Road Design

o Highway Barrier failure

Aguirre v. State of Arizona: A twenty-one (21) year old man was operating a 1990 Honda Coupe on State Route 51, while his five (5) year old brother was the passenger in the vehicle. As the driver neared an area of State Route 51, the vehicle’s tire separated thereby sending the vehicle unexpectedly onto the unprotected median lacking any kind of separating barrier. The vehicle then crossed the median strip and traveled into the northbound lanes of traffic onto State Route 51 this caused several northbound vehicles to violently crash against the young man’s vehicle, both passengers died as a result of the accident. The settlement is subject to a non-disclosure agreement.

Cruz v. State of Arizona: In 2004 a person was driving a 1999 Chevrolet southbound on State Route 101 on the inside lane when he lost control of his vehicle and left the area of the southbound freeway, crossed into the median area and went under the cable barrier in the median and into the oncoming traffic. He ultimately collided with the vehicle driven by our Plaintiff.

DDefendant State of Arizona had a non-delegable duty in the design, installation, construction and maintenance of our freeway median barriers. In August of 1999, Defendant State of Arizona, through Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) determined that the freeway in the median area should be modified given the frequency and severity of cross over accidents and the exposure to such accidents caused by the heavy traffic volume. Defendant State of Arizona, through ADOT, adopted guidelines which required median barriers for medians which were fifty (50) feet or less.

ADOT thereafter chose a flexible three carrier barrier system for the medians on State Route 101 and decided that the median carrier barriers be installed down the center line of the median. Defendant State of Arizona through ADOT, was negligent in the selection of a three-cable median barrier for State Route 101, near Milepost 3, in that employees of ADOT knew or should have known that the cable barriers were the least effective barrier in preventing cross over collisions, particularly on uneven terrain and slopes that place one side of the freeway higher than the other.

Case is still ongoing.

o Negligent Design of Highway

Lyftogt v. State of Arizona: The amounts paid in settlement of this case are subject to a non-disclosure agreement.

[view image] | [view image]

Video:

[quicktime]
[windows media]
[real audio]

Cleary v. State of Arizona: This tragic crash occurred in 2004. Decedent was driving his company’s tractor-trailer rig from northbound Interstate 17, to the westbound I-10 via Interstate 17 on Ramp 200 A1-1. This ramp consists of two lanes, divided by a broken white line, and has an up-hill elevation plus a super elevation. Witnesses to the accident stated that Decedent was not speeding, but appeared to lose control of the tractor-trailer rig, which “rode” the right barrier wall for a distance, and then suddenly flipped over the right barrier wall. According to the investigating officer, the barrier wall at this location is about 2 feet 11 inches tall.

The State of Arizona, by and through its engineers, including the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), knew that the freeway configuration at this location, including I-17 Ramp 200 A1-1 and its barrier walls, created an inherently dangerous condition for motorists. But they failed to remedy or rectify the situation.

Defendant State of Arizona was negligent in the engineering, design, maintenance, of said roadway in that members of the general public would be placed in a dangerous situation likely to put life and limb in peril. Defendant State of Arizona is strictly liable for failing to design and construct said bridge/overpass railing in conformance with local, state, national, and/or industry and other safety standards. Moreover, the bridge railing, also known as longitudinal barrier, is unreasonably dangerous and does not comply with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, including specifically NCHRP Report 350 and others.

The amounts paid in settlement of this case are subject to a non-disclosure agreement.

[view image] | [view image] | [view image] | [view image | [view image]

Video:

[windows media]