I was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The other driver had blown through a stop sign. I had no stop sign. However, the other driver is claiming that the stop sign was obscured by overhang trees. Do I have a claim?

Yes, you have a claim. You may in fact have multiple claims against two defendants.

First, the claim against the other driver has two initial questions. Did the overhanging tree obscure the stop sign so that reasonable person would not have seen it? If the obstruction was not so bad that a reasonable person would still have seen the stop sign, the case would be governed by the Vehicle and Traffic Law pertaining to stop signs. Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1172 states that vehicles approaching a stop sign need to stop. Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1142 states that vehicles which have a stop sign must yield to other vehicles approaching the same intersection.

The second initial question is even if the stop sign was obscured, did the vehicle with the stop sign proceed into an intersection with a through highway recklessly? The driver, who had the stop sign, had an affirmative duty to determine if the vehicles coming from the through highway had a stop sign. The vehicle with the stop sign had a duty to see vehicles traveling from the right and left and to perceive if they were going to slow down at the intersection. A vehicle with an obscured stop sign cannot recklessly proceed into an intersection. This would be a similar situation to an uncontrolled intersection.

Claims against the City

Assuming that the stop sign was obscured and it was not possible for a reasonable driver to see the stop sign, you may have an additional claim against the City of New York. The City has a duty to maintain stop signs. That duty includes cutting back overgrowth of trees that obscure a stop sign.

There are two bases for holding the city responsible. Did the City erect an obscured sign? This is a design mistake, and the City would be responsible.

A second possible theory against the City would be if there was a proper design, but overgrowth of the tree had obscured the sign. The City would only be responsible if the City had reasonable notice of the condition. The problem with this theory of recovery might be proving whether the City had “reasonable” notice or not. In the context of the modern case, would a 311 phone call the day before the accident be sufficient notice?

The cases addressing this issue do not give a consistent answer. The cases only mentioned “reasonableness” and cite factors to consider like the person who received notice. Did the person have any authority to clear the obstruction? In what Department did the person work: the Department of Transportation or someone in the Parks Department? How long did the City have notice of the obscured sign before the accident? There is not a clear answer to these questions without further discovery from the City. But this would be an avenue to explore through litigation.

By James Santner, Esq.

If you have questions about a similar situation, feel free to contact us. Consultations are free and there is no fee unless we win.