In lawsuits alleging road design defects, a public entity is not liable if it can show the plan or design conformed to generally accepted engineering or design standards when constructed, and the public entity provides a reasonably adequate warning. The immunity statute ARS 12-820.03 further states that if there is a disputed fact, the issue shall be resolved by a trial before a trial on damages. These two cases discuss this in more detail. In Morales, a case filed against the State, Division 1 accepted a petition for special action questioning whether the statute was constitutional because the bifurcation mandate evades the judiciary’s rule making authority. Division 1 holds the legislature can direct how claims may be brought against public entities, and there is no conflict between the statute and Rule 42.
In Campion, a wrongful case filed against the City of Tucson, Division 2 upholds the trial court trying the immunity defense first and not the entire liability case. The city won at trial. We are confused as to what distinction appellants were making between the liability case and immunity defense, and the court tells us many arguments were not properly developed on appeal. The distinction may have had something to do with the driver’s fault, but the court’s opinion continues with many other issues, and we lose further interest. As to discovery issues before trial, the court recognizes the significant discretion trial judges have in determining proportionality. During discovery, the appellants obtained some discovery on other accidents but wanted more. Then at trial, there was disagreement over whether the other accidents were substantially similar. The trial court noted differences and had discretion whether to allow the evidence. On the other side, from the opening statement, the city presented evidence and argument as to the lack of prior incidents. The court emphasizes caution with Pak-Mor evidence, but appellant’s requested curative instruction did not accurately state the law. The court plods through arguments over post-accident video evidence, a federal highway report, cross-examination of expert and lack of reliance on the report, and the refusal of a jury instruction that the adjacent school had no legal duty. We are reminded not every perceived wrong is a fruitful reason for an appeal. But for the bifurcation issue, we would fault the court for designating this chore as an opinion.
Arizona Appellate Blog 