Baker v. City of Garden City Baker v. City of Garden City

Baker v. City of Garden City

240 Kan. 554, 731 P.2d 278, KS.0042020(1987)

    • $9.00
    • $9.00

Descripción editorial

The opinion of the court was delivered by This is a personal injury suit arising out of a controlled intersection traffic accident which occurred on the outskirts of Garden City, Kansas. At the close of plaintiff's case, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendants, the City of Garden City, Kansas, (Garden City or the City), and the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT). Plaintiff, Cecil W. Baker, appeals. The accident occurred at the intersection of United States Highway 83 and Mary Street on the western edge of Garden City. At this location the highway consists of two lanes running north and south with one lane of traffic in each direction. East of the intersection Mary Street is a divided four-lane east and west city thoroughfare with two lanes of traffic in each direction. West of the intersection Mary Street is a two lane county road with one lane of traffic in each direction. Traffic at the intersection was formerly controlled by stop signs for the east-west traffic on Mary Street. Traffic on U.S. Highway 83 was not required to stop. In November of 1980 a fatal accident occurred at the intersection and in response to this tragedy Garden City officials decided to replace the stop signs with four-way electric signals. The City contacted KDOT regarding the installation of temporary signals during construction and it is disputed whether KDOT approval was given for temporary signalling. It is clear that no written approval had been obtained from KDOT. See K.S.A. 8-2002(b). During mid-December the City installed four temporary signals which were hung in the intersection from wires strung between poles at each corner and the stationary stop signs for Mary Street traffic were removed. At the time the temporary signals were emplaced, their installation did not meet the standards specified in the Uniform Manual of Traffic Control. Although a diagram of the installation was sent to KDOT, the inadequate nature of the signals apparently was not discovered by KDOT until after the plaintiff's accident.

GÉNERO
Técnicos y profesionales
PUBLICADO
1987
16 de enero
IDIOMA
EN
Inglés
EXTENSIÓN
11
Páginas
EDITORIAL
LawApp Publishers
VENDEDOR
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc
TAMAÑO
59.9
KB

Más libros de Supreme Court of Kansas

Johnson v. Johnson Johnson v. Johnson
1976
Copeland v. Kansas State Bd. of Examiners in Optometry Copeland v. Kansas State Bd. of Examiners in Optometry
1974
Kansas City Structural Steel Co. v. L.G. Barcus & Sons Kansas City Structural Steel Co. v. L.G. Barcus & Sons
1975
Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n
1986
Bates & Son Construction Co. v. Berry Bates & Son Construction Co. v. Berry
1975
State v. Williams & Reynolds State v. Williams & Reynolds
1975