A county is not necessarily entitled to summary judgment based on the Qualified Immunity defense.
This case involved an auto accident where a car entered the median, which sloped downward toward its center, hit the opposite slope, rolled at least once and came to rest in the median. The county was one of several defendants named in the lawsuit, each of whom moved for summary judgment. The court denied the county’s motion, providing the following rationale: “To establish its entitlement to qualified immunity, the governmental body must demonstrate ‘that the relevant discretionary determination by the governmental body was the result of a deliberate decision-making process.’”
The county failed to proffer evidence establishing that any county body had engaged in a “deliberate decision-making process” regarding the design of the county road where the loss occurred. “A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that [it] was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident.” Since there may be more than one proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries, that the slope of the median may have contributed to the happening of the subject accident is sufficient to support the plaintiffs’ causes of action.
The plaintiffs’ claim asserted against the county was based upon the theory that the median had been constructed with a “non-recoverable slope” and that the county had a duty to provide safety equipment to assist the driver of an “errant vehicle” in regaining control. The county failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating that it constructed or maintained the county road in a reasonably safe condition since its witness was unable to state whether the median at the accident location had a “recoverable” or “non-recoverable” slope or whether the grade of the slope complied with industry standards.
In contrast, the plaintiffs submitted evidence that the median between the eastbound and westbound lanes on County Road 48 was V-shaped with a steep slope. In addition, they submitted the deposition testimony of the police officer responding to the scene, who testified that he had responded to other accidents in the same area such that the county was or should have been aware of the potential danger. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Supreme Court’s determination that there were triable issues of fact precluding an award of summary judgment to the county.
Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2020 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2020 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.