Friedman v. State of New York

1986

Venue: NY Ct. App.
Facts: Friedman, Cataldo, and Muller are all injured in "crossover collisions," in locations where maybe there should have been a median.
Posture: All three trials result in judgments for plaintiffs. Appellate division affirms judgment for Friedman, rejects both Cataldo and Muller.
Issue: Narrowly:
  1. Is there evidence in the record supporting the finding for Friedman?

  2. Does the evidence in the record more closely comport with the trial court's findings or with the Appellate Division's?
More broadly: under what circumstances is the municipal authority liable for failure to install a median?
Holding: Friedman and Muller win (affirmed and reversed), Cataldo loses (affirmed).
Rule: A governmental body is liable when its study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate, or when there's no reasonable basis for its plan.

If the state is made aware of a dangerous condition, it must study it and make a plan. Once a plan has been made, there's a duty to carry it out in a reasonable period of time. Also, the state is under a continual duty to review the plan.
Reasoning: We don't want to just substitute jury decisions for legislative determinations. We also require more than a battle of experts.

For Cataldo, the legislature's determination that no barrier needed to be installed was reasonable.

For the others, though, there was a determination that a barrier was needed, and the state delayed unreasonably.
Dicta: