Summary of Federal Law Restricting Use of Highway Safety Data in Tort Litigation (2016) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 6-19
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 6... ...
6As seen in some of the documents in the Appendix of this digest, the language of the regulations can be used to form the basis of a roadway agency's Motion to Quash or Motion in Limine. The second prong of the statute is known as the "Federal Funding Test," wherein Congress expressed its intent that reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of developing any safety construction projects that could be implemented using designated federal safety funds are also protected from civil litigation.
|
From page 7... ...
723 U.S.C. § 409 begins with the language "[n]
|
From page 8... ...
8The Court found that § 409 protects not just the information the agency itself has generated or compiled, but also any information that the agency collects from other sources for § 152 purposes, rejecting arguments that only materials actually created by the responsible agency were protected.
|
From page 9... ...
9develop "any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented using Federal-aid highway funds."43 Burlington Northern was unable to present evidence that the inventory reports were collected by the Federal Railroad Administration pursuant to any section of the law that would protect them and thus, the court found that the inventories were not protected, affirming the ruling of the trial court. Surveys and Studies Used to Identify Potentially Hazardous Locations.
|
From page 10... ...
10 The plaintiff in the case of Van Osdol v. DOT52 submitted a request under the state's public record law for a list of hazardous locations and intersections.
|
From page 11... ...
11 were business records. On appeal, the court found that accident investigation reports, which included safety evaluations, investigation summaries, and evaluations of potentially hazardous locations, were protected from disclosure.
|
From page 12... ...
12 the highway patrol and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) used the forms, they were protected under federal law.
|
From page 13... ...
13 In Dugle v. Norfolk Southern R
|
From page 14... ...
14 the media published the information it obtained, the protection was not entirely eliminated, because a tort plaintiff would not have access to the information except to the extent the media published it. The court also stated that the evidentiary bar to the admission of evidence was still in place, regardless of the release of the information to the media.
|
From page 15... ...
15 law, they were not collected for § 130 purposes. The appellate court held that the reports submitted by the State were protected, but that the reports submitted by the railroad were not protected, based on the text of the statutes.
|
From page 16... ...
16 (NJDOT) in support of its request to protect safety data, and noted that the affidavit was rather conclusory on the subject of how the materials sought by the plaintiff fell within the federal mandate.
|
From page 17... ...
17 be used in the future to plan projects. In its analysis, the court compared the verbs in the two "prongs" of the statute, suggesting that the language "identifying, evaluating and planning projects" found in the first prong related to both potential and actual projects, whereas the second prong referred only to "developing" projects, which the court ruled meant a particular highway project.
|
From page 18... ...
18 that location and not fund other improvements suggested by the plaintiffs. Official immunity and discretionary doctrines as foundational issues.
|
From page 19... ...
19 on appeal agreed that error had been committed by the admission of the letter, it ruled that the error was harmless because sufficient other evidence had been introduced, excluding the memo, that showed the roadway was unreasonably dangerous and supported the jury verdict. In a similar manner, in Quinn v.
|
Key Terms
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.