Laserfiche WebLink
respect to stop sign warrants., them ir would seem that the dt7 stands a good chance, of' <br />ins its dec[s~on_~, with disc'::eionm~v [rmmuniw. Because ct-the lac.t< ofjudcial consistency. <br />however, and :`he risk of facin~ s bad set of facts (such as a schOoichi'ld [,tilled on a s:reet about <br />· ~,T2ch the c~V had~e~ve~.~'~' / complain:s)? no ~uaramees can be provided thru the ciw. h~ corn:[ere <br />~rz,tectJo~, ' ' <br /> <br />2 S:~ndard Of Care. <br /> <br />i-c :.he extent :ha: s:op siBn pfacemom may no~ be en:i~led :`o discretionar'y.[rn.munit-y, [t is e~er <br />~s fliscem ~he standard of c~e :o which a ~,'affic engineer would be held. Engineers must <br />"exercise SUCh care, skill, and diligence as men in ~at profession ordinarily exercise under tike <br />c~r~a;,.s ,tances. Ciw cf Eveleth v. 'Ruble. 22.5 N.W.ld 521, 524 (Mitre. 1974';. Tb_;s wou!d <br />presmmabl'/ be ~he s~andard of cart co which a city's ~raffic en6meer would be held.: <br /> <br /> : in some cases, a decision [e6ardin~ stop si$2 placement :hat flies m the face of a <br />N2,¥JTCD mandate could be ne~lisenc~' per se. "p']iolations of regulations or ordin~ces <br /> adopted p~su~t to szamzo~ au~onb, c~ result m negligence per se ... if ~e persons <br />~:'2:-med by rhu~ woianOn ore within the inte,na's~ protecn'on of the star,am and the harm sub%red <br /> ;~: n~e ~pe ;he /eZ~zl~:~on wa: inzen~'ed ~o preventS" AJde~'s lnc. v. Shes. 536 N.W.2d <br /> ,--=v (PErm 1995') (.q'uoting Padi~c_ [nde~Sw Co. v. Thomoson-Yae'~er_ . inc., 260 N."''w.za' 548. <br /> ;5-59 (Mips. 1977) (emph~is in originali. For example, certain violations of the Unifo~ Fire <br /> ne~l~_~nc~ per sa. .-~am ~s~in~ that the ciN is not <br />i'~2vlTCD provisions, but onN' adviso~ o~ gemissive ones, this should not be ~ issue.. <br /> <br />i.~lhZiq oa <br />5111 <br /> <br />-17- <br /> <br /> <br />