"Judy finds Maryland liable for failing to include a sidewalk"

Judge Judy?

by MLD on Mar 11, 2011 10:36 am • link • report

That would have been funny. Fixed.

by David Alpert on Mar 11, 2011 10:38 am • link • report

To an extent, this is about going after bigger pockets. Multi-million dollar judgements against individuals usually don't' work. States -- maybe.

And clearly the deciding factor was that people had died there before.

by charlie on Mar 11, 2011 10:47 am • link • report

Great to see and about time!!

by Mike on Mar 11, 2011 10:53 am • link • report

I'd wait until the appellate court reviews the case before making any pronouncements about the impact on policy.

by Fritz on Mar 11, 2011 11:11 am • link • report

Don't go outside and move, you might hit a car with your body!

by Patrick Thornton on Mar 11, 2011 11:17 am • link • report

The car left the road and struck a tree after striking the pedestrians. How would a sidewalk have made the slightest difference? I think this says a lot more about the crazy tort lottery system in the US than about pedestrian safety.

by David desJardins on Mar 11, 2011 11:41 am • link • report

@David DesJ - a design in which the trees were between the sidewalk and the road could have saved the life of Kelay Smith in addition to controlling speeding genrally. there's a lot that design can do.

by inhaler on Mar 11, 2011 11:49 am • link • report

@inhaler: a design in which the trees were between the sidewalk and the road could have saved the life of Kelay Smith

I can just see it---you could spend $100 million redesigning the entire right of way for miles, and then when some car crashes through the trees and hits a pedestrian on the tree-separated sidewalk, you'd have a $100 million verdict for planting the wrong species of trees that aren't sufficiently car-resistant.

by David desJardins on Mar 11, 2011 11:55 am • link • report

Another point: State curbs are 8" tall, instead of the standard 6" - presummably to reduce the likelihood of a car jumping it. So, even without a tree "barrier," just the presence of a simple curb and sidewalk would have likely prevented the pedestrians from being hit by the driver.

by Bryon on Mar 11, 2011 11:58 am • link • report

@Bryon: So, even without a tree "barrier," just the presence of a simple curb and sidewalk would have likely prevented the pedestrians from being hit by the driver.

Did you look at the Google Street View of the actual conditions? Even before the sidewalk ends, it's right alongside the street, with no shoulder, and a sloped curb. It wouldn't do anything to protect pedestrians.

by David desJardins on Mar 11, 2011 12:06 pm • link • report

@ Byron, yes the addition of the curb along with a tree barrier would make a big difference in improvong the risk of crashes between cars and pedestrians.
@David dJ, so you don't think design can make a difference? Or if it does make a difference it isn't worth the effort b/c risk won't ever be reduced to zero? I agree about the over litigiousness, but that doesn't mitigate the MD SHAs failure. One reason they lost is b/c they did as little as possible designing for ped. safety. If there had been some demonstrable effort on their part they may have won in court.

by Tina on Mar 11, 2011 12:11 pm • link • report

@Tina: David dJ, so you don't think design can make a difference? Or if it does make a difference it isn't worth the effort b/c risk won't ever be reduced to zero?

Neither of those. Obviously there are areas that are heavily used by pedestrians and where design to increase safety (among other factors) is desirable. I just don't think lawsuits like this either accurately assign blame or do anything at all to improve safety. They reduce safety by draining public resources that could otherwise be spent on the problems.

by David desJardins on Mar 11, 2011 12:15 pm • link • report

Should the state be liable for this, too?

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_17592100

by David desJardins on Mar 11, 2011 12:38 pm • link • report

@David desJardins: "lawsuits like this ... reduce safety by draining public resources that could otherwise be spent on the problems."

Not at all: the whole reason for the lawsuit is that without it NO public resources would be spent on the problems. The suit cannot possibly "reduce safety" and might even increase it in the long run by getting the problems addressed. That there might then be fewer public resources is the fault of the defendants in the lawsuit for creating and ignoring the problems, not of the plaintiffs.

by davidj on Mar 11, 2011 1:01 pm • link • report

It is not my observation that, absent lawsuits, elected officials and governments spend none of their resources on serving their constituents. If that were true, the voters would elect someone else. Elections are still the best way to align the activities of government with what the voters want.

