S. Hoover v. S.A. Stine, PennDOT and the Borough of Waynesboro
153 A.3d 1145
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- On May 20, 2013, Hoover activated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at a crosswalk on West Main Street (state highway) in Waynesboro and was struck by a westbound pickup driven by Stine; she suffered severe injuries.
- Police testing showed the RRFBs operated correctly (flashed ~30 seconds after activation); investigators measured that the north-side RRFBs could not be seen by westbound drivers until ~256.8 feet away and noted some signage/foliage obstruction.
- PennDOT issued an Interim Approval for RRFB use requiring minimum visibility of 200 feet; Waynesboro applied, received PennDOT approval, installed the RRFBs per an approved plan, and agreed to operate/maintain them.
- Hoover sued Stine, Waynesboro and PennDOT alleging negligence: Waynesboro for improperly locating/maintaining the RRFBs (trees/utility pole obstruction) under the Tort Claims Act exception for trees/traffic controls; PennDOT for negligently approving noncompliant sight distances (claiming a 325-foot MUTCD sight-distance requirement).
- Evidence: Hoover’s expert asserted 325-foot sight distance at 35 mph; Waynesboro’s expert argued RRFBs are supplemental (200-foot interim standard applies) and other warning signs/markings were visible; Stine testified he never saw the RRFBs or Hoover before impact; an eyewitness behind Stine saw the RRFBs and that Stine did not slow.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Waynesboro and PennDOT, finding insufficient causation and lack of actual/constructive notice; Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether diminished sight distance (less than 325 ft) was a proximate cause of Hoover’s injury | Sight distance was below safe MUTCD standard (325 ft at 35 mph) and therefore was a substantial contributing cause | Even with longer sight distance, Stine testified he never saw the RRFBs or Hoover; no evidence additional distance would have changed outcome | Court held plaintiff failed to show causal connection; sight distance issue did not establish proximate cause |
| Whether PennDOT is liable under the Sovereign Immunity Act’s "real estate" (highway) exception | PennDOT approved installation and inspected site, so the defective sight lines made the highway a dangerous condition of Commonwealth realty | Crosswalk and RRFBs were installed, owned and maintained by Waynesboro, not PennDOT; thus not Commonwealth realty and sovereign immunity applies | Court held crosswalk/RRFBs were Waynesboro’s responsibility; PennDOT immune under real estate exception because plaintiff failed to show the condition derived from Commonwealth realty |
| Whether Waynesboro had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition (trees/sign obstruction) | Waynesboro designed/installed the RRFBs and thus knew or should have known sight lines were inadequate | No prior accidents, complaints, or reports after installation; RRFBs complied with PennDOT’s 200-ft interim standard; no evidence of notice | Court held no evidence of actual/constructive notice; Waynesboro entitled to immunity under Tort Claims Act exception requirements |
| Applicable sight-distance standard: MUTCD 325 ft vs PennDOT interim 200 ft for RRFBs | MUTCD sight distance (325 ft at 35 mph) controls; RRFBs should meet that engineering standard | RRFBs are optional/supplemental; PennDOT’s Interim Approval required only 200 ft and other signs/markings supplemented the RRFBs | Court accepted that RRFBs were supplemental and PennDOT’s 200-ft interim requirement applied; 256.8 ft exceeded 200 ft and compliance undermined plaintiff’s claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Peak v. Petrovich, 636 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (discusses prerequisites for suing Commonwealth or local agency)
- Snyder v. Harmon, 562 A.2d 307 (Pa. 1989) (interprets "dangerous condition" of highway as originating from Commonwealth realty for sovereign-immunity exception)
- Bendas v. Township of White Deer, 611 A.2d 1184 (Pa. 1992) (highway dangerous-condition jury question; PennDOT duty to maintain safe highways)
- Ryles v. City of Philadelphia, 848 A.2d 1101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (crosswalks/traffic controls can be city-maintained traffic-control devices rather than mere highway surface)
- Clark v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 962 A.2d 692 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (dangerous condition must derive from Commonwealth realty for real estate exception)
- Tate v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 762 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (PennDOT retains duty to ensure highways are safe for reasonably foreseen uses despite regulatory delegation)