Is the MUTCD Binding on the States as a Contract

[Taxing Matters]

Maybe the word "contract" is not the correct word. What I meant is there anything written between a State and the Fed by which the State agrees to comply with the MUTCD?

On another thread it was indicated that if a State does not comply with the MUTCD they jeopardize losing 10% of their Federal Highway/Roadway funding. If this is true, then there must be a more formal agreement between the two parties to comply with it. Furthermore, how would the Fed know if a State was complying with it? Also, if the 10% is true, how would the Fed withhold that funding if nothing was in writing?

There is no agreement with respect to that. Federal law simply conditions federal funds on compliance with the standard. If the state wants the money, it complies with the standard. If it doesn't care to get the money, it can do something else.

But even if there was an agreement, that would not help you. State law is what it is; if you violate it, the state may penalize you for it. If the signs that the state relied upon do not conform to the standard, the state might lose some funds, but that's all. It does not get you out of your ticket problem.

[Brian57]

You go out on the street on a motorcycle and tell me how you feel after people in cars try to kill you on a regular basis.

Cry me a river - Nobody is "trying to kill you." I ride a road bicycle 120/wk on the busiest LA and OC streets which requires more skill and is far more dangerous than a street bike. And I never wanted to shoot anyone.

[Mr. Knowitall]

It seems like Ohio enforces MUTCD conformance strictly. We have discussed this topic in regards to California and in this state I don't believe any case law either for or against MUTCD compliance and its enforceability like the above exists.

Again, Ohio enforces the MUTCD through statutes that are enforced by the courts. As was already explained, the courts are not making up their own rules. They are enforcing state statutes.

West Virginia is likely the same as California but I do not know for sure.

Having spent time in both states, I can assure you that they are different from each other. I've also been to Ohio -- which is different from both California and West Virginia.

As others have already said, case law from another state is not law but could help convince the court to make a ruling one way or another by showing how other states have ruled on the same issue.

And when that case law is predicated upon a state statute that does not exist in any form in the state in which you're presenting the foreign case, it's a fool's errand.

You need to testify that you did not see the sign at all then give proof that it was too small by using MUTCD.

Unless state law requires that sign to meet the MUTCD size requirements, you had best bring along photographs to show that the sign is in fact difficult to see. But really, given that standard speed limit signs do meet MUTCD size requirements, it is difficult to picture a unit of government going out of its way to custom order a sign that does not.

[WVThrowawayy]

Mr KIA,

I am not understanding one part of your post. You're saying that the Ohio case law cannot be used in West Virginia, but these are the laws in Ohio of which the ruling that the MUTCD applies was made on:

{¶11} R.C. 4511.09 establishes that the Ohio Department of Transportation shall
adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic control devices. R.C.
4511.11(D) further establishes that “[a]ll traffic control devices erected on a public road,
street, or alley, shall conform to the state manual and specifications.” Additionally, R.C.
4511.12 states in pertinent part: “No provision of this chapter for which signs are
required shall be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the
alleged violation an official sign is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to be
seen by an ordinarily observant person.”

And blah blah blah,and they sum it up saying that MUTCD applies.
This is West Virginia:

The state road commission shall adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic-control devices consistent with the provisions of this chapter for use upon highways within this state. Such uniform system shall correlate with and so far as possible conform to the system then current as approved by the American association of state highway officials. The state road commission shall place and maintain such traffic-control devices, conforming to its manual and specifications, upon all state highways as it shall deem necessary to indicate and to carry out the provisions of this chapter or to regulate, warn, or guide traffic.

No provision of this chapter for which signs are required shall be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation an official sign is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person. Whenever a particular section does not state that signs are required, such section shall be effective even though no signs are erected or in place.

Given that these sentences are quite honestly, exactly the same, why could the MUTCD not be said to apply, since an interpretation of the same exact sentences were made in another court?

I know it's not BINDING, but is it really still a fools errand? I'm unfamiliar with how things actually work in law, and am just trying to read up on this stuff and analyze it as best as I can with my own general knowledge.

[Mr. Knowitall]

This thread is not about West Virginia. This thread is about Brian57's incorrect notion that the MUTCD is enforceable under principles of contract.

In this thread, I have pointed out that some Ohio's decisions mentioned by another forum member were predicated on statutory law, and that the notion that Ohio's courts were imposing the MUTCD without that statutory basis was false. I have not commented on any West Virginia case or statutes -- only incorrect statements about Ohio case law and the basis for the Ohio decisions.

If West Virginia has statutes that are similar to Ohio's, then its courts will make rulings based upon those West Virginia statutes. They will not make their decisions based upon the Ohio Revised Code, as Ohio laws do not apply in West Virginia. If West Virginia has similar statutes, its courts may look at out-of-state case law for guidance, but its courts are not obligated to ignore any differences in the law and they are able to make their own, independent assessment of what their own state's laws actually say and mean.

[flyingron]

...and to add to Mr K's explanation, Ohio court decisions have no bearing on WV law or WV courts.

[Taxing Matters]

...and to add to Mr K's explanation, Ohio court decisions have no bearing on WV law or WV courts.

A decision from the courts of another state are not binding in WV, of course, but if the decision from another state is interpreting a statute that is identical (or nearly so) to the WV statute then that other state court opinion might be persuasive and thus useful to include in the argument to the court. On the other hand, if the statutes are distinctly different then the opinion from the other state’s court will be worthless.

[flyingron]

Brian57's original posts asks, when a State adopts MUTCD do they enter into a contract with the Federal Gov. There probably is some form of contract involved but MUTCD is not the governing document and it likely has nothing to do with its criminal/civil liability on people.

There's no contract, period. It's missing just about every aspect required to have a contract.

[Mr. Knowitall]

In the United States, courts do not enforce statutes, ever.

Are you trying to play a semantic game, or are you trying to impress upon us that you don't understand how courts work?

"[T]he proper role of the judiciary is to interpret and not write the law.... Accordingly, this Court enforces a statute as written if the statutory language is unambiguous.

This Court "will enforce a statute whose retroactivity is expressed with the "clearest and most positive expression" so long as the statute is not unconstitutional."

As a matter of comity, though, the court may enforce statutory rules of evidence..... That the court enforces a statute that governs a matter within its authority does not, however, constitute the surrender of its authority to the legislature....

First Amendment principles, which protect against entanglement of civil courts in questions of religious doctrine, polity or practice, are not offended by the judicial enforcement of a statute requiring a church, as a non-profit corporation, to keep at its registered office, corporate records for examination by its voting members.

If the alleged interference with religious freedom is effected by a statute or by judicial enforcement of a statute, the Court balances what must be a "compelling" governmental interest against the asserted First Amendment liberty.

There probably is some form of contract involved but MUTCD is not the governing document and it likely has nothing to do with its criminal/civil liability on people.

There is not "some form of contract" involved.

[Taxing Matters]

Brian57's original posts asks, when a State adopts MUTCD do they enter into a contract with the Federal Gov. There probably is some form of contract involved but MUTCD is not the governing document and it likely has nothing to do with its criminal/civil liability on people.

I answered that question earlier — there is no contract involved. The federal and state governments did not bargain over terms and enter into a contract. The federal government simply enacted a provision that conditions certain federal funds to the states on compliance with the MUTCD standard. Either states comply so as to be eligible for those funds or they don’t. Nothing about contract law is implicated here.