 There are four million miles of roadway in the United States. Three-quarters are collector and local roads. They link together the businesses, homes, schools, farms, hospitals, and parks in our communities. As highway officials, our primary duty is to design, construct, and maintain a safe transportation network. Unfortunately, inadequate funding for many years has resulted in deferred maintenance, which has left many of us with deteriorated and functionally inadequate roads and bridges. The accident rate on local roads is nearly twice the national average. We share another legacy of this history of neglect of our road network in an increase in the number of tort claims against highway agencies and in the size of judgments being awarded. In a survey just completed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, pending lawsuits reported by 18 states total more than $1.3 billion. 13 states reported spending nearly $4 million just to defend suits and claims against them. The problems we face as public works professionals are big ones and they are complex. The national hysteria about tort liability can lead us to focus on the problem rather than the solution. Remember, our responsibility is to provide highway users with a safe road network at reasonable cost. When it comes to tort liability and risk exposure, the best defense is a good road. What does this mean in terms of our duty to provide safe roads and just as important? What does it mean in practical terms given the budget and crew we have to carry out our daily responsibilities? Well, it means good management. Some would call it risk management. Let's take a look at some of the problems we have and how one highway department with good management and careful setting of priorities was able to minimize their risk successfully. The first step is to be aware of potential problems by conducting routine inspections and inventories of our roads and bridges. And we need to set priorities for tackling the problems we find the most hazardous conditions first. Finally, we have to keep good records of our maintenance and construction activities. Much as many of us dislike all that paperwork, good documentation practices can no longer be used. Too costly? Complicated? Too much red tape? No. In fact, there are some really easy actions you can take. In the AASHTO study, a few of the most common causes for a tort action include insufficient hazard warnings, defective road conditions, potholes, poor pavement markings, and defective road design. Let's take a look at one of the most frequent causes for a tort client. Let's take a look at one of the most frequent causes for a tort claims against highway agencies and one of the easiest and least costly to take care of, deficiencies in signing, missing damaged or faded signs, signs improperly placed at the wrong height, location, angle, deteriorated reflectivity of signs, absence of stop-ahead signs where necessary, shrubbery or other obstructions restricting the view of signs or road conditions ahead, improper work zone warnings, improperly functioning traffic signals. Failure to comply with the manual on uniform traffic control devices were adopted by state statute. These deficiencies are not difficult to fix, but failure to correct them could prove costly in the event that you're sued. If you think that your agency cannot afford proper signs or to maintain them or perform work in accordance with current standards, then I caution you to think twice. I can tell you what really made me think about the real cost of proper signing. I've been a county superintendent for over 20 years and I think I've done a pretty good job. About 10 years ago or so, we noticed a lot of negligent claims against our department. Along about that same time there was a case in Michigan where it was an accident where an individual drove through a T-intersection and over an embankment and individuals paralyzed as a result of this. I believe there was a substandard stop sign at the location along with insufficient payment markings. The court awarded the man a half a million dollars as a result of the accident. As a result, the community saw their tax rate go up 15 percent and this was all for the sake of a $30 sign. I think this case really put things in perspective for me. The next day after I had read about it, I went back and took a real hard look at my department and really how much I knew about road conditions and sign conditions. I realized then that I would have a very tough time defending our department in the case of a lawsuit because we really didn't have the records to prove that we were out doing what we were doing. I made some very dramatic changes and as a result we had some dramatic results. The whole department was functioning much better and where we are not getting the claims that we did have the claims that we have we are able to defend much better. Joe, would you please tell the jury what your position is with the highway department and what your responsibilities are? An accident happened last fall out on South Road. I really upset a lot of folks, myself included. After accidents like that, it's almost expected that notices will be filed against the department. Most of the claims are dropped or settled out of court. The fact we are going to trial with this one really boils down to the fact that our risk management procedures are on trial today. This accident occurred was the subject of this case? Is that correct? What you have to remember is that you haven't done anything wrong. There is no question an accident occurred, but the key word is that it was an accident. They are alleging that you did not properly maintain the sign. Obviously you have the responsibility for maintaining the sign, but you're not insurers. You don't have to ensure that 24 hours every day, 365 days a year that the sign is in proper condition. Your responsibility is to act as a reasonable person and we have to show you did that and we can document it. Can you explain to the jury what procedures you followed with regard to the installation of that sign? All the procedures were followed were in the manual of uniform code of traffic control devices. And is this the manual of uniform traffic control devices which you followed? Yes, it is. Now did you keep documentation in your office regarding the installation of that sign? Yes, we did. And were those documents kept by you in the ordinary course of business? They were. Joe, I'd like to show you exhibits one, two, and three and ask you if you could identify these. Can you identify those documents? Yes, I can. And what are