 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pandya v. State2/28/2005
n the center of the roadway, separating the opposing lanes of traffic, and placed in the middle of that gore was a"Jersey barrier" curb, a concrete structure designed to redirect a vehicle to remain on its side of the highway, aimed at avoiding crossover accidents."Rumble strips" were also cut into the pavement in the median area approaching the bridge, so that drivers crossing into the median would be alerted by the noise created when a vehicle drove onto the strips. Vegetation was cleared along the side of the road from the Tonnelle Avenue Circle to the Charlotte Circle, raised markers were installed in the roadway, and reflectors were installed along the Route 7 guardrail. These changes were made at an extra project cost of $77,936, authorized for payment out of accounts under Lyszczek's control. DOT correspondence seeking approval for making this expenditure on an emergency basis indicated that a"dangerous safety condition exists" on the roadway.
According to Lyszczek, all of the foregoing changes occurred at a point along Route 7 that was further east of the spot where Rahul's vehicle actually crossed over the center line on the highway; the crossover point was closer to where the bridge elevation began.
Thomas Saylor, a supervising engineer in the DOT's Bureau of Project Scope Development, was assigned in 1999 to the highway reconstruction project for building a new bridge. According to Saylor, the DOT's roadway standards included a minimum lane width of ten feet, although a width of at least twelve feet was desired (but not required) for modern designs, recognizing the larger size of many newer vehicles. Because Route 7 was twenty feet wide at the portion of the highway involved here, it was significant that a drawing should show"where the striping is" because there was a potential for two ten-foot wide lanes.
A computer printout was generated showing motor vehicle accidents on Route 7 between mileposts 0.300 and 0.500 between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2000. This three-page document listed accidents and various information about them, grouped as of milepost number. The first, listed at milepost 0.30 is labeled"near Wittpen Bridge," and similar descriptions appeared for some of the others up to and including one at milepost 0.41. It is hard to tell from this document how complete it is; it appears to show only one of the October 9, 2000, accidents and inaccurately counts the number of victims. For some accidents, a reason is given, such as"Dri Inattention" or"Failure to Yld ROW"; others indicate only"None" or"Other."
Plaintiffs also gathered some newspaper articles discussing the Luz and Rahul accidents and other accidents on Route 7, but the other accidents involved other parts of the highway and included instances of driver fault.
Ira S. Kuperstein, plaintiffs' expert in engineering, provided a report dated October 29, 2002. He noted that Rahul's vehicle followed a route through the Charlotte Circle"and its multiple merge/diverge points" toward"a notable curve to the right," and that"identification of, guidance for, and conspicuity of, the path of travel needed to have been properly provided and maintained." He quoted from the United States Department of Transportation's"Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" about the need for traffic control devices to provide the guidance and warnings required for safe and informed travel, and that maintenance is needed to keep devices visible and responsive to current conditions. He noted the 1984-87 drawing reducing the roadway to one lane of travel upon leaving the Charlotte Circle using pavement markings and snowplowable raised markers, which were not present at the time o
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 New Jersey Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|