Friedman v. State of New York
502 N.Y.S.2d 669, 493 N.E.2d 893 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a government entity is aware of a dangerous highway condition and has formulated a remedial plan, an unjustifiable delay in implementing that plan constitutes a breach of its duty to maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition.
Facts:
- In March 1978, Dena Friedman was severely injured when her car was struck, crossed an 8-inch-high median on the Roslyn Viaduct, and fell into a ravine.
- As early as 1973, five years prior to Friedman's accident, the New York State Department of Transportation had recognized the viaduct was hazardous due to crossover accidents and determined a median barrier was necessary.
- In January 1973, Connie Flachs Cataldo was severely injured when a vehicle crossed the 10-foot-wide median on the Tappan Zee Bridge and struck her car head-on.
- The Thruway Authority had studied installing barriers on the bridge's tangent section in 1962 and again in 1972 before Cataldo's accident, but both times made a deliberate decision not to, citing safety and operational concerns.
- In December 1977, Ernest Muller was injured in a crossover accident on the same tangent section of the Tappan Zee Bridge.
- By September 1974, the Thruway Authority had reversed its prior position and decided to install median barriers along the entire bridge, including the tangent section.
- More than three years passed between the Authority's decision to install the barriers and Muller's accident, during which time the project was delayed by studies of a traffic control system and barrier placement.
Procedural Posture:
- FRIEDMAN: Dena Friedman sued the State of New York in the Court of Claims (trial court), which found the State 50% liable.
- FRIEDMAN: The State appealed to the Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- CATALDO: Connie Flachs Cataldo sued the New York State Thruway Authority in the Court of Claims (trial court), which found the Authority liable.
- CATALDO: The Authority appealed to the Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court), which reversed the judgment and dismissed the claim. Cataldo is the appellant before this court.
- MULLER: Ernest Muller sued the New York State Thruway Authority in the Court of Claims (trial court), which found the Authority liable.
- MULLER: The Authority appealed to the Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court), which reversed the judgment and dismissed the claim. Muller is the appellant before this court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a government entity's qualified immunity for highway planning decisions extend to protect it from liability for an unreasonable delay in implementing a remedial plan after it has acknowledged a hazardous condition and decided to correct it?
Opinions:
Majority - Alexander, J.
No. A government entity's qualified immunity for highway planning does not protect it from liability for unreasonable delay in implementing a chosen remedy. While a governmental body is immune from liability for its discretionary planning decisions when based on a reasonable study, once it identifies a known danger and formulates a plan to correct it, an unjustifiable delay in implementing that plan is a breach of its nondelegable duty to keep roads reasonably safe. In Cataldo's case, the Authority's decision not to install a barrier was a discretionary act protected by immunity because it was based on a rational study of competing safety concerns. However, in Friedman's and Muller's cases, the government had already acknowledged the hazard and decided to install barriers. The subsequent five-year delay in Friedman and three-year delay in Muller were not justified by legitimate funding priorities or necessary design considerations, and were therefore unreasonable, creating liability for the resulting injuries.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the doctrine of qualified governmental immunity established in Weiss v. Fote. It creates a crucial distinction between the planning phase and the implementation phase of public works. While the initial decision-making process regarding highway design is shielded from liability to prevent courts from second-guessing expert judgments, this decision establishes that the shield does not cover subsequent inaction. The ruling creates a new basis for liability: unreasonable delay in executing a safety plan that has already been approved, holding government entities accountable for not just their decisions, but also the timely execution of those decisions once a danger is acknowledged.
Unlock the full brief for Friedman v. State of New York