Better Roads Digital Magazine
Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/85910
the state highways are under the jurisdiction and control of MHTC. In this case, MHTC did all the design work and contracted with APAC to execute its plan. However, the jury found that APAC knew, or had reason to know, the 1¾-inch uneven lane height was dangerous and that signs warning of that condition should have been used. APAC's general superintendent, Jason Stasny, testi- fied that uneven lane situations can be dangerous. He testified that APAC knew there were going to be un- even lanes, that this condition could exist for extended periods of time, and that he was familiar with federal standards suggesting contractors should try to allevi- ate uneven lane conditions within one operating day, or as soon as possible, because it can be dangerous to motorists. Stasny acknowledged that MHTC's 1999 stan- dard specifications, which were part of APAC's contract, provide: "[t]he contractor may, at no cost to the Commission, add to the traffic control plan any standard signs or traffic control devices that contrac- tor considers necessary to adequately pro- tect the public and the work." Stasny also ac- knowledged the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices provides that uneven lane signs should be used during operations anytime a difference in elevation between adjacent lanes is created. Another witness, an estimator for APAC and former inspector for MHTC, testified the uneven lanes created during the cold milling process can create a danger for motorists, that APAC could have requested additional signs, and that he had made such requests in the past. The plaintiff's engineering expert testified that studies going back to 1984 indicate uneven lanes can be unsafe and, at speeds of 45 mph or higher, even height differentials of one inch or less can be dangerous to motorcyclists. He testified that APAC's failure to act fell signs. This liability might have been avoided by a care- ful review of the contract and specifications, especially regarding traffic control issues. Brian Morrow is a partner in the California law firm of Newmeyer & Dillion LLP. He is a licensed California Civil Engineer, and specializes in the field of construction law, including road and heavy construction. Contact: brian. morrow@ndlf.com Better Roads February 2012 35b Better Roads February 2012 36 below the standard of care for contractors. APAC argued the evidence did not establish it had authority to unilaterally place warning signs, or that MHTC would have authorized signs if APAC had re- quested them. However, the testimony showed MHTC would have taken seriously any request for additional safety signs. The court found the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding, and therefore, affirmed the judgment against APAC for $250,000. This case highlights the importance of carefully reviewing and understanding a contract's language. The work of road and highway contractors affects the traveling public on a continual basis. Traffic control is especially important as it directly impacts life-health- safety issues where the potential liability can be enor- mous. Here, despite APAC's general compliance with its contract obligations, it was found liable for significant damages due to its failure to request additional safety Road builders must review contract language carefully – to both protect motorists and themsalves.