these documents? These are my sign records. I'd like to offer these in evidence. Now does your department have procedures to follow if a sign does become damaged? Yes, we do. And pursuant to those procedures, did there come a time when it was determined the sign which we're talking about today was damaged? And if so, what did you do? We were notified by the work crews that were out working. I was a patching crew. And these gentlemen are trained to fill out reports the minute they see a problem. And when they notice the sign was damaged, they filled out their report and placed it on my desk near the end of the work day. Were these reports kept in the ordinary course of business? Yes, they are. Joe, I'd like to show you exhibits four and five which have been marked for identification. I'd like to know if you can identify these. Yes, I can. And exactly what are those? These are a repair order and a sign replacement report. I'd like to offer these in evidence, please. How long after it was discovered that the sign was damaged did that fact actually come to your personal attention? And what steps did you then take? Well, they noticed the sign was damaged during the course of the day. I believe it was in the early part of the afternoon. They filled out their report and were brought to my attention near the end of the work day when they placed report on my desk. And when was the sign actually repaired? The sign was actually repaired the following day. Now, you've testified that the crew determined the sign was damaged on one day, but it was not repaired to the following day. Can you explain to the jury why this delay took place? Well, we have to set priorities on our work. We have a small crew and we have a lot of miles to take care of. This road was a low volume road. It was not at a location where we've had any other accidents. The sign was damaged, not completely down. We had other more pressing priorities that we had to take care of. So we saved the replacement to the following day. Do you have a procedure for determining what jobs have high priority and what jobs have lower priority? Yes, we do. And what type of factors do you consider in determining those priorities? Well, we consider the life-threatening situations as top priority, which are the stop signs, yield signs, stop ahead, yield ahead signs, and also potholes that are right in the traveling way. You also consider the amount of traffic volume on the roads and the amount of accidents which have taken place on those roads? Yes, we do. And in making a determination to not give this repair job a highest priority, did you consider those factors which you just listed? Yes, we did. I have no further questions. Thank you. The jury has found for the defendant highway department in this case. Plaintiff, however, has moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. I'm going to rule on that motion now from the bench. I find against the plaintiff's motion the jury verdict will stand. I want to give you my reasons for that decision. The department here demonstrated an excellent record of inspecting its roads, its traffic control devices, and its signs. They've documented this clearly. Clearly the jury believed this. The department has also shown that it has reasonable priorities in maintaining its roads and signs. Here the jury found that a crew had been dispatched within 24 hours. This was reasonable given the level of use of this particular road. Now it is very regrettable that an accident like this occurred, and I think it's particularly regrettable that it occurred when a crew was on its way to repair this very sign. But for this litigation, the important thing is that the jury found that the department acted reasonably and not negligently. This court stands adjourned. Excuse me, Mr. Amadik. Are you satisfied with the decision of the jury today? Well, I'm very satisfied with the decision. It really doesn't come as a surprise. They looked at our good records, and these good records saved the community a lot of money in this case. And what about the safety of the roads? The safety of the road is our first concern. And not having an unlimited amount of money or personnel, we have to set priorities. And the records that we keep give us these priorities and in fact are quite a time saver. They save us time of course in this case. They save time in the budget process and they allow us to manage the road system. Is good risk management really too costly or too much trouble? Well, I guess you have to consider the few dollars it costs to replace the sign or the time it took to document the hazard or record the action taken. Compared to the judgment that plaintiff might have won today, I don't think there's any question about the effectiveness of good management. We actually save in other ways too. Good risk management can keep our insurance premiums down and reduce the number of claims overall. When we keep our roads and bridges as safe as possible, maintained and designed to current standards, we reduce accidents and prevent loss of life. Tort liability, as I said at the beginning, is a complex problem. While the status of sovereign immunity varies from state to state and the liability climate also varies, we really need to minimize our risk exposure. We should familiarize ourselves with the law in our area and learn something about legal procedures as well as pretrial and trial preparations. We really need to be good risk managers as we carry out our routine responsibilities of maintaining a safe road network in our communities. At the very least, we need to routinely conduct sign inventories and road condition and construction zone inspections, maintain written maintenance records, investigate all accidents, and analyze accident data. Then manage, set priorities, take action, and document the action taken. Tort claims against highway departments are increasing. And we can't promise that with good procedures for minimizing exposure, you'll never be sued. But good management can help reduce risk and help us achieve success as highway officials in carrying out our primary responsibilities. The best defense is a good road. Help is available. Basic state standards on traffic control and design can be found in the following. The manual on uniform traffic control devices or a similar manual if your state has adopted its own version of the federal manual, as well as the AASHTO policy on geometric design of highways and streets. For additional information on risk management and tort liability, contact the Technology Transfer Center nearest you or your state highway department.