If you think differently, if you think of your relationship with a democratically elected government as fundamentally adversarial, then it's not surprising that you'll come to dramatically different conclusions about the utility of various matters.

But the lawsuit demonstrably does reduce the resources that government can spend on things like sidewalk improvements. When you deny that you just seem illogical. They spend money on legal costs and settlements and judgments, that spending reduces their ability to do everything else they need to do. It doesn't appear out of thin air.

by David desJardins on Mar 11, 2011 1:08 pm • link • report

P.S. I don't think it's possible, in our system, to significantly reduce the number or degree or cost of such lawsuits. It's much like induced congestion when you build roads---people still go to where the money is, and if you do more, people will always argue you could have done even more. If they extended the sidewalk, people would say the curb isn't high enough. I wasn't being entirely satirical when I said that if they relocated the sidewalk at great cost, and planted trees between the sidewalk and street, they would get sued for not planting sturdy enough trees....

by David desJardins on Mar 11, 2011 1:12 pm • link • report

@David desJardins; there is a famous series of that in tort law -- product liability, where the manufacturer kept trying to built in safety improvement that workers would disable, and then said manufacturer would have to pay.

Mandatory insurance -- oh wait, we already have that -- solves some of the problems.

What would be the cost, for instance, of mandating $1M of liability insurance on every car policy?

Or specialize it more like a workers comp claim. (killed on a road with no sidewalk -- $2 million without lawyers fees)

No easy answers. Somebody is hurt. Somebody is going to pay.

by charlie on Mar 11, 2011 1:37 pm • link • report

I find this lawsuit to be bogus. It would be one thing if MD had a policy of never putting up sidewalks anywhere. However, they do - it just takes a long time and a lot of money to put up sidewalks everywhere, and they can't be expected to fix all gaps in the system overnight. I don't know why that 200-foot gap was there but it's probably existed for a long time. Plus this sets a dangerous precedent. There's a big difference, legally and morally, between failing to put in a sidewalk vs. putting in a sidewalk but designing it badly vs. failing to maintain the sidewalk.

There's really only one person at fault in this tragedy, and that's the driver.

(By the way, the exact same situation exists on the other side of PA Ave, except there you have a little local street that closely parallels PA Ave. In Street View you can see a clear "goat path" leading from the end of the sidewalk to that local street. I wonder if WMATA put in the sidewalks near the intersections, since the sidewalk on both sides of the streets stops right at the bus stop signs.)

by Marc on Mar 11, 2011 1:37 pm • link • report

@Marc -I entirely agree our culture is overly litigious. And I don't pretend to know a way to correct it. I do know that MD SHA failed in this situation.

You say ...it just takes a long time and a lot of money to put up sidewalks everywhere, and they can't be expected to fix all gaps in the system overnight.

I say why the hell didn't they put some effort into ped safety when constructing the road in the first place or during the multiple times its been resurfaced since its original construction? There was ample opportunity before this lawsuit that would not have involved "special" effort, i.e. the more expensive effort of fixing curbs and putting in sidewalks after the road re-surfacing/construction was complete. The curbs/sidewalks could have been addressed anytime in the past at the same time the road was built/resurfaced.

by Tina on Mar 11, 2011 1:57 pm • link • report

Working in Suitland, I'm on this particular stretch of Pennsylvania Ave more than a little bit, and several of my coworkers commute on it. I'd hazard a bet that this is one reason they haven't put the sidewak in. They probably felt they'd have to re-engineer the slope or take out the bushes to put the sidewalk in. Course, along here they also could've just put it along Rupert Ave.

by Froggie on Mar 11, 2011 2:02 pm • link • report

@Tina: they probably didn't "put some effort into ped safety" when constructing the road in the first place because it was built in the '50s, long before the area suburbanized. That said, you are correct in that they've had ample opportunity since then.

by Froggie on Mar 11, 2011 2:03 pm • link • report

Alexandria is no better in this regard. There is no realistic way to get from, let's say, Huntington Metro to Huntley Meadows Park without a car. Google Maps thinks we should take Telegraph Rd., a two lane road with no shoulder. No thanks. I would consider bicycling to work at least every once in a while but the detours I'd have to take would add 50% to the length of the trip.

by movement on Mar 11, 2011 2:43 pm • link • report

@Froggie "...or during the multiple times its been resurfaced..."

by Tina on Mar 11, 2011 2:47 pm • link • report

@ charie, DavidDesJardins: No easy answers. Somebody is hurt. Somebody is going to pay.

