San Francisco Accident Attorneys

Among its various duties, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for the planning, design, construction, maintenance, repair, and management of more than 45,000 miles of California’s highways and freeways. Caltrans and its predecessors have been active in moving the people and commerce of California for more than 100 years from a loosely connected web of footpaths and rutted wagon routes to the sophisticated system that today serves the transportation needs of more than 30 million residents.

Caltrans is legally responsible (“liable”) for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of its highways, freeways, and other roadways, if it could have anticipated (“reasonably foreseen”) that an accident could happen and a person injured. It is also necessary to prove that Caltrans had actual or constructive notice of the condition a sufficient amount of time before the injury to take preventive measures.

Caltrans has “actual notice” of a dangerous condition if it has actual knowledge of the existence of the condition and knew or should have known of its dangerous character. “Constructive notice” means that the dangerous condition had existed long enough and was obvious enough that Caltrans, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the condition and its dangerous character.

In cases against Caltrans arising from the dangerous condition of a roadway, Caltrans can escape liability if it meets the criteria of the “design immunity” defense. In practice, if you were injured due to the fault of Caltrans, it is highly likely that Caltrans will assert the defense of design immunity in an attempt to defeat your claim.

To succeed with a design immunity defense, Caltrans must prove three elements: (1) that the approved plan or design was a cause of the accident; (2) that an authorized governmental body, officer, or employee gave his or her discretionary approval to the plan or design before construction began; and (3) substantial evidence supports the reasonableness of the plan.

The “causal relationship” element requires proof that the alleged design defect was responsible for the accident, as opposed to some other independent cause. For instance, designing a curve so tightly that it is likely that traffic will run off the road while trying to negotiate the turn could be a cause of an accident occasioned thereby.

“Discretionary approval” simply means actual approval of the design in advance of construction by the legislative body or officer having the discretionary authority to approve or disapprove of the plan and design. A detailed plan drawn up by a competent engineering firm or registered civil engineer, and approved by the district and state officials in the exercise of their discretionary authority, is persuasive evidence of both elements of prior approval and reasonableness for purposes of the design immunity defense. However, design immunity is not a valid defense where the approved plan did not include the design feature that caused the accident. Also, where the approved plan includes some safety feature, such as the installation of guardrails along a steep, winding off-ramp, but the guardrails are not installed, Caltrans may be held liable for failing to install the safety feature as required by the plan.

The third element, that substantial evidence supports the reasonableness of the plan, is a question of law for the court to decide. “Substantial evidence” has been defined as “evidence of solid value which reasonably inspires confidence.” As long as reasonable minds can differ concerning whether a design should have been approved, then Caltrans must be granted immunity. Ordinarily, the opinion of a civil engineer as to the reasonableness of a design constitutes “any substantial evidence” sufficient to support Caltrans’ design immunity defense.

The issue is whether there is any reasonable basis on which a reasonable Caltrans official could initially have approved the design. As long as there is any substantial basis on which a Caltrans official could have decided the design was reasonable, it is irrelevant that a contrary opinion might have been offered. Where reasonable minds can differ concerning whether a design should have been approved, then Caltrans is granted immunity. The fact that on hindsight the advice may prove to have been flawed is not a basis for imposing liability on Caltrans.

Once Caltrans has established design immunity, it is incumbent upon the injured victim (through his or her attorney) to prove that there was a change in physical conditions since the original plan was designed, approved, and constructed that made the highway or freeway dangerous. Design immunity is not permanent; as one court stated, “The Legislature did not intend that public entities should be permitted to shut their eyes to the operation of a plan or design once it has been transferred from blueprint to blacktop.” Caltrans may not hide its head ostrich-like in the blueprints and ignore the actual operation of the plan. Once Caltrans has notice that the plan or design, under changed physical conditions, has produced a dangerous condition of public property, it must act reasonably to correct or alleviate the hazard.

To demonstrate the loss of design immunity, the injured person must prove three things: (1) that the plan or design has become dangerous because of a change in physical conditions; (2) Caltrans had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition thereby created; and (3) Caltrans had a reasonable time to obtain the funds and carry out the necessary remedial work to bring the property back into conformity with a reasonable design or plan, or Caltrans, unable to remedy the condition due to practical impossibility or lack of funds, had not reasonably attempted to provide adequate warnings.

Simply pointing out as a general proposition that considerable time has passed and that the traffic volume, size and type of vehicles using the road, and speed of traffic are greater now than they were when the design was originally approved is not enough to show a change in physical conditions. Data such as increased population, along with evidence of increased traffic volumes and an increased number of accidents only show that an area is becoming more urbanized; it does not show a significant physical change.

The issue often boils down to whether the injured victim can show an increase in accidents that is “statistically aberrant,” that is, unusual or excessive in some respect. For example, a change in condition was found where there was an increase in the volume of traffic and 13 accidents occurred in six months at an intersection, which accounted for 14 percent of all traffic fatalities in the city. In another case, an intersection averaged twice as many accidents as similar intersections in the state; in the 18 months preceding the accident in which the victim was injured, 47 accidents resulted in five deaths and 89 injuries. This was found to constitute a change in physical condition causing a dangerous condition, resulting in Caltrans losing its design immunity and being held financially responsible for the victim’s injuries.

Suppose you are driving down a highway or freeway where the opposing lanes of travel are separated by a grass or gravel median. Another car sideswipes your vehicle, causing you to lose control, cross the median strip, and run straight into oncoming traffic, resulting in serious injuries to you or the death of a loved one. You sue Caltrans claiming that, if the median had had a concrete barrier, guardrail, or other type of barrier, it would have prevented the accident, and your injuries from hitting the median barrier would have been much less severe than being hit by opposing traffic.

The requirement that Caltrans install a median barrier is not as simple as it may seem. Rather than simply install barriers on every median, the State has taken the more scientific approach set forth in “warrants,” which are guidelines for determining whether to install a median. Whether a median barrier should be constructed is based on the number of vehicles using the road each day (the average daily traffic, or ADT), the width of the median, and the number and types of accidents occurring at or near the site to identify freeway segments where the benefit of a barrier may outweigh the expected detriment.

A median barrier is not without its own dangers, however. Not only does the placement of a median barrier cut in half the recovery room for an out of control vehicle, it is also a fixed object that can cause serious injuries and/or fatalities when struck either directly or by deflecting the careening vehicle back into traffic. Analyses and comparisons of pre-barrier and post-barrier accident histories have consistently shown that the addition of a median barrier increases the median accident rate by an average of 30 percent on freeways and 50 percent on expressways. Cross-median accidents (i.e., those without a median barrier), however, tend to be more severe than other types of collisions, including hit-barrier accidents. Median barriers are a trade-off. They prevent nearly all cross-median accidents, but usually result in an overall increase in accidents and injuries. The challenge, therefore, is to balance the reduction of accident severity against a greater frequency of accidents and injuries.

When a highway or freeway design is properly approved and built without a median barrier, the State monitors it annually to determine whether subsequent placement of a median barrier may result in a safety benefit. Each year, through its “Median Barrier Monitoring System,” the State reviews the entire State highway system and identifies those locations that meet the accident warrant (guidelines) and the volume-of-traffic/width-of-median warrant. The State then notifies each district of the road segments in their area that met either warrant based on data collection the previous year. The district engineers conduct detailed reviews and field investigations and recommend to the State whether or not a barrier should be installed at the identified locations. The State reviews the district recommendations for statewide uniformity and availability of funding and makes a final decision with the district regarding installation of a median barrier at the identified locations.

It usually takes several years between the decision to install a median barrier and completion of the project. This delay is the result of statutory time constraints imposed on the state by the Public Contracts Code, as well as the practical amount of time required to plan, design, budget, fund, advertise, award, and construct the project. However, in many cases a good argument can be made that Caltrans could and should have installed a temporary barrier prior to the accident in question.

The California Government Code generally relieves Caltrans from liability for injuries arising from the failure to provide traffic or warning signals, signs, markings, or devices. However, liability may exist for failure to provide such a sign, signal, or device where the condition constitutes a “trap” to a person using the highway or freeway with due care. The failure to post a warning sign, install traffic signals, or take some other measures is required where there is a dangerous condition that endangers the safe movement of traffic, and the dangerous condition was not reasonably apparent to, and would not have been anticipated by, a person using due care for his or her own safety.

For example, in one case, a motorist was driving down a desert road, did not see a stop sign, and continued forward and hit an embankment, suffering serious injuries. The intersection was a “T”-style intersection, and despite the fact that there had been eight traffic accidents at the same intersection in the 21 months before the man’s accident, Caltrans failed to put up proper signs warning that the road ended. The jury found that Caltrans was negligent in failing to erect proper warning signs and awarded the seriously injured man, who was rendered bedridden as a result of the injuries, over $10 million.

In another case, Caltrans was held liable for injuries resulting from its failure to post a warning sign of an impending intersection. The evidence showed that Caltrans had once posted such a warning sign, but that it had been missing for four years before the accident and Caltrans failed to replace it, even though it had a number of opportunities to do so. The jury found that a properly placed warning sign could have prevented the accident.

Caltrans must also maintain the vegetation and shrubbery surrounding traffic control and regulatory signs so that they do not obscure the signs, and must replace a missing or broken sign within a reasonable amount of time after getting actual or constructive notice that it is missing or broken.

If you have been injured or a loved one killed in an accident involving the design, construction, repair, or maintenance of a highway or freeway under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, you should contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible. Because Caltrans is a division of the State of California (i.e., a public entity), it is generally necessary to file a claim for damages with the proper governmental agency within six months of the date of the incident. An experienced personal injury attorney will know how and where to file this claim on your behalf.

It is also important to contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible after the accident, as the law firm may want to send its own investigator to the scene of the accident to inspect and take pictures of the accident site and any dangerous condition that caused or contributed to the accident, especially before Caltrans changes the condition. The attorney or his or her investigator will also want to talk to any witnesses to the accident while the facts are still fresh in their minds.

An experienced personal injury law firm can also help with seeing to it that you obtain appropriate and thorough medical care for your physical, emotional, and psychological injuries suffered as a result of the accident. They can also do everything possible to ensure that you obtain full compensation for your medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, property damage, lost wages, and all of your other injuries and damages.