersey barrier.
On the accident date, Mr. Haverly, a truck driver and Teamster steward before his retirement, was performing errands for the Schodack Landing Volunteer Fire Department. After leaving his last stop in the City of Schenectady, he traveled toward the City of Albany on the Thruway in preparing to return home to Schodack Landing. Although he wanted to exit the Thruway at Interchange 24, construction was taking place the interchange, and he therefore decided to exit the Thruway at Interchange 23, which he had used only occasionally in the past.
In preparing to exit the Thruway at Interchange 23, Mr. Haverly used the lane then designated as 3X. Since Route 787 southbound is approximately 100 yards directly ahead of lane 3X, a driver who wished to use Route 787 northbound or the 9W entrance ramp had to drive his or her motor vehicle rather sharply to the right after driving past the toll booth for lane 3X. In traveling the distance of approximately 100 yards on the toll plaza after he exited the Thruway, Mr. Haverly failed to move his vehicle far enough to pass to the right of the jersey barrier in order to enter upon Route 787 northbound. Instead, he descended the deceleration ramp of Route 787 southbound several hundred yards and struck claimant's motor vehicle head-on when faced with traffic headed toward him in both southbound lanes. Mr. Haverly, a credible witness, testified that there was substantial traffic in the unmarked exit lanes to his right as he began to exit the Thruway and he believed that the motorists to his right were proceeding to enter Route 9W. He acknowledged that he failed to see the "DO NOT ENTER" sign mounted on the overhead sign bridge.
A determination of the issue of defendant's negligence rests on whether defendant's negligence rests on whether defendant, in the exercise of due care, was required to place a ground-mounted "DO NOT ENTER" sign to the front of the jersey barrier to warn motorists exiting the Thruway that the two lanes to the left of the jersey barrier were Route 787 southbound lanes.
The New York State Thruway Authority, an independent public corporation, is solely liable for its negligence in the performance of its usual functions, including the maintenance and operation of the Thruway (Tompkins v. State of New York, 6 A.D.2d 977, 176 N.Y.2d 804, revd. on other grounds, 7 N.Y.2d 906, 197 N.Y.S.2d 475, 165 N.E.2d 424; Matter of Santana v. New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc.2d 1, 339 N.Y.S.2d 395; Czirer v. New York State Thruway Auth., 22 Misc.2d 678. 202 N.Y.S.2d 480; see 87 N.Y. Jur 2d, Public Authorities, 7; 65 N.Y. Jur 2d, Highways, Streets and Bridges, 560, 566). The Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine claims against the Thruway (Public Authorities Law 361-b).
Initially, apart from considering both expert engineering testimony presented by claimant and the provisions of the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (herinafter "MUTCD") (17 NYCRR, ch. V),4 the court concludes that Interchange 23 on July 29, 1994 was unreasonably dangerous to a reasonably prudent driver and determines that defendant was, in fact, negligent in failing to erect in the area of the jersey barrier a mandated red and white "DO NOT ENTER" sign familiar to motorists. Any motorist who has used the Thruway, highways and expressways in New York State knows the importance of signs after a motorist exits a toll booth. Quite often, as a motorist enters or exits a toll plaza, such as the toll plaza at Interchange 23, he or she is faced with merging vehicles. Traffic signs, particularly traffic warning signs, are of paramount and critical importance to motorists leaving toll booths at many Thruway toll plazas. While a motorist who had the opportunity for detached reflection would hardly have exited the toll booth at lane 3X and have begun to travel northerly in one of the two southbound lanes of Route 787 on the accident date, a motorist jockeying for position from lane 3X, which ends abruptly, to the unmarked exit lanes at Interchange 23 and being required to move rather sharply to the right in a distance of approximately 100 yards without the aid of a "DO NOT ENTER" sign near the jersey barrier might do exactly what Mr. Haverly did. Those Thruway personnel charged with the responsibility of erecting proper signage at Interchange 23 failed to recognize that motorists place great reliance upon the presence of "DO NOT ENTER" signs at appropriate entrance and exit ramps of the Thruway and State highways and expressways. Photographs introduced at the trial demonstrate no only the presence of 15 or more traffic signs in the area of the subject toll plaza, the Route 9W entrance and exit ramps, and the northbound and southbound ramps of Route 787 for motorists exiting at the toll booths, but also the absence of a "DO NOT ENTER" sign at the jersey barrier separating the northbound and southbound lanes of Route 787. Particularly significant is the fact that both the ramp leading from the southbound lanes of Route 787 to the toll plaza and the ramp leading northbound from the toll plaza to the northbound lanes of Route 787 slope downward as regards a motorist exiting the toll booths at Interchange 23 so as to obscure other motor vehicles.
Traffic signs at Thruway exits serve not only the obvious and necessary purpose of informing motorists concerning upcoming routes of travel but also of warning motorists of an concomitant danger as they pass to other highways or roadways. Section 1680 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires the Department of Transportation to adopt a manual that contains standards and specifications for the design, location, use and operation of traffic control devices on highways within the State. The MUTCD is the mandated promulgated by the Department of Transportation relative to traffic control devices.
The State, public authorities and municipalities have the duty to warn motorists of dangerous conditions on highways of which they have actual or constructive notice and to protect motorists by appropriate barriers (see, Friedman v. State of New York, 67 N.Y.2d 271, 502 N.Y.S.2d 669, 493 N.E.2d 893; Lopes v. Rostad, 45 N.Y.2d 617, 412 N.Y.S.2d 127, 384 N.E.2d 673; Hicks v. State of New York, 4 N.Y.2d 1, 171 N.Y.S.2s 827, 148 N.E.2d 885, 65 N.Y. Jur 2d, Highways, Streets and Bridges, 390-391). Although such duty is nondelegable, the law is nevertheless settled that in the field of highway design engineering a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning is accorded (Friedman v. State of New York, 67 N.Y.2d 271, 502 N.Y.S.2d 669, 493 N.E.2d 893, supra; Alexander v. Eldred, 63 N.Y.2d 460, 465-466, 483 N.Y.S.2d 168, 472 N.E.2d 996). Trial courts are cautioned not to substitute their...
To continue reading
Request your trial