It would help a lot if the government would take these things serious. After an accident, the government could say: "Hey, there is no side-walk there. Clearly, this is unsafe for pedestrians. Let's build one at the next opportune moment." No lawsuit would have followed.

What happens is the opposite. Pedestrians and bikers get tickets in the hospital for being on the road illegally.

The reason for the lawsuit is that the government not only ignored pedestrians safety, it harasses pedestrians that go about their business, despite the imperfect government.

Elections are irrelevant. Elections do not get fought on such specific items. That is why decent government employees are so important.

by Jasper on Mar 11, 2011 2:52 pm • link • report

@David desJardins: Elected officials in Maryland have chosen to spend all the relevant resources on increasing the convenience of constituents who drive, and none for the safety of constituents who must walk on public roadways. The first group being much larger than the second, this is a politically sensible policy despite its inequities. Addressing such situations (which are sometimes called "tyranny of the majority") is a proper and important role of court systems and one of the reasons the federal judiciary, in particular, was made a co-equal of the elected branches.

by davidj on Mar 11, 2011 3:03 pm • link • report

The amount of design flaws in many of the 'public' infrastructure measures within the county is alarming. Is this a byproduct of the County Council posing as the District Council, or what? Or, did the 'District Council' (at the time) know anything about how to properly design streets so that things just like this wouldn't happen?

What a shame that meddling causes.

by C. R. on Mar 11, 2011 3:26 pm • link • report

Two people were killed, one of whom was 5 months pregnant. There is a great sadness.

There was never any doubt that this was going to court; and the residents of PG County should consider themselves lucky that the judgment against them was not higher.

@David desJardins: It's much like induced congestion when you build roads---people still go to where the money is, and if you do more, people will always argue you could have done even more.

Well then, what do you suggest? Discontinuing all new construction of roads and sidewalks?

by goldfish on Mar 11, 2011 3:36 pm • link • report

@movement: that's actually Fairfax County (and VDOT too), not the city of Alexandria. Some of us are trying to work on that. But as it is, we're having a hard time just trying to get sidewalks along Richmond Hwy (Route 1)...

by Froggie on Mar 11, 2011 4:27 pm • link • report

Same thing with the fight to get sidewalks on Baltimore Avenue (Route 1).

by C. R. on Mar 11, 2011 4:31 pm • link • report

@davidj - I think this perception that there are 2 constituents (one that drives, one that doesn't) is part of the problem. Its all one constiuent/populace. Everyone (who is physicaly capable) walks. That people walk more or less is highly influenced by the built environment. Even when the built environment places considerable barriers to walking, like this stretch of road, people STILL walk. Even someone who drives most of the time has to walk some time. Its a false perception that drivers are not pedestrians.

This type of design, after all this time in this place, is simply the result of crappy thinking. The jury is in on it and thats what they said.

by Tina on Mar 11, 2011 4:44 pm • link • report

@C.R. -can you say more about the effort to get sidewalks on Rte 1/Baltimore Ave.?

by Tina on Mar 11, 2011 4:48 pm • link • report

This was part of a larger revitalization effort for the whole of the Route 1 corridor IVO Ikea to the area around the mall, just past 198. I will dig up the article where I saw it; I think it was RTCP.

by C. R. on Mar 11, 2011 4:58 pm • link • report

@froggie
I knew that, was too lazy to specify Alexandria, Fairfax vs. Alexandria City.

At least with US1 there are the prospects of having the entire corridor redeveloped into a more modern urban design. Telegraph Road may never be fixed due to existing landowners and environmental concerns.

by movement on Mar 11, 2011 5:02 pm • link • report

@goldfish: Well then, what do you suggest? Discontinuing all new construction of roads and sidewalks?

I suggest we (continue to) make infrastructure decisions based on the actual public benefit and costs of those decisions, rather than liability or lawsuits which have little correlation with the public benefits. And we just view the dysfunctional judicial system as an unfortunate, fairly random drain on taxpayer dollars. Not ideal, but the best we can do.

by David desJardins on Mar 11, 2011 7:58 pm • link • report

@ David desJardins: I suggest we (continue to) make infrastructure decisions based on the actual public benefit and costs of those decisions, rather than liability or lawsuits

Good suggestion, but until that happens, lawsuits will keep public officials in line.

by Jasper on Mar 11, 2011 9:34 pm • link • report

@Jasper: Good suggestion, but until that happens, lawsuits will keep public officials in line.

