Johnson v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV.
497 So. 2d 768, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 8064 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) breaches its duty to maintain roads in a safe condition when it creates a hazardous condition during construction, such as obscuring the roadway's shoulder, and fails to provide specific and adequate warnings about resulting perils like a narrow bridge abutment.
Facts:
- The State of Louisiana, through DOTD, contracted to have a four-mile stretch of U.S. Highway 167 overlaid with new asphalt.
- As part of the project, contractors removed guardrails from two bridges and the new asphalt overlay covered the existing white shoulder stripe, making the travel lane and the shoulder a uniform blacktop surface.
- The second bridge on the route was only two feet wider than the traveled portion of the highway, making it substantially narrower than the combined width of the road and shoulder.
- No new guardrails had been installed on the second bridge, and there were no signs warning of a narrow bridge, nor were there cones, barrels, or flashing lights to guide traffic.
- On August 31, 1983, at approximately 6:00 a.m., Eulid Johnson was driving his pickup truck with his wife, Ruby Johnson.
- Just before reaching the second bridge, Eulid Johnson told his wife, "I can't see the white line."
- The truck veered onto the shoulder portion of the road and collided with the bridge abutment, resulting in Eulid Johnson's death and Ruby Johnson's severe injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Ruby Thibodeaux Johnson and her children sued the State of Louisiana (DOTD) and its contractors in a Louisiana state trial court for wrongful death and personal injuries.
- The case was tried in a bifurcated proceeding, where a jury determined the decedent's fault and the judge determined DOTD's liability.
- The jury returned a verdict finding the decedent, Eulid Johnson, 100% at fault.
- The trial judge found DOTD liable under both negligence and strict liability, awarded the plaintiffs $361,259.42 in damages, and dismissed the claims against the contractors.
- The State of Louisiana (DOTD), as appellant, appealed the trial judge's final judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) breach its duty to maintain public roads in a safe condition by failing to provide adequate warnings, such as shoulder striping and specific hazard signs, for a narrow bridge abutment within a construction zone where the roadway surface has been recently and uniformly overlaid?
Opinions:
Majority - Knoll, J.
Yes, DOTD breached its duty to maintain public roads in a safe condition. The law imposes a duty on DOTD to keep roads safe and to provide adequate warnings of dangerous conditions, which includes protecting motorists who inadvertently drive onto the shoulder. By overlaying the roadway and the shoulder with uniform black asphalt and covering the shoulder stripe, DOTD created a hazardous condition. The hazard was that a prudent motorist could easily mistake the shoulder for a travel lane, especially when approaching a bridge abutment that was significantly narrower than the paved surface. The general construction signs were insufficient to warn of this specific, unusually perilous hazard. DOTD had constructive knowledge of the defect because its inspectors were present during the work, and the failure to provide specific warnings, such as narrow bridge signs or channelizing devices, constituted a breach of its duty. Eulid Johnson was not contributorily negligent, as his confusion was a direct result of the hazardous condition created by DOTD.
Dissenting - Domengeaux, J.
No, DOTD did not breach its duty; the decedent was 100% at fault. The plaintiffs failed to prove that the highway presented an unreasonable risk of harm. The area was a clearly marked construction zone with adequate signs warning of hazards and reduced speed. There were two hazard markers in the direct line of sight of the Johnson vehicle, one on the bridge abutment and another 100 feet before it. The Johnsons were familiar with the route and aware of the ongoing construction. The decedent admitted he was having trouble seeing but apparently did not slow down, which constitutes victim fault. The majority's holding improperly places DOTD in the position of an insurer for all motorist actions.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that a government entity's duty to warn extends beyond general notices of construction to specific, non-obvious hazards created by the construction itself. It underscores that the removal of key safety features like shoulder striping can, by itself, create an unreasonable risk of harm for which the state can be held liable. The decision makes it more difficult for a state transportation department to delegate its safety responsibilities entirely to contractors or to defend against liability by pointing to a driver's familiarity with a road. Future cases involving road construction hazards will likely cite this precedent to argue that specific, tailored warnings are required for any unusual dangers motorists may encounter.
