Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Ms. Leslie Chow <br /> Page -3- <br /> August 17, 1998 <br /> 5. Bi1168, Draft 2, adds language from Section 46-16, HRS, that provides that the <br /> imposition of traffic regulations shall neither result in County responsibility for maintenance and <br /> repair of these streets, nor constitute ownership or control over such streets. Assuming that these <br /> proposed amendments have been passed, if the Council adopts a bill that contains traffic <br /> regulations that have been proposed without any regard for relevant traffic engineering <br /> standards, principles, or other criteria that may determine the reasonableness of the regulation, <br /> could the County later be held liable for the traffic regulation? <br /> The County Council enjoys legislative immunity from its acts as has been <br /> reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court case ofBogan, et al. v. Scott-Harris, Case No. 96-1569, <br /> decided March 3, 1998. In that case, the Supreme Court once again reaffirmed the legislative <br /> immunity of municipal officials, and it is our opinion under that basis that the Council by <br /> adopting traffic regulations without regard to any relevant traffic safety engineering standards or <br /> <br /> principles cannot be later held liable for such traffic regulations as this adoption is a legislative <br /> <br /> act. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> RICHARD D. WURDEMAN <br /> Corporation Counsel <br /> By <br /> G D TAKASE <br /> Deputy Corporation Counsel <br /> GT:de <br /> a:\vaffic\bi1168.1tr <br /> <br />