| (360) 683-6276 | Fax: (360) 683-6719 |
INDEX
April 1, 1998New York City Fails to Establish a Connection Between Construction Cones and Collision on Bridge
April 1, 1998
April 1, 1998
April 1, 1998
A motorist injured when a van struck his vehicle in a bridge construction zone sued the
City of New York for damages. The City filed a third-party claim against the
construction firm, contending that the absence of construction cones contributed to the
collision. The Supreme Court, New York County granted the bridge construction firm's
request for summary judgment. When the City appealed, the Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, First Department concluded that cones had been located at the scene of the
incident and that the presence or absence of such cones could not be determined to
have caused the collision.
Georgia Court Confirms Exception to Hearsay Rule
A motorist died after he lost control of his vehicle when it encountered water and mud
accumulated on the highway near a construction site. In the resulting lawsuit, the State
Court, Fulton County, Georgia, found for the motorist's wife and estate. The Court of
Appeals of Georgia affirmed that the construction company was liable for the condition
of the highway at the time of the incident and that the trial court had acted properly
regarding exception to hearsay testimony and an inconsistent pretrial statement by the
attending police officer.
New York County Found Liable for Not Maintaining Vegetation at Intersection
A motorist injured in an automobile collision at an intersection sued the County and
Village for negligence in maintaining the intersection. The Supreme Court of
Westchester County granted the County's and the Village's motions for summary
judgment. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department ruled that the
Village had no liability for the intersection. However, the court found that an unclear
issue about the County's responsibility did not release the County from liability for
failure to clear vegetation to maintain sight distance at the intersection.
Recommendations for Shoulder-Drop Delineations at Bridges
Slower drivers and drivers with emergencies sometimes travel on or near the road
shoulder. This may cause a problem when there is inadequate notice about shoulder
gaps--such as a "shoulder drop," a discontinuation of the paved shoulder across a
bridge span. Recent field tests studied driver behavior when a bridge shoulder drop
was marked with an edgeline taper/transverse marking delineation pattern. Drivers
encountering this pattern left the shoulder farther from the upcoming bridge than when
they only saw object markers or post-mounted delineators at the bridge. The research
resulted in a report, "Delineation at Bridges with Paved Shoulder Drops," by Gerald L.
Ullman and Val J. Pezoldt. The report appeared as Transportation Research Board
Paper No. 980721, prepared for the January 1998 meeting of the Transportation
Research Board in Washington, D.C.
negligence, appeals, highway, traffic, expert.
Edge drop, accident, collision, crash, edgedropoff, road construction, signs, signals, traffic control devices.
Accident Investigation, Expert Witness, Injury Litigation, Liability, Court, Roy Anderson, Transportation, National, Travel, law, legal, federal highways, road construction.