Skip to main content

Tort Liability Defense Practices for Design Flexibility (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:


Pages 16-21

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 16...
... Affidavits by an expert or deposition testimony from an expert must be used to support the defense of the case in a motion for summary judgment. If a motion for summary judgment is unsuccessful, the case will be defended to a jury or arbitration panel and the experts will be asked to defend their conclusions again.
Read the entire page →
From page 17...
... The agency must stay in control of decisions regarding basic design features or elements. Active stakeholder involvement and input does not translate to abrogation of the responsibility of the agency to make fundamental design decisions.
Read the entire page →
From page 18...
... . Engineering study is defined in the 2009 MUTCD as the comprehensive analysis and evaluation of available pertinent information, and the application of appropriate principles, provisions, and practices as contained in this Manual and other sources, for the purpose of deciding upon the applicability, design, operation, or installation of a traffic control device.
Read the entire page →
From page 19...
... A lawsuit based upon an alleged "dangerous condition" of a roadway due to a design defect will necessarily contain allegations of the agency's failure to comply with generally-accepted standards and engineering principles. However, according to the text of the current standards and guidelines, those standards and guidelines are now flexible.
Read the entire page →
From page 20...
... The following chart is included in Washington State's Project Development Manual.87 This chart is an excellent checklist or guideline for a designer to use when evaluating mitigation strategies and as a beginning point for the documentation that is necessary to include in the permanent file. 87 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/ projectdev/Deviations/DeviationMitigation.pdf.
Read the entire page →
From page 21...
... 21 Deviation Mitigation Options for Designers Design Criteria Mitigation Measures Available Comments Horizontal Alignment Post Warning Signs Post Speed Advisory Install Chevrons Flatten Roadside Slopes Improve Horizontal Sight Lines Improve Clear Zone Area Improve Superelevation Install Illumination Widen Shoulders/Pavement Consistency of mitigation choices through significant lengths of corridors is encouraged in order to avoid confusing drivers. Lane Width Post Warning Signs or Speed Advisory Improve Delineation Install Raised Pavement Markings Restrict Vehicle Size if Appropriate Restrict Traffic if Appropriate Permanent lanes on the Interstate system must meet or exceed 11' minimum width to comply with FHWA criteria.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • summary judgment
  • traffic control
  • dangerous condition
  • engineering principles
  • washington state

  • jury instruction
  • flexible design
  • design plan
  • design decision


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.