That time an LA artist fixed a confusing downtown freeway sign

[HighwayStar]

No doubt, but it would be nonetheless interesting to find out what level of force it would take for dismemberment.  I'm sure once that level of force is a known value we can apply it to the sign to find out how much velocity it would need to achieve said mark. 

And, with that, we shall finally know if the damage caused by this guerilla-mounted sign falling off would be enough of a potential liability to justify the DOT's apparent refusal to extend a job offer to Mr Ankrom, or if that's really just a flimsy excuse proceeding silently from the mouth of an inept bureaucrat.

Not really. The shiftless workers they DO higher could just as easily have a sign they mounted fall off, perhaps even more likely since most of them clearly take far less pride in their work than this man does, and the DOT would still be on the hook for that.

[kphoger]

higher

Way to garner credibility.

perhaps even more likely since most of them clearly take far less pride in their work than this man does, and the DOT would still be on the hook for that.

Why do you assume an artist would be good at large-scale mounting hardware?  I mean, I wouldn't necessarily want Diego Rivera installing stoplight mast arms.

[Scott5114]

The shiftless workers they DO higher could just as easily have a sign they mounted fall off

If the workers aren't assigned a shift, they couldn't have mounted a sign to begin with.

[Avalanchez71]

No doubt, but it would be nonetheless interesting to find out what level of force it would take for dismemberment.  I'm sure once that level of force is a known value we can apply it to the sign to find out how much velocity it would need to achieve said mark. 

And, with that, we shall finally know if the damage caused by this guerilla-mounted sign falling off would be enough of a potential liability to justify the DOT's apparent refusal to extend a job offer to Mr Ankrom, or if that's really just a flimsy excuse proceeding silently from the mouth of an inept bureaucrat.

Not really. The shiftless workers they DO higher could just as easily have a sign they mounted fall off, perhaps even more likely since most of them clearly take far less pride in their work than this man does, and the DOT would still be on the hook for that.

The DOT would be on the hook, however, they have some insulated in sovereign immunity barring blatant negligence.  The artist doesn't have the deep pockets that the state has and an attorney could say that the artist was negligent as he did not have the same protocols and tools in place.  I understand that his work was done to spec but the sheer hammer of a lawsuit to one's pockets is enough to sway a future artist.


I know he could do some good work in Tennessee in the Chattanooga area in particular.  Some of Nashville needs work as well.  The US routes in those towns are marked well in some areas to incorrectly or not marked at all in other areas.  Tennessee has a proclivity of retaining US routes and most often with few exceptions in the towns as well.

[Rothman]

Sovereign immunity differs state to state.  Can't remember where California falls in the spectrum between "Anyone with a nickel can sue" to "I laugh as my big man takes you out."

[Occidental Tourist]

Sovereign immunity differs state to state.  Can't remember where California falls in the spectrum between "Anyone with a nickel can sue" to "I laugh as my big man takes you out."

They have a tort claims act but it excludes certain types of negligence and dangerous conditions.  I can't really nutshell it for you.  The bottom line under California law is that the state would not be liable unless the injured party could show that Caltrans had notice that the sign was negligently installed or maintained, and in this case, to show negligent installation, it would likely have to be shown that it had notice of something more than just the fact that the sign had been installed.  You'd have to start reviewing inspection logs, inspection policies, and internal communications about the particular sign assembly in question. You might even have to elicit testimony about how Caltrans's sign installation procedures vary from generally accepted sign installation procedures and how much this variance does or doesn't contribute to motorist safety and longevity of the installation.  If Caltrans believes or represents that its sign installation policies result in a generally safer condition than the usual method of affixing a metal shield to a porcelain sign, then this could be evidence that Caltrans had a duty to inspect the installation of the rogue shield to ensure that the rogue shield's method of installation met Caltrans's standards.

Let me know if you haven't fallen asleep yet.

[Scott5114]

Given that Caltrans left Ankrom's sign up until the panel it was affixed to was due for replacement, and we know from media interviews that they were aware of it, I can only assume that they sent an inspection team out to look at it and found no deficiencies in Ankrom's work that would lead them to conclude it was a liability.

Of note is that sign contract documents I have seen often contain specs for standard mounting hardware, so this is something Ankrom may have had access to. It's entirely possible his installation job was indistinguishable from one Caltrans would have done.

[sparker]

The story referenced in the OP states that Ankrom had a lot of drilling to do in order to mount the shield to the BGS in question.  This seems to indicate that the attachment method was pretty damn robust -- either he tapped the sign with a threading bit and used machine screws or simply drilled out starter holes and used reasonably large (#12 or better) long shallow-thread sheet metal screws for the installation.  Either way, it sounds like the aluminum shield wouldn't have come down in any instance short of a gantry collapse and/or earthquake! -- in other words, if the sign as a whole stayed up, the shield would follow suit.  Of course that wouldn't satisfy the minutiae of legal requirements,  but the chances of an incident involving just the shield would have been virtually negligible.  I wouldn't have been surprised if his attachment method was more secure than with D7's sign shop!  FWIW, I saw that sign numerous times from 2001 until I left SoCal in 2012; if I hadn't known about its history, I would have assumed it was an authorized modification.     

[Rothman]

Sovereign immunity differs state to state.  Can't remember where California falls in the spectrum between "Anyone with a nickel can sue" to "I laugh as my big man takes you out."

They have a tort claims act but it excludes certain types of negligence and dangerous conditions.  I can't really nutshell it for you.  The bottom line under California law is that the state would not be liable unless the injured party could show that Caltrans had notice that the sign was negligently installed or maintained, and in this case, to show negligent installation, it would likely have to be shown that it had notice of something more than just the fact that the sign had been installed.  You'd have to start reviewing inspection logs, inspection policies, and internal communications about the particular sign assembly in question. You might even have to elicit testimony about how Caltrans's sign installation procedures vary from generally accepted sign installation procedures and how much this variance does or doesn't contribute to motorist safety and longevity of the installation.  If Caltrans believes or represents that its sign installation policies result in a generally safer condition than the usual method of affixing a metal shield to a porcelain sign, then this could be evidence that Caltrans had a duty to inspect the installation of the rogue shield to ensure that the rogue shield's method of installation met Caltrans's standards.

Let me know if you haven't fallen asleep yet.

I researched this stuff for my capstone project in grad school.  I was just too lazy to pull it out.

[ClassicHasClass]

Given that Caltrans left Ankrom's sign up until the panel it was affixed to was due for replacement, and we know from media interviews that they were aware of it, I can only assume that they sent an inspection team out to look at it and found no deficiencies in Ankrom's work that would lead them to conclude it was a liability.

Of note is that sign contract documents I have seen often contain specs for standard mounting hardware, so this is something Ankrom may have had access to. It's entirely possible his installation job was indistinguishable from one Caltrans would have done.

Contemporary media reports indicate Caltrans did send out such a team, and while I don't know if it was indistinguishable from their standard work (though it wouldn't surprise me), they determined the mounting job was sufficient such that it could remain.