|
|
|
|
|
I.With industry experts we first identified the areas of law
that were applicable. Three areas of
law appear relevant:
|
|
|
|
•Tort liability and duties and standards of care is
the first area. This law helps DOTs
determine how to avoid a “breach of duty” by providing pertinent information
to the public in case of dangerous roadway conditions. There are dangers
associated with this expanded responsibility set, as DOTs may now have a
disproportionate increase in expectations in terms of weather-related roadway
warnings and prevention of weather-related accidents.
|
|
|
|
•RWIS may also over-extend DOTs because of the augmentation
of incoming information associated with negative roadway conditions. However,
cases related to roadway maintenance have generally acknowledged the
limitation of DOTs in terms of personnel and equipment availability. Also,
allocation decisions are often protected from liability as a discretionary,
governmental function.
|
|
|
|
•RWIS does no present an immediate danger of increased
litigation against the government as claims against federal agencies have
often been decided in favor of the government. However, there are prohibitive
steps that the National Weather Service has taken to make sure that employees
retain discretion in order to better insulate itself against litigation.
There are also issues from state to state where sovereign immunity against
DOTs can be greatly reduced; in Colorado and Massachusetts, state agencies can
be held liable for dangerous road conditions, including those generate by
weather.
|
|
|
