 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Long v. State6/29/2005
tricts the admissibility of information compiled for purposes of the Programs set forth in 23 U.S.C. §§§ 130, 144 and 152, which could be used against states in civil litigation.
Armed with the history of the federal legislation which impacts this matter, we now turn to the arguments raised in the case sub judice.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
The DOTD sets forth three (3) assignments of error. In the first assignment of error, the DOTD asserts that Letters 2 and 3 reflecting correspondence between its office and the mayor are inadmissible under 23 U.S.C. § 409. In the second assignment of error, the DOTD argues that it is not responsible for the condition of the railroad crossing at issue and that plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence regarding the DOTD's duty to maintain or upgrade the railroad crossing or breach thereof. Finally, the DOTD submits that the jury erred in assigning the majority of fault to the DOTD for plaintiffs' damages.
Admissibility of Letters Under 23 U.S.C. §409
The DOTD argues that the letters between its office and the mayor of Bonita are inadmissible pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §409. This court has previously addressed the applicable scope of § 409 and its amendments.
In Reichert v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Dev., 96-1419 (La. 5/20/97), 694 So.2d 193, this Court considered the admissibility of certain exhibits, alleged privileged under § 409, in light of Congress' 1995 amendment to the statute. In Reichert, plaintiffs sought to introduce several exhibits which plaintiffs maintained showed actual or constructive knowledge on the part of the DOTD of a hazardous condition at the accident site. The trial court allowed the exhibits into evidence over the DOTD's objection. This court reversed, concluding that § 409 bars discovery and introduction of all information compiled by the state for the purpose of obtaining federal funds to enforce safety at roadway/railroad crossings.
The Reichert exhibits, as in the instant case, consisted in part, of letters between the DOTD and a municipality. The court reviewed each of the specific documents, explaining:
Exhibit 29 contains a letter dated May 14, 1992, from DOTD's chief engineer to a state representative, and discusses a traffic safety study at the intersection where the instant accident occurred. This exhibit included an attached report compiled from the study, which includes a recommendation and proposed budget for the installation of a flashing beacon. Exhibit 33 contains a letter dated March 21, 1985, from DOTD's chief engineer responding to the request for a flashing beacon at the same intersection. This exhibit includes a report discussing the results of a traffic volume study and concluding that the volume at that intersection did not dictate a need for a flashing beacon. Moreover, this report states that a review of DOTD's accident files revealed no abnormal or unusual conditions at the intersection. Exhibit 36 contains a letter dated March 2, 1988, from DOTD which states that additional reports based on traffic volume studies and surveys failed to demonstrate a need for the installation of traffic control devices at that intersection. Finally, Exhibit 37, a letter dated February 24, 1988, from DOTD, recommends against a flashing beacon based on the results from a spot speed study, a traffic volume study, a sight distance study and a review of the accident record for the one-year evaluation period.
Reichert, 96-1419 p. 5, 694 So.2d at 198. Although two of the letters in Reichert had reports attached to them, the other two letters had no exhibits and merely discussed information regarding upgrading the roadway/railroad crossing at issue
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|