![]() |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Volume 11 Issue 2
|
September 2010
|
![]() |
|
Are there any legal liabilities associated with dynamic outdoor lighting?Put simply, the answer is yes, but the specific legal issues will vary among jurisdictions and will depend upon the specific circumstances. NLPIP conducted informal interviews with several trial attorneys in the U.S. and researched legal cases in U.S. federal and state courts that involved outdoor lighting as a possible factor relating to safety or security. NLPIP does not provide legal advice. Consulting an attorney familiar with the statutes and laws of the local, state/provincial, and federal jurisdictions is an important and useful course of action for a municipality or property owner considering use of a dynamic outdoor lighting strategy. The information in this section is provided to help facilitate, but not to replace, that consultation. To demonstrate a legal liability related to dynamic outdoor lighting, several factors would need to be established such as whether the municipality or property owner had a duty to provide lighting for safety or security, whether there was a breach of this duty by the municipality or property owner, whether the breach of duty was in fact a cause of an injury, and whether the injury resulted in damages (Pinsonneault et al. v. Merchants and Farmers Bank and Trust Company et al. 2002). These factors are illustrated in Figure 11. The latter two factors are based on the circumstances surrounding a particular incident; therefore only the first two factors are discussed further.
Different jurisdictions impose different levels of duty. There may also be different levels of duty placed upon governmental agencies than on private property owners within the same jurisdiction. One court in California stated that unless there is a special circumstance that makes lighting absolutely necessary for safety, municipalities in that state have no duty to illuminate their streets (Antenor v. City of Los Angeles 1985). In Illinois, a court decision stated that municipalities have no duty to provide lighting for pedestrian safety except in crosswalks (Hough v. Kalousek and Village of Oak Lawn 1996), and another Illinois court stated that it is up to the municipality to decide if a street should be illuminated (Baran v. City of Chicago Heights 1968). Some local jurisdictions actually require reduced outdoor light levels after business hours (Fairfax County 2003). On the other hand, a court in Michigan ruled that illuminating a parking lot was part of a property owner's duty in order to maintain a safe place for employees (Sleeman v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company v. Barnaby and Parker 1968). There can be broadly varying interpretations in different jurisdictions about how the duty to provide nighttime illumination, if it is imposed, should be carried out. Standards and recommendations from organizations such as the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) have been cited in Michigan cases as a basis for defining the appropriate level of duty (Sleeman v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company v. Barnaby and Parker 1968; Lane and Lane v. Ekrem Bardah of Fenton, Inc. and McDonald's Restaurants of Michigan, Inc., 2003). In at least one case in Illinois, a jury was permitted to consider IES recommendations in its deliberations about whether the duty was properly met (Baran v. City of Chicago Heights, 1968). In one Michigan case where a question arose of whether the outdoor lighting at a restaurant was on during an accident, lighting measurements made by an expert revealed that the light levels still conformed to IES recommendations even when the lights were turned off, and the court subsequently stated that because of these sufficient ambient conditions, the property owner did not breach its duty to provide lighting for safety (Lane and Lane v. Ekrem Bardah of Fenton, Inc. and McDonald's Restaurants of Michigan, Inc., 2003). In a different case in California, a court determined that municipalities were not required to conform to IES standards in the provision of street lighting (Stathoulis et al. v. City of Montebello 2008). Furthermore, a court in Washington state ruled that darkness or low light levels alone did not excuse occupants from exercising ordinary care when walking or driving in an outdoor area (Roppo v. Motor Cargo and Unterwegner 1998). Reliance on expert opinions regarding lighting and visual performance were also used in cases in order to help identify whether there was a breach of duty regarding lighting (Roppo v. Motor Cargo and Unterwegner 1998; Lane and Lane v. Ekrem Bardah of Fenton, Inc. and McDonald's Restaurants of Michigan, Inc. 2003). In at least one case, a court in Illinois stated that although there was not automatically a duty of municipalities to illuminate streets, once the duty was assumed by a municipality, the municipality was required to ensure that lighting was "reasonably safe and done skillfully" (Baran v. City of Chicago Heights 1968). These issues suggest that a municipality or property owner should research whether there is a legal duty to provide lighting and if so, how to demonstrate that the duty is being properly carried out. Local ordinances requiring lighting may call for specific light levels or may be written in more general language. Local requirements generally supersede industry standards and recommendations, such as those published by the IES. The attorneys interviewed by NLPIP noted that having a written plan for lighting to provide safety, using assessments by experts in lighting and visibility during the design phase, and providing documentation explaining any deviations from standards or recommendations could reduce a property owner’s legal liability. Not all reasons for implementing dynamic outdoor lighting would be treated equally in a court case. The attorneys interviewed by NLPIP suggested that the desire to reduce operating costs and energy use would not necessarily excuse a property owner from a duty to provide lighting for safety. Environmental factors such as mitigation of light pollution (for example, light trespass onto a residential neighbor's property) could be perceived as a reasonable basis for reducing light levels through dynamic outdoor lighting, but it is unlikely that this factor would be considered as important as safety in a legal case. Liability issues will continue to be a barrier to implementing dynamic outdoor lighting. Local ordinances that require light levels to be reduced after certain hours, such as those in Fairfax County (2003), Virginia, are not widespread, and depending upon the local jurisdiction, reduction of light levels could create exposure to legal liability. Municipalities and property owners can take specific actions to reduce exposure to liability, including the preparation of written plans for lighting and safety, visual assessments of reduced light levels (if used) and documentation of factors, such as reducing light trespass, that could justify lower light levels. Again, NLPIP recommends that municipalities and property owners who wish to consider dynamic outdoor lighting consult an attorney familiar with the local, state, and federal requirements for lighting during the lighting planning and design stages.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||