| Atticus Grinch |
10-08-2009 04:45 PM |
Re: if i get hit by a car send this to johnny cochrane
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
(Post 402953)
so my own reading of fringey's progress has been in parallel with the city i work in making it be more dangerous to be a pedestrian.
right outside my office is a busy intersection. decades ago the decision was made to put a ped safety island in to break up crossing in one direction, such that right turning cars are forced to see peds.
a city planner a year or so ago decided that we need more green space and they eliminated the safety island. right turning cars whip around the corner, and even someone like me, with knowledge of the problem, almost gets hit every week or so. a first timer will get nailed sooner or later (hi adder!).
so my question is- can a city be sued for boneheaded changes to it roads- assume the city itself decided to make the safety island in the first place, but the decision makers are all dead now.
|
You have a public entity liability question and you go to Sebby? I'm hurt.
The full credit answer would take pages and even I would find it boring, but I'll try to kick it into a nutshell:
You start with sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is probably built into the state constitution. Then, because state legislatures are made up of trial lawyers who would have starved if it were only that easy, you look for a waiver statute. It will say "No public entity or official shall be liable for a dangerous condition of public property unless . . . want of care, etc." It will look like an immunity statute but is actually the only basis for liability because governments are not liable in tort ("I'm a SHAAARK! Suck my dick! I'm a SHAAARK!") but can be liable pursuant to a statute. So if you can plead your way into a government claim, you're in court.
But wait, you're not done; some states (California {cough}) have something called Design Immunity, which says that if a public entity made a decision to have a project designed in a particular way, it is assumed that it weighed the benefits, risks, and costs with the public's overall interest in mind, and a court cannot declare it negligent for a city to have installed a 3 ft. barrier wall just because a retained engineer would testify that a 7 ft. wall that would have been uglier and cost four times more would have prevented the individual plaintiff from being decapitated. This is what we in the public entity biz call the "can't make an omelette without decapitating some pedestrians" rule. This particular immunity only extends to injuries caused by a conscious decision to design the project in a particular way, and does not cover failure to maintain, etc. Also, your state might believe that 100% of the public fisc should be spent avoiding remote risks of injury, so YMMV.
|