Ford v. New Hampshire Department of Transportation
163 N.H. 284
| N.H. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Steven Ford injured in December 12, 2008 collision at the intersection of Routes 111 and 28 in Windham; traffic lights at the intersection were inoperable due to a prior ice storm.
- Notice of inoperable lights was received hours before the accident; at 6:42 a.m. police notified DOT of a traffic hazard and at 1:08 p.m. a motor vehicle accident was reported with no working lights due to outages.
- Town asserted Routes 111 and 28 are state highways (class II and I, respectively) and that it had no duty to maintain them; it relied on RSA 231:93 prohibiting municipal duty for certain state highways.
- DOT contended it had discretionary function immunity for planning/resource decisions during a severe weather emergency.
- Trial court granted both motions to dismiss; on appeal the court considers whether the writ’s allegations are legally sufficient for relief under governing statutes and precedents.
- Court adopts Trull v. Town of Conway framework to determine municipal duty and DOT’s discretionary immunity, and analyzes statutory duties and MUTCD provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Town owed a duty to warn about inoperable lights | Trull requires warning if knowledge of hazard exists | Town had no duty on state highways over which it has no control | No duty; Trull controls; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether statutory duties create town liability | RSA 507-B:2 or RSA 231:90-93 impose duty to warn | Statutes do not impose duty on Town for state highways or weather-related hazards | Statutes do not impose duty; Trull applies; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether DOT immunity applies to alleged failure to respond | DOT failed to follow MUTCD 4D.02D as mandatory | Discretionary function immunity applies to planning/priority decisions | DOT entitled to discretionary function immunity; MUTCD guidance not mandatory; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether MUTCD provision 4D.02D imposes mandatory duty | Section 4D.02D requires alternate operation during signal failure | 4D.02D is guidance, not a mandate; DOT retains discretion | 4D.02D is guidance, not mandatory; immunity stands; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Trull v. Town of Conway, 140 N.H.579 (1995) (town not liable for icy conditions on state highway over which it lacks control)
- Hartman v. Town of Hooksett, 125 N.H.34 (1984) (no duty to warn on class I state highways by municipality or police)
- J. & M. Lumber & Constr. Co. v. Smyjunas, 161 N.H.714 (2011) (threshold review of writ; assume facts true for dismissal standard)
- Bergeron v. City of Manchester, 140 N.H.417 (1995) (MUTCD guidance does not eliminate DOT discretion)
- Sorenson v. City of Manchester, 136 N.H.692 (1993) (traffic control decisions are discretionary)
- Appeal of N.H. Dep’t of Transp., 159 N.H.72 (2009) (discretionary immunity for planning/priority decisions)
- State v. Quintero, 162 N.H.526 (2011) (stare decisis factors for overruling precedent)
- Hartman v. Town of Hooksett, 125 N.H.34 (1984) (town vehicle/road duties; duty to warn when in control)
- Appeal of Wilson, 161 N.H.659 (2011) (statutory interpretation; context matters)