§46-16  Traffic regulation and control over
private streets.  Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, any
county and its authorized personnel may impose and enforce traffic regulations
and place appropriate traffic control devices, and may enforce chapters 286 and
291C, on the following categories of private streets, highways, or
thoroughfares, except private roads used primarily for agricultural and
ranching purposes:



(1)  Any private street, highway, or thoroughfare
which has been used continuously by the general public for a period of not less
than six months; provided that the county shall not be responsible for the
maintenance and repair of the private street, highway, or thoroughfare when it
imposes or enforces traffic regulations and highway safety laws or places or
permits to be placed appropriate traffic control devices on that street,
highway, or thoroughfare; provided further that no adverse or prescriptive
rights shall accrue to the general public when the county imposes or enforces
traffic regulations and highway safety laws or places appropriate traffic
control devices on that street, highway, or thoroughfare; nor shall county
consent to the placement of traffic control signs or markings on a private
street be deemed to constitute control over that street; and



(2)  Any private street, highway, or thoroughfare
which is intended for dedication to the public use as provided in section 264-1
and is open for public travel but has not yet been accepted by the county. [L
1973, c 137, §1; am L 1988, c 358, §1; am L 1995, c 173, §2]



 



Case Notes



 



  While the fact that the privately owned road was platted on a
subdivision map, that §265A-1 authorized counties to repair and maintain
private streets, and this section authorized counties to regulate traffic on
private streets, and each of these factors was significant in determining which
party or parties had control of the private roadway, appellate court erred in
concluding as a matter of law that defendant property owners did not control
roadway and thus had no duty to maintain, repair, or warn of a dangerous
condition; the issue of control of the roadway was a question of fact for the
jury.  103 H. 385, 83 P.3d 100.