From Tech Transfer Newsletter, Spring 2006 » printer-friendly

Tort Report: What You Can Do to Help Protect Your Agency from Tort Liability Claims

By Jeanne Scherer, Assistant Chief Counsel, Caltrans Tort Litigation and Risk Management

A tort is a wrongful act, either intentional or accidental, that injures another. Since most civil litigation arises from torts, saving your agency money and avoiding litigation can be as simple as learning about situations where others were found liable for torts, and avoiding those mistakes. The following hypothetical situations are based on actual cases and provide clear and informative examples of ways to prevent liability.

The Case of the Interfering Sign

Ryan Moe, an 18-year-old student transporting his professor, Dr. Shoe, came to a temporary stop at the intersection of Hiland Rd. and Machu Way, then pulled out into the intersection, directly into the path of an oncoming truck. Both Mr. Moe and Dr. Shoe were killed. The parents of Mr. Moe and the wife and daughter of the professor sued the highway department for a combined total of several million dollars.

"In the first place," plaintiffs argued, "there should have been an interchange, not an at-grade intersection. And if not an interchange, the location should at least have been equipped with traffic signals."

"Moreover," alleged the families, "a large 'Wrong Way Do Not Enter' sign blocked Moe's sight distance. He never saw the truck. The highway department is at fault."

"It was reasonable to construct this intersection without an interchange—there wasn't enough money" exclaimed the highway folks. "We installed signals two months after this accident, but that was a timely installation, based on information available. Mr. Moe just didn't survey the traffic carefully before pulling out. Not our fault!"

But when investigators took a good look, the view of a driver stopped at the limit line on Hiland Road was, in fact, completely blocked by the "Wrong Way Do Not Enter" sign. Mr. Moe apparently looked to his left and didn't see the truck, then looked to the right for other traffic and didn't see anything. So, he pulled out into the intersection and was broadsided. This one cost the highway department a fair amount of money.

Tort Report: Designers and sign crews: do a visual check for sight-distance obstructions before and after the sign goes into the ground. It might save a life.

The Case of the Kinky Thermoplastic

Carol Ann Doe, a self-employed labor relations consultant and part-time model, was driving alone along Route 800 when, for unknown reasons, her car veered across the centerline and plowed head-on into a vehicle driven by George David Goe, ejecting his girlfriend Monique Soeby, who died from injuries within two hours. Ms. Doe suffered massive injuries to her face and multiple injuries to her arms and legs.

Ms. Doe sued Caltrans and several other defendants for over a million dollars. "The State, without any plausible explanation, narrowed the westbound lane by installing a thermoplastic strip, and then improperly placed a shoulder stripe that necked the lane down and produced a "kink" in it. And not only that, Caltrans' own sign logs called for a warning/advisory speed sign package that had not been there for two years. Our client was confused," said her attorney.

"No way," responded the highway department. "Ms. Doe was negligent. She wasn't driving with due care and she caused the accident herself. We owe nothing!"

Unfortunately, area media had kept up a drumbeat about the potential safety problems at this location for months, so potential jurors would have been well aware of the problems. Caltrans had no choice but to settle for a reasonable amount.

Tort Report: The sign at this location had been missing for two-and-a-half years. Caltrans could have discovered the problem sooner by conducting periodic statewide surveillance with a sign log.

The Case of the Tell-Tale Testifiers

At 6 a.m. on a rural county road intersecting a state route, James Boe failed to see a stop sign in time to stop. When he did realize it was there, he decided to "blow through the intersection because at that time of the morning there was't anyone else on the road."

Unfortunately there was someone on the road: Nigel Noe, whose car arrived at the intersection at the same time. Noe was killed.

At trial, the parents of the deceased driver tried to convince the jury that the stop sign was obstructed by bushes, a power pole and guy line, and various handmade 'For Sale' signs put up by nearby residents. "The 'stop ahead' pavement markings on the county road had not been replaced since the last repaving, more than a year before the accident," they alleged.

But just a minute. At trial, the state's stencil and sign crew supervisors were able to explain their inspection routine and to document the fact that the signs and markings complied with the requirements at that time. The state's engineers could also show how decisions were made about the placement of the stop sign.

Sorry, plaintiffs. The jury was convinced that this accident happened solely because of driver error and that the driver's view of the stop sign was not obstructed. The jury ruled that the state acted reasonably in its inspections and remedial actions. No state liability.

Tort Report: In any legal action, it is important to be able to show that there is a reasonable, rational process for what you do and to document that you have complied with that process.

Reprinted with permission. Copyright, 2004, California Department of Transportation. This article is not intended to provide any legal advice and is not to be relied on by any third party. The names of people and locations have been changed for privacy reasons.

© 2008 Regents of the University of California