![]() |
|
Road Injury Prevention & Litigation Journal Copyright © 1999 by TranSafety, Inc. |
|
May, 1999 TranSafety, Inc. (360) 683-6276 Fax: (360) 683-6719 info@usroads.com |
| (This legal summary of a case related to highway work zone safety is reproduced from the October 1988 (Volume VI, No. 10) issue of the TranSafety Reporter, published and edited by Roy W. Anderson, P.E. To find technical articles from the Reporter on work zone topics, please check on-line editions of the "Road Management and Engineering Journal" at this web site.) |
Robert A. Lamar, a laborer for Corrigan Company, was injured when a ditch caved in
on him while he was working on a sewer system for the city of St. Louis. He brought
suit against two private contractors, the local sewer board, and the city of St. Louis
alleging that each of the parties failed to reinforce the sides of the ditch and failed to
warn him about the condition of the ditch. The claims against the sewer board and the
private contractors were dismissed; this left just the city as a defendant. Lamar
amended his petition to include the allegation that the city had maintained a barricade,
manned by personnel, to keep traffic out of the lane adjacent to the ditch in which he
worked, but that the city had negligently removed both the barricade and the personnel
without warning him. After the protection had been removed, traffic vibrations caused
the ditch to cave in and left Lamar permanently injured.
The city asked for, and received, a summary judgment in the Circuit Court on the
grounds that its actions were immune under the governmental function of regulating
traffic. The Court of Appeals agreed that regulating traffic is an immune governmental
function, but determined that constructing sewers was a proprietary function and not
immune from tort liability.
For the higher court, then, the city's alleged negligence had to be judged not in light of
regulating traffic around a work zone, but rather as a proprietary function of creating
and maintaining a safe work zone. The court found that when engaged in constructing
a sewer, a city is involved in a proprietary function, and therefore has responsibility for
the protection of the public and the workers. In response to Lamar's interrogatories,
the city admitted that its Department of Public Utilities, Water Division, "had
responsibility for the work being performed at the excavation," and that the city "had
specifications for the project."
The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, finding that the city had been
granted such judgment on the wrong grounds. Protecting laborers in a work zone
constituted more than "regulating traffic." Lamar was given the right to a new trial.
[Lamar v. City of St. Louis, 53200 746 S.W.2d 160 Mo.App. 1988.] Marc S. Wallis, St. Louis (314-231-4800) represented Mr. Lamar.

Copyright © 1999 by TranSafety, Inc.