27 N.Y.2d 762 (1970)
A state can be held liable for negligence in failing to adequately warn motorists or take appropriate safety measures when a foreseeable, dangerous condition exists on a highway, especially when prior incidents indicate a known risk.
Summary
This case concerns a series of accidents on the New York State Thruway caused by smog from nearby muckland fires. The Court of Appeals affirmed judgments against the State and the Thruway Authority, finding they were negligent in failing to provide adequate warnings or take sufficient safety precautions given the known, ongoing smog condition. The court emphasized the foreseeability of the danger and the inadequacy of the existing warnings, especially considering prior minor accidents. A dissenting opinion argued that the state could not reasonably be required to close the highway or establish convoys based on the rapidly changing conditions and that existing warnings were adequate.
Facts
Smog, originating from 17 muckland fires burning over several days near the Montezuma preserve bisected by the Thruway, created a hazardous condition. A series of minor accidents occurred prior to the major accidents in question. On the day of the accidents, a holiday, no Thruway patrol was operating. A State Police patrolman, observing the smog, lit flares and called his dispatcher, but no further action was taken. The Harvey accident occurred first, followed two hours later by the Rindfleisch accident. The Rindfleisch accident involved a car running into a truck despite lighted chemical fuses placed along the shoulder.
Procedural History
The Court of Claims initially found the State and Thruway Authority negligent. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed this decision. The case then went to the Court of Appeals of New York, which affirmed the lower courts’ rulings, holding the State and Thruway Authority liable for negligence.
Issue(s)
Whether the State and Thruway Authority were negligent in failing to adequately warn motorists or take sufficient precautions to prevent accidents caused by foreseeable smog conditions on the Thruway.
Holding
Yes, because the State and Thruway Authority failed to provide adequate warnings or take sufficient safety precautions in response to a foreseeable and known hazardous condition, specifically the smog resulting from nearby muckland fires.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the existing warning signs were inadequate for a high-speed, unlighted highway experiencing dense smog. Expert testimony indicated the need for successive warning signs with speed limitations, flares to reveal the smog’s extent, and adequate patrols. The court highlighted the foreseeability of the danger, emphasizing that the smog condition had persisted for days, with prior accidents occurring. The court stated, “If any of these precautions be deemed extraordinary, so, indeed, was the danger, present and reasonably to be foreseen.” The failure to have a Thruway patrol on a holiday and the inadequate response of the State Police contributed to the finding of negligence. The dissent argued that the rapidly changing smog conditions made it unreasonable to require the State to close the highway or establish convoys and that existing warning signs were sufficient. The dissent also pointed out that the Rindfleisch driver acknowledged seeing a smog sign, suggesting contributory negligence. However, the majority found that the trier of facts was within their province to not find contributory negligence by the deceased driver or passenger. The court emphasized that the state had foreknowledge of the “unusual artificial condition ahead” and failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate the danger.