Laserfiche WebLink
r.¥fi=n ]994). f~, thiq c~ the count',reasoned that ~he county had considered "safew issues. <br />...manc~=, o~umem. ~ad th~ ~ossfbl'~ l~a[ consequences of voiuntm~iJy p'iacin$ sisns at ~s outs~d~ <br />'recognized n~m-oz-w~vs" ~ad was therdor~ ent,~d to d[scrat.Jon~ i~munJty. Jd~ at l/o. The <br />co,an did note, however, that "[d~iscrefion~v [m2m~in.' protects the gove~ment onJy when it c~ <br />produce evidence hs conduc~ was of a policy-m~mg nature involvins social, political, or <br />economic considerations, r~ar :h~ m~r~ly professional or sc~enUfic judgments." !d~ (citin8 <br />Nusbaum-v. Blue E~h Count., 412 N.W.2d 713, 722 (Mitre. 1988). <br /> <br /> Since then, the coups have again revisited the issue. In Ireland v Crow's Nes~ Yachts. ~nc.. 27.3 <br /> N.'9, ..~d 269,-z/.~ (MDm. Ct. App. 1996), ~et. for rev..denied (Mi~. bep~. 20, 1996), ~e co~ <br /> of appeals evaluated a claim tha~ ~cial i~um~ should protect a coun~ traffic engineer <br /> accused of ',~:o~ ~ in placing adviso~ speed <br /> _ plate os a count' highway. ~e court concluded <br /> ~j~ ~ !e~ such a decision to the engineer's profession~ budgment, and tha~ the <br />'that tine . <br /> <br /> decision was therefore entitled to official l~mmniV. Id~ ~t 274. The co~. ~so found that <br /> counu w~ enrJt!ed-to victorious official i~unJv, because holding ~e co~U (~e engineer's <br /> empio~er) t/able would result in an indirect .impac~ on ~e engineer's abi!iv to independently <br /> exercise professional judgment. <br /> <br /> That s~me yea-, fine supreme cou~ c0nsJd~red ~he case of whe~er the cjw of St. Pau~ could be <br /> held ii,Me for [njmmes allegedly m-ising our of ~e timin~ of ~ ~tl red cle~ce inte~al. <br /> ~N. w.~d 7t9 (M/~. 199¥). The cou~ applied the f~JlJ~ tes~ for discrerion~ <br />[m~m'~2~'; whether the decision regm-din8 the c iem~nce timing mvol'ved policy-m~3n8 j ud~enu: <br />,a~ at 721. Here, Sue co'~ accepte~ that the .MN~JTCD ~ave individua~ engineers discretion <br />set the Umfing of fihe cle~nce inte~als, b~ed on ~e competing safeU considerario~ of longer <br />c~e~-~ce inrewais versus shorter ones.- Jcl. a~ ~;. ~en coupled with the fact ~at the ciT had <br />~lso weighed the effect on ~fic flow of cle~nce inte~l times, the cou~ had [iule trouble m <br />finding ~at the decision w~ entitled to d~screuonmw"~umw, id~ <br /> <br />Each of ~ese c~es m~ies reference to a host of other c~es involving traff3c engJnee~g <br />aec~s~ons. T ' - ~ <br /> ~e, ~ a whole. ~here is ii,ia or no internal cor:isrency ~ ~o when a <br />engineering decision is entitled to d[screrJon~w ~mum~. The bes~ ~at c~ be said is rhar <br />a-:nd seems to be ~o grmn: discreUon~' 2~u~w for ~ese .~pes Of decisions .p~icui~ty <br />'~dTCD leaves rbe pm~icul~ decision to ~e engineer's discretion. <br /> <br />'¢/'i~ respect to stop signs, r. he N,~vi~'TCD sets out cerx*dn conditions hn which they "may be <br />wa.frs.hied." i have ar~ached a copy of the pon/on of,the h,.[M'rjTCD discussing these conditions. <br />Other provisions reg~ding stop signs m-e m~datow, such ~ the fac~ ~at.rhey should ~ene~ally <br />be located on ~e right side of ~e road. Because hO.exercise of discretion is involved wi~ ~ese, <br />h would nor be possible to ci~i~ i~m~J~ for them. M~ ~dersr~dinf, however, is that the c~ <br />is merely concemeZ ~am w~nts. ~d nor with these l~er ~pes of issues. <br /> <br /> ' .tm all red cl,~c~- lnter,/a] is the oeriod [n which al! li'~ht~ at ~ intersecnon <br />sfmult~eousi,,' indicate red. and is designed :'b aljow the intersection to cle~ before previously <br /> <br />.~IE--, ~- '~ 56 <br /> <br /> <br />