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.
Fisher v. State
Citations: 268 A.D.2d 849; 702 N.Y.S.2d 418; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 597Docket: Claim No. 91482
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; January 19, 2000; New York; State Appellate Court
On March 6, 1995, claimant George Fisher, Jr. and his family were in a car accident on United States Route 4 in East Greenbush, Rensselaer County, while heading to a Wal-Mart. As Fisher followed a black car into a left-turning lane marked by a white arrow, the black car mistakenly entered an exit lane of the plaza but corrected its path. Fisher, unable to return to the left-turn lane, was struck by oncoming traffic. Claimants sued the State, alleging negligence due to inadequate road markings that misdirected traffic. The Court of Claims found the State liable, attributing 50% of the fault to both the State and the claimants. The State has a duty to maintain safe highways and can be found negligent if highway planning lacks adequate study or rationale. While the State typically has qualified immunity concerning traffic design, it must ensure that any warning signs are effective. The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) establishes standards for road markings, which the white arrow in question failed to meet. Testimony revealed the arrow's confusing placement, particularly for unfamiliar drivers, as it was located just beyond a solid yellow line and directly opposite plaza exit lanes. Additionally, extension markings that could provide direction were absent, contradicting MUTCD requirements for clear traffic control devices. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling. Proper positioning of traffic control devices is crucial for conveying clear meaning to drivers, allowing ample time for appropriate responses. Evidence, including Fisher's testimony regarding the accident, supports the conclusion that the positioning of a white arrow directing traffic violated these standards. The Court of Claims found the State negligent, and this decision remains unchallenged. The State's assertion that its negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident is rejected; Fisher observed the arrow directing traffic into the plaza before turning and did not notice oncoming traffic until after the collision. The arrow's placement, beyond the yellow dividing line and opposite exit lanes, likely confused drivers, particularly at night. Fisher's actions do not absolve the State of responsibility, as evidence indicates that the State's negligence contributed to the accident. The referenced case, Hersman v Hadley, is distinguishable and does not apply here. The judgment is affirmed, with costs awarded.