Originally Posted by
livedarklions
I think the Court's interpretation is reasonable, but the law distinguishing defective from damaged is not a reasonable line. If I had to guess if there was an actual legislative strategy involved here, it probably came down to the state not wanting govt. to be liable if they didn't reroute a road that necessitated a blind turn or the like.
Sounds likely.
The decision cites the SD case that pronounced that there is no common law right of action against the city with regard to streets and highways. I have not read it, but it's quoted in part: "[Cities'] common-law duties respecting streets were abrogated by...legislative enactments. The duties are now limited by statute." That's why the plaintiff had to hang her hat on the reported damage statute.