Bottalico v. State, 59 N.Y.2d 305 (1983)

When the State provides a paved strip or shoulder alongside a roadway, it must maintain the shoulder in a reasonably safe condition for foreseeable uses, even those resulting from a driver’s negligence.

Summary

This case addresses the State’s duty to maintain highway shoulders. The claimants sought damages for injuries sustained when their vehicles veered onto negligently maintained shoulders, causing accidents. The Court of Claims found the State negligent but also attributed fault to the drivers. The central issue before the Court of Appeals was whether the State could be liable for injuries sustained when a driver negligently leaves the roadway and encounters a dangerous shoulder. The Court of Appeals held that the State does have a duty to maintain shoulders in a reasonably safe condition, even for drivers who negligently leave the road, with liability apportioned based on comparative negligence. The court reasoned that shoulders, once provided, are foreseeably used, and drivers may not expect them to pose a grave risk.

Facts

The claimants were injured when the vehicles they were in went out of control after encountering substantial drop-offs from the paved roadway onto the shoulder.

The State had provided paved shoulders adjacent to the roadways in question.

The shoulders were not maintained in a reasonably safe condition, presenting a hazard to drivers who might inadvertently veer onto them.

Procedural History

The claimants filed actions in the Court of Claims seeking damages for their injuries.

The Court of Claims found the State negligent in maintaining the shoulders and that this negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries.

The Court of Claims also found the plaintiffs negligent in driving off the roadway and apportioned liability according to fault.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Court of Claims decision in Bottalico, but the case of Minckler was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the State may be held liable for injuries caused when a driver negligently leaves the paved portion of the roadway and is injured due to a negligently maintained shoulder.

Holding

Yes, because when the State undertakes to provide a shoulder, it must maintain it in a reasonably safe condition for foreseeable uses, including those resulting from a driver’s negligence. The comparative fault of the driver is relevant to apportioning liability.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the State has a duty to maintain roadways in a reasonably safe condition, and this duty extends to shoulders when the State undertakes to provide them. The court distinguished this situation from cases where a municipality has no duty to improve land abutting the roadway that is not intended for automobile use, referencing Tomassi v. Town of Union. The court stated, “It is, however, both foreseeable and contemplated that, once provided, an improved shoulder at times will be driven upon.”

The Court emphasized that drivers may have no reason to expect that moving from the roadway to the shoulder might expose them to a grave risk of danger. The court cited Taylor v. State of New York in support of this proposition. The Court found that “No meaningful legal distinction can be made between a traveler who uses a shoulder with justification and one who uses it negligently insofar as how such conduct relates to whom a duty is owed to maintain the shoulder.”

The Court clarified that its prior decision in McCauley v. State of New York, where the complaint was dismissed, was based on a finding of no proximate cause, not on the absence of a duty. It further stated that decisions exonerating the State under similar circumstances but decided under the doctrine of contributory negligence (now replaced by comparative negligence) are not relevant to determining the State’s duty.