## Facts

- Three consolidated personal-injury cases arose from “crossover” accidents on divided highways, where vehicles crossed medians into opposing traffic.
- Plaintiffs alleged the State (or Thruway Authority) knew the sites were hazardous yet failed to install median barriers.
- In Friedman, a driver crossed the median on the Roslyn Viaduct (State Route 25A) after being struck while traveling adjacent to a low, wide divider; the vehicle was then hit by oncoming traffic and went over a guardrail into a ravine, causing severe injuries.
- State transportation personnel had identified the viaduct as a crossover-accident hazard by 1973 and repeatedly recommended a median barrier; a 1974 proposal contemplated barrier installation as part of a rehabilitation project, and evidence showed temporary barriers could have been installed earlier.
- In Cataldo, the Thruway Authority had studied the relevant roadway over several years and decided not to install a median barrier before the 1973 accident.
- In Muller, after a later restudy led to a decision to build a barrier, no barrier had been installed by the time of the 1977 accident.
- Procedurally: Friedman won in the Court of Claims and the Appellate Division affirmed; the State appealed. Cataldo and Muller won in the Court of Claims but lost in the Appellate Division; they appealed.

## Issues

1. When do highway planning and design determinations fall within the State’s qualified immunity from negligence liability?
2. Whether the State may be liable where its traffic-safety study is plainly inadequate or lacks a reasonable basis.
3. Whether the State may be liable for unreasonably delaying implementation of a remedial safety measure after deciding it is necessary to address a known hazard.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reaffirmed that the State’s highway planning decisions receive qualified (not absolute) immunity when grounded in a deliberate decision-making process with a reasonable basis.
- The Court held the State may be liable if its traffic study is plainly inadequate or if there is no reasonable basis for the plan.
- The Court further held the State may be liable when, after becoming aware of a dangerous condition and deciding upon a remedial measure, it unreasonably delays implementation and thereby fails to alleviate the hazard.
- As applied, the Court affirmed liability in Friedman, concluding the State unreasonably failed to install a temporary or permanent median barrier within five years after determining a barrier was necessary.
- In Cataldo and Muller, the Court left undisturbed the outcomes reached below based on record-specific determinations concerning the adequacy of the studies and the justification for timing and prioritization of remedial work, while clarifying the controlling immunity standard.

## Legal Principles

- The State owes a nondelegable duty to keep its highways in a reasonably safe condition.
- Qualified immunity protects discretionary highway planning decisions from judicial second-guessing if the decision results from a duly executed study and has a reasonable basis.
- Qualified immunity does not bar liability where a traffic-safety study is plainly inadequate or the plan lacks a reasonable basis.
- After the State is aware of a dangerous traffic condition, it must take reasonable measures to alleviate it; unreasonable delay in implementing an adopted remedial measure can support negligence liability.
- Where the State cannot show that delay reflects a reasoned planning choice rather than inaction, immunity will not defeat liability.

## Conclusion

The Court held that while discretionary highway planning choices are generally protected by qualified immunity, the State remains liable for plainly inadequate safety analysis and for unreasonable delay in carrying out safety measures it has already determined are needed to correct a known hazardous condition.


Friedman v. State, 67 N.Y.2d 271 (1986)