Johnson v. Maricopa County
730 P.2d 862, 152 Ariz. 153, 1986 Ariz. App. LEXIS 666 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner has a duty, created by a local safety ordinance, to not obstruct motorists' view of an intersection controlled by a stop sign, and a violation of that ordinance constitutes negligence per se.
Facts:
- John E. and Charlotte Anderson owned property on the northwest corner of the intersection of 107th Avenue and Van Burén.
- The intersection was controlled by stop signs for northbound and southbound traffic on 107th Avenue.
- The Andersons maintained a five-foot-high block and ironwork fence on their property adjacent to the intersection.
- For the purposes of the legal proceeding, the Andersons conceded that their fence violated City of Avondale and Maricopa County ordinances because it was too close to the road and obstructed motorists' view of traffic.
- Harold David Presley was driving south on 107th Avenue, while Arnold Leroy Mottin was driving east on Van Burén.
- The vehicles driven by Presley and Mottin collided in the intersection.
- The collision resulted in the deaths of Mottin and two of Presley's passengers, and serious injuries to two other passengers.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs (representing the deceased and injured parties) filed a negligence action in the trial court against multiple defendants, including John E. and Charlotte Anderson.
- The Andersons filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they owed no legal duty to motorists and that their fence was not the proximate cause of the collision.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Andersons, ruling that landowners have no duty regarding visual obstructions at controlled intersections.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate court of appeals.
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 landowner whose property abuts a public intersection controlled by stop signs have a legal duty, based on a local ordinance prohibiting visual obstructions, to protect motorists from injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Greer, Judge
Yes. A landowner has a duty to refrain from obstructing motorists' view at an intersection controlled by stop signs when a local ordinance prohibits such obstructions. The court reasoned that violation of a safety ordinance constitutes negligence per se. The court distinguished its prior decision in Jackson v. City of Scottsdale, which found no such duty at a signal-controlled intersection, because drivers at signalized intersections rely on the traffic signal, making an obstruction 'legally irrelevant.' In contrast, a driver at a stop sign-controlled intersection must rely on their own observation of cross-traffic before proceeding, making an unobstructed view legally critical. The court found that the ordinances were designed to protect the class of persons to which the appellants belonged, and thus the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the Andersons.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of a landowner's duty regarding visual obstructions at intersections by creating a clear distinction between those controlled by traffic signals and those controlled by stop signs. It solidifies the legal principle that a local safety ordinance can establish a tort duty for a private landowner where one might not exist under common law. Consequently, landowners adjacent to stop-controlled intersections face potential liability for accidents if their property's features violate ordinances and obstruct a driver's necessary line of sight.
