CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2828, 2005 WL 756837
...tion, that "[t]he highway agency or authority with jurisdiction and the regulatory agency with statutory authority, if applicable, jointly determine the need and selection of devices at a highway-rail grade crossing." MUTCD § 8A.01. Florida Statute Section 335.141 further provides, in relevant part: (1)(a) The [Florida Department of Transportation] shall have regulatory authority over all public railroad-highway grade crossings in the state ......
...l proximity of crossings included in such program. The design of the traffic control devices must be approved by the department, and the cost of their purchase and installation must be paid from the funds described in paragraph (a). *1338 Fla. Stat. § 335.141(1)-(2)(b). Section 335.141 clearly contemplates the development and adoption of a program funded, at least in part, by government entities and intended to reduce traffic hazards at railroad-highway grade crossings....
...vey of all highways to identify those railroad crossings which may require ... protective devices, and establish and implement a schedule of projects for this purpose." [5] 23 U.S.C. § 103(d); see FLA. ADMIN. CODE 14-46.002 (1982). [6] Furthermore, Section 335.141 clearly provides, in regard to the program, that the Florida Department of Transportation and railroad companies cannot be held liable for the priority given to installing any crossing improvement. FLA. STAT. § 335.141(2)(a)....
...Florida law now looks to the MUTCD as a guide to implementing traffic-control devices at railroad-highway grade crossings, FLA. STAT. §§
351.03,
316.171; and, according to the MUTCD, it is up to the appropriate regulatory agency to determine the need and selection of such devices, MUTCD § 8A.01. Section
335.141 provides, in that regard, for the development of a systemic and systematic *1339 program, FLA. STAT. §
335.141(2)(a); see 23 U.S.C. § 103(d); and Section
335.141 now provides that "the [Florida Department of Transportation] and the railroad companies are not liable for any act or omission in the development of such program or for the priority given to any crossing improvement," FLA. STAT. §
335.141(2)(a); 1986 Fla....
...See 1982 FLA. LAWS ch. 82-90, § 12. Webb, in addition, denied a county's claim of immunity from an inadequate-warning-devices claim, finding that the planning required to implement such warnings did not trigger sovereign immunity. Webb,
409 So.2d at 1064. Section
335.141, however, was amended in 1986 to provide immunity both to the government and railroads, perhaps in response to Webb....
...By comparison, Florida's current statutory framework, along with its reliance on the MUTCD, is more consistent with Wallace, and reveals that Louallen, Webb, Buchman, and (accordingly) Smith no longer represent the law of Florida. See FLA. STAT. §§
351.03,
316.171,
335.141. Ultimately, any claim the Liboy Estate may raise concerning the need for additional warning devices would run afoul of Section
335.141's immunity provision. See FLA. STAT.
335.141(2)(a)....
...rial to this case. [5] The remainder of 23 U.S.C. § 103(d) provides that "[a]t a minimum, such a schedule shall provide signs for all railway-highway crossings." [6] Before its repeal, Florida Reg. 14-46.002 provided that cost allocations under the Section 335.141 program were governed by the FHA Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual ("FHMP"), Volume 1, Chapter 4, Section 3 and subsequent revisions....
