§ 211.1. [Reserved].
Source The provisions of this § 211.1 adopted April 28, 1978, effective April 29, 1978, 8 Pa.B. 1195; amended October 1, 1982, effective October 2, 1982, 12 Pa.B. 3505; reserved February 3, 2006, effective February 4, 2006, 36 Pa.B. 537. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (218052), (210497) to (210500) and (236851) to (236852).
Notes of Decisions Flares
Flares, which township positioned to warn motorists of a dangerous ice condition on the highway, were not ‘‘official traffic control devices’’ and the township was not, therefore, liable to the motorists for the proper positioning of them. Miseo v. Ross Township Police Department, 607 A.2d 806 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992).
Median
Such a structure is part of the highway, not a traffic control device. Slough v. Philadelphia, 686 A.2d 62 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
A median is not a ‘‘traffic control device’’ but is part of the highway; thus, a median is within the control of the Department of Transportation. Slough v. Philadelphia, 686 A.2d 62 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
Clearly, a median is between the boundary lines of a highway, and by definition, a portion thereof. Slough v. Philadelphia, 686 A.2d 62 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
The purpose of a median is to separate or ‘‘channelize’’ lanes of travel. A median or island is a ‘‘traffic control’’ in only the broadest sense of the term, acting merely as a means of keeping one lane of travel from running into another. Therefore, strictly construing the phrase ‘‘traffic control,’’ as used in the Section 8542(b)(4) exception to governmental immunity, the city could not be liable for the dangerous condition of the median which resulted in plaintiff’s injuries and the Department of Transportation should be found liable. Slough v. Philadelphia, 686 A.2d 62 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
Because the location in issue was designed to divide the flow of traffic on the street, the trial court did not err in concluding that it was a median instead of a sidewalk. The median was not intended for use by pedestrian traffic and it did not extend for the entire length of the road; moreover, unlike the normal allocation of maintenance responsibilities for sidewalks and curbs, no abutting property owner was responsible for any maintenance of any portion of the median strip. Given that the location where victim fell was a median, and not a sidewalk, the sloping portion thereof was part of the median and not a curb; accordingly, PennDOT was responsible for any injuries resulting from the defective maintenance of the median. Hubbard v. Department of Transportation, 660 A.2d 201 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
Traffic Island
Since the structure in question was designed for the purpose of, and actually does, regulate traffic, the city had a duty to the public lawfully on the highway, including pedestrians, to use due care in maintaining the structure. Additionally, because the structure goes through the surface and base courses of the highway and, as such, is part of that highway, the Department of Transportation then, has a separate duty to those lawfully on the highway to maintain this traffic island. Therefore, under principles of comparative negligence, both the city and the Department, are liable for injuries sustained by plaintiff’s fall on the traffic island. Slough v. Philadelphia, 30 Phila. 491 (1996).
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
