Personal Injury Law

The State could have Prevented the Incident by building a fence

By Amber Wheat

In 1997, a man was left in a vegetative state because a 15-year-old threw a 2 ½ pound chunk of asphalt at traffic on I-5. The driver was struck in the head and his life has never been the same. Now we find out that an incident like this had happened before. In civil cases there is an important factor known as forseeability. Did the defendants know, or should they have known, that something like this could happen? If they knew and did nothing to prevent it then they are liable for some damages.

The stockton man's attorney is saying that the State knew about the previous rock incident and chose not to build a fence along I-5 in this area. In reality a fence may or may not have prevented the teenager from throwing that asphalt that day, but for a meer $100,000.00 it is better to be safe than sorry. I would have wanted the fence.

What do you think? How much responsibility does the State have to keep it's roadways as safe as possible? How much money is too much for motorist safety?

In the other direction, would a fence have protected the citizens living close to the freeway as well? If there is no divider between the interstate traffic and the people that could cause a lot of trouble if a vehicle loses control or has a blowout, right?

Full post as published by Sacramento Personal Injury Lawyer on September 10, 2008 (boomark / email).