Work Zone Liability

[Mergingtraffic]

Just curious, has a state DOT ever been held liable for a vehicle accident that happened during an active work zone?

I was I-95 NB in Bridgeport, CT last night where they have the left of three lanes closed around 8:30pm.  Two cars and a truck crashed into each other at the merge point.  Traffic was bumper to bumper for 2 miles before then.  NB is the direction of the rush hour in the evenings. There was adequate signing saying the left lane was closed ahead and traffic. I can see a lawyer saying "Well if they didn't do the construction so early in the night this accident wouldn't have happened."

At the same construction zone, they only had the left lane closed but the cones were 1/3 of the way in the middle lane forcing drivers to in the middle lane to come into the right lane or right the line.  I can see vehicles side swiping each other.  Again, I can see a lawyer saying similar things. 

[tradephoric]

Just curious, has a state DOT ever been held liable for a vehicle accident that happened during an active work zone?

Jury awards $15.8 million to work-zone crash victim from Finleyville.  PennDott and the other driver involved in the accident settled before the trial, leaving Lane Construction responsible for the $15.8 million.

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/washington/2014/09/16/Jury-awards-15-8M-to-work-zone-crash-victim/stories/201409160072/

[jeffandnicole]

Just curious, has a state DOT ever been held liable for a vehicle accident that happened during an active work zone?

I was I-95 NB in Bridgeport, CT last night where they have the left of three lanes closed around 8:30pm.  Two cars and a truck crashed into each other at the merge point.  Traffic was bumper to bumper for 2 miles before then.  NB is the direction of the rush hour in the evenings. There was adequate signing saying the left lane was closed ahead and traffic. I can see a lawyer saying "Well if they didn't do the construction so early in the night this accident wouldn't have happened."

If that was the case, no work could ever be done...ever.  There's traffic jams at some construction zones at 2am.

Lawyers can say a lot of shit. But the judge will look at all the evidence.  Adequate signage is usually enough.  It's also hard to explain away how someone sitting in traffic for 2 miles suddenly was unaware of a construction zone issue.  In fact, many construction zone incidents have occurred earlier on in the jam, especially where traffic starts slowing down, which may be prior to any signage.  For a great example here, look up the Tracy Morgan accident on the NJ Turnpike.

For the most part, transportation agencies cannot be held responsible under state laws for such accidents.  Or, the amount that they are responsible for is seriously limited.  A jury could rule the DOT has to pay $100 million, but if state law says they're limited to $100, then the jury's ruling is basically symbolic.

I suspect in the link tradephoric provided, the jury must've had a lot of sympathy due to the nature of the accident...the mom of the bride being severely injured. It should be noted though that the state ultimately wasn't responsible.  The private contractor was.  And that may have changed depending on the appeals...if it's even settled yet.  In some cases, a smaller award is better, because the guilty party will just pay it.  Overly high awards find themselves in appeals courts for a very long time.  In the meantime, the family continues to suffer.

[Duke87]

Would also depend on the law in the particular state. You know how Connecticut's construction ahead signs always contain the phrase "state liability limited"? The cited statute says this:

Any person using a state highway or bridge which has been designated as closed or restricted under the provisions of section 13a-115 shall do so at his own risk except with respect to any injury or loss not traceable to a defect caused in the process of construction, reconstruction or repair.

So in the case of the OP's example, no. The state could not be held liable.

[briantroutman]

It does depend on state laws, but DOTs are open to significant liability and are forced to pay billions in damages annually.

As with DOT liability regarding any kind of a highway accident (in a construction zone or otherwise), whether or not the state is at fault depends on the DOT failing to do something within accepted standards. Usually, this comes down to violations of the MUTCD. For example, if the MUTCD specifies that a lane taper in a construction zone needs to be 1,000 feet and it was only 500, and two cars crash into each other at the merge point, both drivers can go after the DOT for damages because the merge area was insufficient.

To make matters worse many states have a concept known as joint and severable liability where if multiple parties are found partially at fault, the damaged party can go after any one party for all of the damages. In other words, let's say a lane taper is shorter than the MUTCD specifies–and a drunk driver smashes into two other cars at the merge point, killing five people. The jury decides that the drunk driver was 90% at fault and the DOT was 10% at fault...and the jury awards the families a total of $10 million in damages. Knowing that the drunk driver is penniless, the families can go after the DOT for every cent of the damage award, even though the accident was overwhelmingly the fault of a third party.

This FHWA video goes into detail on the topic.

[jeffandnicole]

It does depend on state laws, but DOTs are open to significant liability and are forced to pay billions in damages annually.

Sources and examples please.

[briantroutman]

^ I'm taking my information from the FHWA video I linked in my post. At one point in the video, the FHWA talking head refers to a "recent AASHTO study"  that indicated that the aggregated liability arising from tort claims in 40 of the 50 states totaled over $7 billion. The talking head emphasized that this number didn't include the tort liabilities of counties and municipalities, which he claimed would amount to "millions more" .

For some reason, I thought that the video specified that the $7 billion number referred four-year period (which would correlate to over $1.75 billion per year), although in rewatching it, I notice that they don't specify a time frame for the study period. But at the extreme, let's assume the $7 billion covers a half-century. That still equals over a $150 million per year–not a trivial sum.

And I have reason to think that the true annual number for all fifty states is much higher. Another FHWA video (jump to 11:22) cites a PennDOT report that, in 1985 alone, the Commonwealth payed out over $20 million in judgements specifically related to traffic sign deficiencies. Since the video specifically references "traffic sign deficiencies" , we might assume that this number doesn't include judgements against PennDOT related to other deficiencies, such as design or maintenance issues.