Blog

Road Construction Injuries

Posted by: euser
July 07, 2008
Topic: Minnesota Personal Injury

With all of the road construction this time of year, an injury to a motorist who is using a roadway under construction is a distinct possibility. A construction company or contractor may be held liable if it created a hazardous environment, did not properly warn motorists of the hazard, and injury resulted.

To make a case in an action for death or injury caused by failure to properly warn of road construction hazards, a plaintiff must generally prove four elements. First, the plaintiff must show that the road construction performed by the defendant created a hazard to motorists using the roadway. Potential hazards include holes in the road, debris or equipment in the roadway, an abnormal road surface condition, and traffic detours and diversions. It is generally unnecessary for the plaintiff to show that the defendant knew of the hazard because a defendant is automatically charged with notice of hazards that it created. A defendant does not have a responsibility to protect motorists from hazards that it did not create or that have arisen naturally.

Second, it must be shown that the defendant had a duty to warn of the hazard it had created. The traditional standard of duty required is to exercise ordinary and reasonable care to ensure that roads under construction are safe for motorists who are exercising reasonable care for their own safety. State statutes, ordinances, regulations. and the construction contract itself may impose more specific requirements, and the duty required may differ depending on whether the defendant is a governmental entity or private contractor. This duty is generally owed to all motor vehicle operators and passengers, as well as to pedestrians and bicyclists.

Third, a plaintiff must show that the defendant failed to provide adequate signs, signals, or devices to warn of the hazard. Warning signals must be easily visible to an approaching motorist, not to someone who is standing still, and must give the motorists adequate time to respond to the oncoming hazard. The adequacy of a warning signal can be challenged in various ways, for example by arguing that it was not of sufficient size, was not positioned correctly, was obstructed from view, was not lighted or reflective for night driving, or did not comply with customary standards. Where the defendant had installed adequate warning signals that later became missing or dysfunctional, the plaintiff may be required to show that the defendant had notice that they were no longer in place or were not functioning properly.

Fourth, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's failure to provide adequate warning of the hazard was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury or death. The defendant's failure need not necessarily be the sole cause of the injury, but must be a substantial factor.

A defendant has several defenses available in a lawsuit for failure to provide adequate warning of a road construction hazard. If the defendant is a governmental entity it may be protected by governmental immunity. This immunity may also be available to private contractors who contracted with a governmental entity and are working on behalf of the government. However, governmental immunity in this area has been waived by some states. Of course a defendant also has a defense if it did not have a duty to warn or if it fulfilled that duty.

In addition, the defendant may have a defense if the plaintiff's own negligence caused or partially caused the injury or death. This may be the case if the plaintiff was not attentive to road conditions, such that additional warnings would not have prevented the plaintiff's accident anyway. The plaintiff may also have been driving in a reckless or dangerous manner, such as speeding or driving while impaired. Lastly, the hazard may have been so open and obvious that its very presence was as effective as any warning sign would have been.

Minnesota has a statute of limitations for motor vehicle accidents, and your lawsuit could be time-barred if not commenced within the statutory period. The attorneys at Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz are experienced and knowledgeable in this area and can help to evaluate your potential claim today.