Shuttleworth v. Conti Const. Co., Inc.

Decision Date17 January 1984
Citation193 N.J.Super. 469,475 A.2d 48
PartiesDonald W. SHUTTLEWORTH, Executor of the Estate of Barbara Shuttleworth, deceased and Donald W. Shuttleworth, Individually, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CONTI CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., and Robert A. Weeks, Defendants-Appellants, and Thomas Yodice, Borough of Kinnelon and County of Morris, Defendants-Respondents.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Steven E. Brawer, Clifton, for defendants-appellants (Brawer & Green, Clifton, attorneys; Steven E. Brawer, Clifton, of counsel and on the brief).

John J. O'Donnell, Morristown, for defendant-respondent County of Morris (O'Donnell, McCord, Leslie & O'Toole, Morristown, attorneys; John J. O'Donnell, Morristown, on the brief).

Before Judges MICHELS and DREIER.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

DREIER, J.A.D.

Codefendants Conti Construction Co., Inc. and Robert A. Weeks appeal, by leave granted, from an interlocutory order of the Law Division dismissing the complaints and crossclaims against defendant County of Morris. This case raises the issue of a governmental unit's responsibility for the negligent placement and maintenance of a traffic control signal under the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 et seq.

Defendant Weeks, a Conti employee, was traveling south on Ricker Road in the Borough of Kinnelon, Morris County, when his van struck a car heading west on Kinnelon Road. As a result of the accident plaintiff Donald Shuttleworth was injured and his wife, a passenger in his car, was killed. Ricker Road was controlled by a stop sign placed by the county, but which for the purposes of this discussion, we must assume was obscured by a bush so that it could not be seen until a driver was within a few feet of the intersection. Defendant Weeks claims that he was traveling at a speed of 25 miles per hour and applied his brakes when he saw the stop sign, but too late to avoid entering the intersection. Ricker Road had been the through street for the past several intersections and was controlled by a stop sign only where it crossed Kinnelon Road, a county highway. Weeks further testified that this was the first time he had traveled on this road and that he was unfamiliar with the area. Both Conti's and Weeks' expert and a Kinnelon policeman confirmed that the sign was obscured in the manner claimed by Weeks.

The county acknowledged that it installed the stop sign and that it was responsible for maintaining it. Further, the county's records showed that a sign crew replaced a post on the sign approximately five and one-half months before the accident, and that after the accident the sign was moved and two advance-warning signs were installed as well as a stop sign on the left-hand side of the road "to help improve visability." The county road superintendent stated in depositions that the county not only maintained the signs but trimmed trees, shrubs or bushes in the immediate vicinity of stop signs in order to improve visibility. There was no record of such action having been taken here, although the offending bush was on county-owned land.

On these facts Morris County moved for summary judgment on the basis of N.J.S.A. 59:4-5 which reads:

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable under this chapter for an injury caused by the failure to provide ordinary traffic signals, sign, markings or other similar devices.

Although this statute contains no express provision making it subject to the general standards of N.J.S.A. 59:4-2 (the "palpably unreasonable" test), the trial judge made apparent reference to that test, but then held as a matter of law that the test could not have been met on the facts of this case. ("[T]his Court finds on the evidence as a matter of law that the minds of reasonable people could not differ, that the condition which existed at the intersection was not palpably dangerous, was not a palpably unreasonable condition.") We disagree with the trial court's analysis and reverse.

Prior to the Tort Claims Act the case law provided immunity for the discretionary municipal action of determining whether or not to place ordinary traffic control devices at a particular intersection. Hoy v. Capelli, 48 N.J. 81, 222 A.2d 649 (1966). A different rule attached where the challenged municipal action was the placing of emergency traffic control devices and a lower level discretion was being reviewed, namely, how to allocate resources in the face of competing demands to meet a perceived or acknowledged danger, in which case the municipal action would be protected "unless it is palpably unreasonable." Bergen v. Koppenal, 52 N.J. 478, 480, 246 A.2d 442 (1968). These standards were carried forward into the Tort Claims Act in N.J.S.A. 59:4-5, quoted above, and N.J.S.A. 59:4-4 concerning the failure to place emergency signals, which incorporates the "palpably unreasonable" standard of N.J.S.A. 59:4-2.

In the case before us we have neither situation present. We are not asked to review municipal inaction in placing a stop sign on Ricker Road where it crossed Kinnelon Road. That decision, if made negatively, would have been protected by N.J.S.A. 59:4-5. Defendant county urges that if it would have been protected if it determined not to place the stop sign at the intersection, placing the sign there in such a manner that it was obscured was an action of lesser consequence and likewise should be protected. This argument fails to perceive the nature of the statutory exemption. The Legislature determined that the courts should not second guess a county or municipal legislative decision to control or not to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Civalier by Civalier v. Estate of Trancucci
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 20 Octubre 1994
    ...which the municipality has no immunity. N.J.S.A. 59:4-4. [Id. at 374, 644 A.2d 142.] Similarly, in Shuttleworth v. Conti Construction Co., Inc., 193 N.J.Super. 469, 475 A.2d 48 (App.Div.1984), the court held that those injured by a motorist who went through a stop sign obscured by a bush ha......
  • Saldana v. DiMedio
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 18 Agosto 1994
    ...Cf. Wooley v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 218 N.J.Super. 56, 62, 526 A.2d 1116 (App.Div.1987); Shuttleworth v. Conti Constr. Co., Inc., 193 N.J.Super. 469, 474, 475 A.2d 48 (App.Div.1984). While Camden's potential liability for a dangerous condition on its public property must be measured ag......
  • Kolitch v. Lindedahl
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 22 Julio 1985
    ...or discretionary decisions, but could be adjudged by straightforward negligence standards. See also Shuttleworth v. Conti Construction Co., 193 N.J.Super. 469, 475 A.2d 48 (App.Div.1984) (state liable for failure to properly maintain signs); Brown v. MacPherson's, 86 Wash.2d 293, 545 P.2d 1......
  • Roberts v. State, 83-170
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 20 Junio 1986
    ...determining whether or not to place ordinary traffic control devices at a particular intersection." Shuttleworth v. Conti Construction Co., 193 N.J.Super. 469, 472, 475 A.2d 48, 50 (1984). We agree that the State may have had no legal duty to suspend a traffic control light above the inters......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT