Claim For Damages
Admittedly, I’ve not had a chance to blog recently. However, I was reminded of my goal to write about claims against the government, when reading about a recent $20 million claim by a WA state inmate against the City of Tacoma for excessive force.
Claims against government in WA State have unique requirements
Laws applicable to suits against governmental entities in Washington are unique in requiring the filing of a Claim for Damages (using the Standard Tort Claim Form) and waiting 60 days before filing suit. This requirement is jurisdictional and a failure to file the claim and/or to wait the 60 days has been fatal to some unsafe roadway cases.
Under RCW 4.92.100(1) as amended in 2009, claims against the State must now be presented on a standard tort claim form. The statute requires the Office of Financial Management to “maintain” the form and put it on its website.
Claims against the local governments may be presented on either the state’s standard tort claim form or a form provided by the local government, under RCW 4.96.020(3)(c).
I’ll write more about this in the coming days/weeks, as there is much to cover.
Posted in 
Municipalities Need to Monitor & Respond to Changing Conditions
On days like today, I’m reminded of why the Pacific Northwest is a top tourist destination during the late spring and summer. Unlike 10 years ago, however, downtown Seattle remains lively through the evenings. This means more street traffic as well as a lot more foot traffic exists in many neighborhoods in and near the city’s core.
Cities need to monitor changing conditions in traffic volume.
Increasing traffic volumes. A new mall near what used to be a subdued area of downtown. A new school with kids now crossing a busy street by the school. Municipalities need to monitor and respond to changing conditions, as what was once a safe street may have grown hazardous.
An unsafe condition develops when the lack of gaps in major street traffic creates frustration for turning vehicles or pedestrians attempting to cross the street, with people forced to use their bodies to challenge oncoming traffic to slow or stop.
Do cars turning left to get to the new mall need left-turn channelization and a left-turn green arrow? Have there been left-turning collisions (failure to yield right of way) because there simply were inadequate gaps in traffic to safely turn within a reasonable waiting period? Is a pedestrian-actuated traffic signal needed to provide protected crossing for students?
Has a street become so busy that a pedestrian refuge island is needed halfway across?
Vehicle counts and collision data are just facts that governmental entities need to stay on top of, to identify needs for corrective measures.
Well-qualified transportation engineers are familiar not only with the tools available to state and local road departments for solutions, but they are also aware of applicable standards, warrants and requirements for the safe operation of streets and highways. A violation of those standards, warrants and requirements, without a valid excuse, is evidence of negligence.
Initial Design Errors
Sometimes roads are just wrong to begin with.
A sharply curved road can lead to cars leaving the roadway
- A curve banked in a manner that results in cars leaving the roadway
- An unnecessarily sharp curve
- A combination of vertical and horizontal curves that places a sharp horizontal curve at the crest of a vertical curve
- A road that conflicts with pedestrian traffic
- A bridge without a sidewalk for pedestrians
- A highway with a steep embankment
- A road with a series of trees or utility poles right next to the lane of travel
In some cases, the design started out okay (back in the 1920s). But design inadequacies under current standards should be identified and corrected when the opportunity arises.
While it’s true that our streets and highways don’t need to be brought to compliance with design standards immediately, new requirements for roadway safety should be implemented when a significant project is undertaken. At that point, the project engineer should look around to assess and correct all substandard conditions. And, until substandard conditions are corrected, a municipality needs to post warning signs or implement an interim solution.
Excerpt from my Highway Design Liability booklet. Contact me, if you’d like a copy free of charge.
The Duty to Provide Safe Roads
The law is clear in Washington State: Our street and highway departments have a “duty to provide reasonably safe roads and this duty includes the duty to safeguard against an inherently dangerous or misleading condition.”
An intersection with a history of collisions suggests that the road is unreasonably hazardous.
What are some of these conditions?
- Intersections with a history of collisions that show an obvious need of a traffic signal or signs, to bring order to streets that converge and result in conflict,
- A steep embankment on a curve in need of a guardrail,
- A lack of chevrons to warn of a sudden sharp curve, or
- A cable median barrier on a 60-/70- mph highway that is wholly inadequate to redirect or even restrain errant cars to prevent innocent people from being hit head-on.
Important Practice Tip: Examine first-hand all aspects of the road where the collision occurred for design/operational problems before ever considering a settlement with a defendant driver that will destroy joint and several liability. Too often, I’m approached with the defendant’s $25K policy limits as an associating attorney’s “war chest” for a case against the State. Too late. Not to mention that $25K is a drop in the bucket in these very complex and expensive cases.
