ยง46-16 - Traffic regulation and control over private streets.
ยง46-16ย Traffic regulation and control overprivate streets.ย Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, anycounty and its authorized personnel may impose and enforce traffic regulationsand place appropriate traffic control devices, and may enforce chapters 286 and291C, on the following categories of private streets, highways, orthoroughfares, except private roads used primarily for agricultural andranching purposes:
(1)ย Any private street, highway, or thoroughfarewhich has been used continuously by the general public for a period of not lessthan six months; provided that the county shall not be responsible for themaintenance and repair of the private street, highway, or thoroughfare when itimposes or enforces traffic regulations and highway safety laws or places orpermits to be placed appropriate traffic control devices on that street,highway, or thoroughfare; provided further that no adverse or prescriptiverights shall accrue to the general public when the county imposes or enforcestraffic regulations and highway safety laws or places appropriate trafficcontrol devices on that street, highway, or thoroughfare; nor shall countyconsent to the placement of traffic control signs or markings on a privatestreet be deemed to constitute control over that street; and
(2)ย Any private street, highway, or thoroughfarewhich is intended for dedication to the public use as provided in section 264-1and is open for public travel but has not yet been accepted by the county. [L1973, c 137, ยง1; am L 1988, c 358, ยง1; am L 1995, c 173, ยง2]
Case Notes
ย While the fact that the privately owned road was platted on asubdivision map, that ยง265A-1 authorized counties to repair and maintainprivate streets, and this section authorized counties to regulate traffic onprivate streets, and each of these factors was significant in determining whichparty or parties had control of the private roadway, appellate court erred inconcluding as a matter of law that defendant property owners did not controlroadway and thus had no duty to maintain, repair, or warn of a dangerouscondition; the issue of control of the roadway was a question of fact for thejury.ย 103 H. 385, 83 P.3d 100.