Borough May Face Liability for Covering Stop Sign by Snow Removal Efforts

In the case of Cupelli v. Borough of Dunmore, No. 1662-C.D.-2019 (Pa. Cmwlth. Dec. 21, 2020 Jubelirer, J., Wojcik, J., and Cannon, J.) (Op. by Cannon, J.) (Opinion not reported), the court found that snow negligently plowed by a borough can create an artificial accumulation based upon which a Plaintiff may assert a cause of action where that artificial accumulation of snow renders a traffic control device ineffective or unsafe. 

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was injured when the all-terrain vehicle (ATV) on which he was a passenger collided with a motor vehicle accident at the intersection of two (2) public roadways.

In the personal injury Complaint filed by the Plaintiff it was allowed the Borough had improperly piled snow in the area of that intersection and that such pile of snow resulted in the accident. More specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that the Borough’s workers failed to maintain a stop sign or the area around the stop sign at the intersection in that they had plowed snow to such heights around the stop sign as to create a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury. The court came before the appellate court by way of an interlocutory appeal by permission after the lower court’s rulings on Preliminary Objections asserted by the defense.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this unreported Commonwealth Court decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Bruce S. Zero of the Scranton office of Powell Law for brining this case to my attention.

Source of image:thesunchronicle.com

No Duty on Homeowner's Association to Maintain Stop Sign

In his recent decision in the case of Brown v. Russaw, No. 8953-CIVIL-2014 (C.P. Monroe Co. May 10, 2017  Williamson, J.), Judge David J. Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in favor of a homeowner’s association in a motor vehicle accident case involving a missing stop sign.  

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged personal injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred when she was struck by another vehicle which had entered into the intersection from a roadway at which a stop sign was missing.  

While the court agreed that issues of fact prevented the entry of summary judgment on this issue of whether the Defendant Property Owner’s Association had actual or constructive notice of the missing stop sign, the court still granted summary judgment after finding that the Defendant homeowner’s association had no duty to maintain or replace the stop sign.  

In his Opinion, Judge Williamson noted that the duties of a private community association with regards to stop signs did not appear to be addressed under Pennsylvania case law.  

The Defendant association pointed to analogous cases involving municipalities which indicated that there was no duty upon a municipality to erect, maintain, or replace a missing stop sign at an intersection.   

Although the court acknowledged that the Defendant community association was not a municipality, the court felt that the municipality cases were indeed analogous and noted that, if a municipality as no obligation to erect, maintain, or repair stop signs, then, for the same reasons, the court found that a private road owner should likewise not have that obligation.  

The court also noted that, there were no facts set forth under which the Plaintiff could recover against the homeowner's association in any event under the law pertaining to a lack of a stop sign as it appeared that the tortfeasor Defendant driver allegedly failed to follow the rules of the right-of-way at the intersection.  

As stated, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the property owner’s association.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


To view a Tort Talk post on another missing stop sign case, click HERE.
   

Summary Judgment Denied in Missing Stop Sign Case

In a recent trial court decision in the case of Tesla v. Neshanock Twp., No. 10647 of 2013, C.A. (C.P. Lawrence Co. Jan. 19, 2017 Motto, J.), the court found that a township was not entitled to summary judgment in an auto accident case where the township was found to have had constructive notice that a stop sign was missing prior to the time the accident occurred.  

 

According to the Opinion, due to the missing stop sign, a vehicle did not stop at the intersection, resulting in the Plaintiff’s vehicle being broadsided in the course of an automobile accident. 

 

The Plaintiff filed suit, in part, against the township, alleging that the township was negligent in failing to adequate inspect its traffic signs, failing to reinstall or replace the stop sign, failing to position the stop sign so that it would not be knocked down, and failing to install adequate lighting at the intersection.  

 

When the township claimed sovereign immunity, the Plaintiffs asserted that this case fell under an exception to that immunity law which exception applies if the government entity had actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect.  

 

According to the court's opinion, there was evidence in this case that the investigating police officer told the Plaintiff’s daughter at the scene of the accident that the stop sign had been missing because it had been knocked over by a truck earlier in the day, that this was a dangerous intersection, and that the police officer regularly patrolled the area.  The court found that the police officer was an agent of the township and, as such, his statements will be admissible.  

 

The court also found that, once the township had knowledge of the missing stop sign, the need to take steps to protect against this dangerous condition was immediate.   The dangers brought on by a missing stop sign due to the possibility that a driver would not be aware that the intersection was previously controlled by a stop sign was so great that the intersection needed to be protected immediately.  

 

There was also evidence presented in this case that the missing stop sign was a reoccurring situation at this particular intersection as it was a tight turn for trucks, which had caused multiple vehicles to knock over the stop sign previously. 

 

In light of all of these findings, including the finding that this was a busy intersection and that the stop sign had been down for a number of hours before the accident, the court found that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that the township had constructive notice of the defect.  Accordingly, the township’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.    

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this case may click this LINK. 

 

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (February 14, 2017).