In a wrongful death action resulting from an automobile collision at the
intersection of two state highways, a representative of the estate of Constantine
Konstantatos sued New York s Suffolk County. The plaintiff claimed the county owed
a duty to motorists traveling on a state highway during a power failure because county
personnel regularly patrolled the highway and had directed traffic at some
intersections while traffic signals were not working. When the Supreme Court of
Suffolk County denied the county s move for summary judgment, the county
appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed the decision.
The Collision
On July 27, 1986, Konstantatos died in a two-car collision at the intersection of
New York State Route 347 and State Route 454 in Suffolk County. Severe weather
caused a power outage about two hours before the collision, and traffic signals at the
intersection of Routes 347 and 454, and at other intersections in the area, were not
working. Although the county assigned personnel to patrol some intersections where
signals had failed, no police patrolled the intersection where the collision occurred.
Lower Court's Decision
In suing the county, the plaintiff argued that the county s failure to assign
personnel to the intersection where the collision happened constituted negligence.
The county moved for summary judgment, pointing out that the collision happened at
an intersection of state highways and that the county did not own or maintain state
highways. Nor did the county own or maintain traffic signals where state highways
intersected. In addition, the county contended it owed no special duty to the deceased
because of the presence of county personnel on state highways in performance of
regular patrol duties or because county personnel patrolled some state intersections
during the power failure. The lower court denied summary judgment, however, and
identified an issue of fact concerning whether the Police Department s assumption of
traffic control on the night in question created a special duty to plaintiff s decedent and
that its performance failed to meet the standard of ordinary care.
Appellate Court's Decision
When considering the county s appeal, the appellate court cited Schulman v.
City of New York (190 A.D.2d 663, 593 N.Y.S.2d 286) and other cases to establish
that, in order to sustain a claim of negligence, the plaintiff must show the county owed
a duty to the deceased. However, it was not disputed that the state, not the county,
owned and had the duty to maintain the highways that intersected where the collision
happened and the traffic signals controlling that intersection. The appellate court
rejected the plaintiff s argument that the country assumed liability for collisions
occurring on state highways because county police enforced traffic regulations on
those highways. Taken to its logical conclusion, the appellate court contended, the
plaintiff s argument would render a municipality responsible in tort for the
consequences of any condition existing on a roadway which it neither owns, designs,
maintains, controls or repairs, simply because it enforces traffic regulations there.
In addition, the county argued they did not, as the plaintiff claimed, assume an
affirmative duty to deploy police to the intersection where the collision happened
because they assigned police patrols to other intersections during the power failure.
According to the county, they had never assigned police to patrol the intersection
where the collision happened, and there was no reason to believe Konstantatos was
relying on the country to perform in any particular way on the night of the collision.
Agreeing with the county, the appellate court cited Cuffy v. City of New York (69
N.Y.2d 255, 260, 513 N.Y.S.2d 372, 505 N.E.2d 937) to show that the plaintiff had to
prove (1) the county had, through action or promise, assumed a duty and (2)
Konstantatos was justified in relying on that action or promise. The court decided the
county had taken no such action nor made any such promise, and the evidence did
not support an assumption that Konstantatos had justifiably relied on the county to
prevent the collision.
Finding no duty for the county, the appellate court found no liability. Therefore,
the court reversed the lower court s decision and granted summary judgment for the
county.
[Estate of Konstantatos v. County of Suffolk (A.D.2 Dept. 1994) from West Publishing
Vol. 618 New York Supplement, 2d Series, 90]