Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Fonda v. City of Mesa
Citations: 456 P.2d 957; 10 Ariz. App. 111; 1969 Ariz. App. LEXIS 535Docket: 1 CA-CIV 669
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; July 9, 1969; Arizona; State Appellate Court
Robert E. Fonda, represented by his father, filed a negligence lawsuit against the City of Mesa and Russell Eugene Dorsett, claiming negligence related to the installation of a stop sign and stop line. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Mesa, leading to Fonda's appeal. The court emphasized that, when ruling on a summary judgment motion, facts must be viewed favorably towards the opposing party. The incident occurred on September 12, 1966, when Fonda was riding his motorcycle west on University Drive, a protected street, while Dorsett, driving a Ford pickup, stopped at a stop sign on Standage Street before colliding with Fonda. A cyclone fence and vegetation limited Dorsett’s visibility from the stop sign, although an illustration indicated a clear view of University Drive for 105 feet. Dorsett testified that he waited for an eastbound truck before crossing University Drive, where he was struck by Fonda's motorcycle approximately eight to ten feet from the curb. Fonda contended that the City of Mesa was negligent per se, arguing that the placement of the stop sign was in violation of A.R.S. 28-855, which mandates stop signs be positioned to enhance visibility for drivers. The stop sign in question was located about nine feet south of the curb on University Drive. Relevant statutes included A.R.S. 28-644, which requires drivers to obey traffic-control devices, and A.R.S. 28-773, which outlines the obligations of drivers at intersections. A vehicle driver must stop at a stop sign at intersections, even if not part of a through highway, and must yield to any vehicles already in the intersection. State and local authorities can designate through highways and stop intersections, placing signs as close as possible to crosswalks or roadway edges. Drivers must stop before entering a crosswalk or a clearly marked stop line, or at a point where they can see oncoming traffic if no markings exist, unless directed otherwise by a police officer or signal. In the case presented, the plaintiff's account of the accident offers two scenarios involving the defendant, Dorsett, either turning left in front of the plaintiff or driving into the plaintiff's path. The key issue is whether the placement of the stop sign contributed to the negligence of the city. The plaintiff must demonstrate a failure of duty resulting in injury. Insufficient evidence to prove that the stop sign's placement was the proximate cause of the accident may lead to summary judgment for the defendant. The court found that the facts did not establish a direct link between the stop sign's placement and the injury. The sign's location, influenced by a cement sidewalk, did not correlate with the accident, as the defendant had enough time to assess traffic after stopping at the sign. Consequently, the judgment in favor of the defendant was affirmed.