Sometimes auto accidents leading to catastrophic injuries are not the fault of another car or driver. Sometimes these accidents are caused by a dangerous condition of the roadway itself. When this is the case, the injured parties can look to hold the city or state who is responsible for the road accountable for their injuries.
When a road is not maintained properly, giving rise to a dangerous condition on the roadway, the government entity responsible for maintaining the road can be held responsible. Similarly, when the government entity responsible for designing a roadway does so in a manner that leads to the roadway being dangerous, they can also be held responsible for such a dangerous design.
However, in these scenarios, those seeking to recover for their damages and losses from either the city, municipality, or commonwealth will have to contend with the laws of what is known as “sovereign immunity.”
In Pennsylvania, sovereign immunity is when government entities are broadly protected from lawsuits. These statutes prohibit injured people from suing government entities entirely, unless their cases involve specific exceptions to those laws of sovereign immunity.
When an accident occurs on a road designed and controlled by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or more specifically, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, the sovereign immunity statute of 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8522 applies. This law protects the commonwealth from lawsuits, unless the plaintiff can prove that an exception to immunity applies. The exception that plaintiffs most often rely on, in these scenarios, is § 8522(b)(4), which states:
-
(b) Acts which may impose liability.–The following acts by a Commonwealth party may result in the imposition of liability on the Commonwealth and the defense of sovereign immunity shall not be raised to claims for damages caused by: …
-
(4) Commonwealth real estate, highways and sidewalks.–A dangerous condition of Commonwealth agency real estate and sidewalks, including Commonwealth-owned real property, leaseholds in the possession of a Commonwealth agency and Commonwealth-owned real property leased by a Commonwealth agency to private persons, and highways under the jurisdiction of a Commonwealth agency, except conditions described in paragraph (5).
The courts in Pennsylvania have wrestled with this law and its applicability to various fact patterns in cases over the years, and it is often construed in a way that makes it difficult for plaintiffs to recover from the government for an alleged dangerous condition or design of a road.
However, in the 2018 case of Cagey v. Commonwealth of PA, DOT (645 Pa. 268), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found that guardrails, which are erected next to a highway, become part of the highway, and are therefore part of the commonwealth real estate, and qualify as an exception to sovereign immunity under §8522(b)(4).
As a result, if a plaintiff can prove that he or she was injured as a result of a dangerously designed guardrail, or a guardrail that in some way created a dangerous condition on the roadway, the plaintiff can recover from the state for injuries suffered in such a crash. This principle goes beyond dangerous guardrails and applies to any object erected on or next to a highway, which is found to create a dangerous condition on the highway. It also applies to a roadway itself that is negligently and dangerously designed, either by a curve that is too sharp, or the lack of traffic lights at an intersection. If it can be proven that such designs created a dangerous condition that the government knew or should have known existed, a plaintiff can recover from the government for injuries and damages.
In a case like Cagey, a plaintiff will have to prove that the guardrail, or any object that is claimed to be dangerous, became “part of the roadway.” This normally requires proof that the object was connected or fixed to the roadway, and not just placed there in a manner that would allow it to be removed easily because it was not connected to the ground or road. Also, a plaintiff has to prove that the object created a dangerous condition, either through its design, or some condition that it gives rise to on the road. This almost always needs to be proven through expert testimony, in order to allow a judge or jury to find that the condition was in fact dangerous, and the government, either through a negligent design, or negligently allowing the dangerous condition to remain, is liable for a plaintiff’s injuries. See Jakmian v City of Philadelphia (Pa.Cmwlth., July 16, 2024).
If you or a loved one has been seriously injured in an accident, you need an attorney who knows the law, and one who can think creatively to find a way to get you compensated for the full extent of your injuries.
Please contact us to discuss the details of your case and learn how we can help. Consultations are always free.