Rindfleisch v. State

The expert proof, upon which the Court of Claims decisions and the unanimous affirmance at the Appellate Division were predicated, was that the signs in place at the extremes of the 4.3-mile danger area were inadequate for a high speed, unlighted highway, and that, among other precautions, there were required successive warning signs, displaying specific speed limitations; flares or other lighting sufficient to reveal the extent and density of the smog; and a patrol adequate to observe and act upon changing conditions; and, finally, that when, as here, the visibility required reduction of…