1Memo

To: Lynn PC

From: Edmund J. Healy, Esquire, Steckel and Stopp Law Offices, Solicitor

Date: August 19, 2008

Re: Township liability at intersections

=====================================================================
-==

I. Intersection of state road and township road

A township has the duty to install appropriate traffic control devices at

intersection if the failure to do so would cause a dangerous condition. Liability for traffic

accidents arises if the township’s failure to perform this duty, i.e. install appropriate traffic

control devices, caused the injuries, fatal or otherwise. To establish the duty on the part of a

municipality to install a traffic control device, a injured plaintiff must demonstrate three things:

1) the municipality had actual or constructive (advance) notice of the dangerous condition

that caused the plaintiff's injuries;

2) a pertinent traffic control device would have constituted an appropriate remedial

measure; and

3) the municipality's authority over the intersection was such that it can fairly be charged

with the failure to install the device.

The first requirement is met when proof exists that the township is aware of traffic

mishaps and/or receives citizens complaints.

The second requirement is met by proof that the proposed traffic control device

(As defined by 67 Pa Code § 212.1, these include signs, signals, markings, and devices) would

1
have constituted a proper and effective measure to mitigate the hazard at the intersection. Actual

construction or placement of such a device cannot occur, however, until a traffic and engineering

investigation determines that a particular device is an appropriate means of regulating traffic. 75

Pa.C.S. § 6105 (PennDot has regulatory power over manner of investigation; investigation must

be completed first); 6109(e) (local municipalities must conduct investigations and are subject to

PennDot approval), 6122(b) (PennDot shall issue minimum standards concerning approvals and

installation and maintenance of traffic-control devices, which standards shall consider traffic

volume and number of accidents in each of the three preceding years). See also generally 67

Pa.Code §§ 212.1 et seq. (PennDot regulations on traffic control devices).

A central aspect of the second requirement is analysis of potential undesirable

effects of potential devices upon the larger (regional) system of traffic regulation and control,

which effects would or should preclude their use in certain locations. In this respect, there are

multiple traffic engineering and design concepts which come into play, and require expert

evaluation. These concepts are beyond the ordinary training and experience of lay persons. The

court case of Starr v. Veneziano, 560 PA 650, 747 A2d 867 (2000) provides a good example of

how the second requirement works in practice. In Starr, there was an intersection between a state

road and a township road. The state road ran in a north-south direction while the township road

ran in an east-west direction. Cars proceeding west on the township road frequently made left

turns in order to proceed south on the state road. On one particular day, a left turning car was

struck broadside by a northbound truck on the state road, thereby causing significant (nonfatal)

injuries to the driver of the car. The township was brought into the suit on the theory that it was

negligent in failing to install a traffic signal or other control device restricting access from the

2
township road onto the state road. Ultimately, the court dismissed the claim against the township

because this second requirement was not met. Here is the court’s reasoning:

There was undisputed trial evidence that many drivers who

approach the intersection from [the township road] wish to turn

south onto [the state road], the very movement that a no-left-turn

sign would have proscribed. When forced by heavy traffic to turn

right, these drivers typically enter the passing northbound lane of

[the state road] and look for a place to turn left, for entry into the

southbound lane. While stopped in the passing lane awaiting a

break in the oncoming traffic, they are in danger of being struck

from the rear by other vehicles on the roadway, and numerous rear-

end collisions had occurred as a result of this very circumstance.

Id., 747 A2d at 874.

To meet the third prerequisite for township liability, there must be proof that

PennDot approval for the traffic control device was or would have been given for the control

device. This requirement rests heavily on the traffic volume and accident frequency, as well as

availability of other measures and a formal traffic study which meets all PennDot requirements.

Comparison to other controlled intersections may be required in order to establish the likelihood

of PennDot approval too. Expert testimony is also key. If the traffic study by a qualified expert

fails to meet PennDot requirements, as set forth in the Vehicle Code and regulations, including

but not limited to 75 Pa.C.S. § 6105, 6109(e), and 6122(b), 67 Pa.Code §§ 212.1 et seq., then this

third requirement can never be met.

3
 In Starr, the initial outcome resulted in a judgment of $3,335,000, of which the

Township was responsible for 40%. Due to the statutory cap on liability, the Township’s

responsibility was then reduced to $500,000. On appeal, however, due to Plaintiff’s failure to

meet the second requirement, the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the claim against the

Township.

4
II. Intersection of two township roads and/or design of township roads

The same requirements apply to establish township liability for accidents at the

intersection of two township roads, but with two modifications as to the third requirement.

Wenger v. West Pennsboro Tp., ___ Pa. Commonwealth Ct. ___, 868 A.2d 638 (2005). Since

both township roads are under the sole jurisdiction of the township, PennDot approval is not

required. Therefore, the absence of PennDot approval for a proposed traffic control device is not

a defense. Second, an expert report about the dangerousness of the intersection is judged by a

more relaxed standard than a report about a PennDot-controlled intersection. Stated in simple

terms, an expert analysis from an injured plaintiff’s consultant about the dangerousness of

township roads, or an intersection thereof, is easier to present to a jury. The report and opinion

can avoid a lot of the rigor imposed by 67 Pa Code § 212.1 et seq. so long as it rests on an

application of generally accepted engineering standards and practices to facts obtained from any

combinations of sources. Wenger, supra, 868 A2d at 643-644.

Due to this easier burden for injured plaintiffs, the township has, in a sense, a
greater incentive to improve traffic control devices and road design of township-owned roads and
intersections.