Let’s talk about stoplights, warrants and litigation. On Aug. 22 the Town Council agreed to fund the remainder of a traffic light design (not a study) at Palomino/Palisades (Times Independent, Sept. 6, “Streets”). A previous council approved this project, invested $100,000 for the design and left a $35,000 balance due to complete it. Implementation would occur anytime the council deemed it necessary.

The following explains my vote. The need for a traffic safety light is not subjective but based on an objective standard. Staff reported that the completed traffic study deemed that the intersection met four “warrants.” Those are the criteria that indicate this intersection could be deemed dangerous with just a stop sign, a stop light would increase safety.

This is where the threat of litigation enters the equation. Once a town has “notice” of a dangerous situation, the town ignores it at its own peril. If an accident/fatality occurred at a known dangerous intersection, a personal injury lawyer could look to our Town and claim negligence. At trial, the lawyer would argue Fountain Hills knew of the inherent risk at this intersection but was too cheap to fix it. They will say we didn’t care about safety and that we didn’t even finish funding the design. It would smell of bad faith and appear the Town was willing to “risk it.”

It is conceivable we could be held liable for millions of dollars, possibly more than our insurance coverage limits. Fountain Hills could face bankruptcy. Conversely, if we paid to finish the study and had a process in place to ultimately fix the problematic intersection, that would clearly mitigate our potential damages, legally.

My vote was for a $35,000 insurance policy that would minimize our legal exposure. A small price to pay to avoid a predatory plaintiff’s attorney.