If you mean that the lawsuits will drain public resources and keep public officials "in line" by preventing spending, that's true.

Otherwise, I think they have no real effect, except maybe to trigger an occasional defensive overreaction and misallocation of resources to whatever happened to be the last case.

by David desJardins on Mar 12, 2011 1:02 am • link • report

@David desJardins: clearly the likelihood of a lawsuit will affect the infrastructure decisions.

by goldfish on Mar 12, 2011 10:37 am • link • report

@ David desJardins: If you mean that the lawsuits will drain public resources and keep public officials "in line" by preventing spending, that's true.

That's one -rather short-sighted- way to look at it. The other way is that after the initial drain, politicians will try prevent subsequent drains, and change policy.

Otherwise, I think they have no real effect, except maybe to trigger an occasional defensive overreaction and misallocation of resources to whatever happened to be the last case.

Well, in that case they will have to explain that to voters at the next election.

Quite frankly, I've always thought it weird that in the US many governments exempt themselves from all kinds of liabilities that private citizens are liable for. The intend of liability is to enforce good behavior. Exemptions of liabilities create bad behavior.

by Jasper on Mar 12, 2011 11:56 am • link • report

@goldfish: clearly the likelihood of a lawsuit will affect the infrastructure decisions.

What is this, Proof by Vigorous Assertion? The more times you say it, the more true it gets?

Create personal liability for elected officials, and it would probably affect their behavior (although not in a good way). But the general fact that some taxpayer dollars get randomly siphoned off year after year? I just don't think it affects them much at all. Claiming the opposite doesn't make it true.

by David desJardins on Mar 12, 2011 2:10 pm • link • report

@David desJardins: Perhaps you have confuse me with someone else?

I am not a lawyer. But what little I know is that many (most?) engineering safety decisions are driven by liability. In the case of roads, the public officials making these decisions are career civil servants; they are not elected. And the immunity that they are given is to protect the taxpayers. Which should be protected because it diverts resources away from other tax-supported needs, as you have pointed out.

With risk comes profit: if such officials are forced to take on liability for their decisions as a part of their official duties, then they will need to be paid to take this risk. But again, that will take dollars away from tax-supported needs.

by goldfish on Mar 12, 2011 9:17 pm • link • report

Given this blog's work to dive into zoning codes, it looks like a large player is likely the required fence around certain residential projects especially, between multi-family and older single family residential neighborhoods. I do code reviews on walkability and this is a BIG one. In many places there are moves to retrofit passageways into these blank walls in particular where access to neighborhood shopping is needed.

This is a tragic loss of life, but perhaps the focal point should not be automatically "more sidewalks.", Somewhere a student looking for a thesis could do GIS work on where work on cutting paths through walls, not just sidewalks, would amp safety and access.

by Lisa on Mar 13, 2011 9:01 am • link • report

Every day I see a mom and a baby walk on the road on 704! Maryland and PG county do nothing. It is going to take a slew of deaths before they stop greasing their pockets and actually do something with our tax dollars.

by J.Saunders on Mar 13, 2011 3:12 pm • link • report

@ Lisa: Somewhere a student looking for a thesis could do GIS work on where work on cutting paths through walls, not just sidewalks, would amp safety and access.

Yeah, let's study something that's been done already by many, many governments. Hey, while, we're on it, let's invent the wheel again!

We don't need studies. We need DOTs that build safe neighborhoods, just like they're built elsewhere.

by Jasper on Mar 13, 2011 3:55 pm • link • report

The people of PG County have spoken. The message is to make that area safer for both pedestrians and the homeowners of that community.

God bless the citizens of the county. It is interesting that people in the community has to send a strong message to the county and state bureaucrats before they address the full needs of the community. This is a dangerous area. When these accidents occur, someone dies and cars have gone over the embankments and damage homes.

I hope the road planners listen to needs of the community and fix the sidewalk and modify the barrier plans. How many more lives have to be lost before one realizes that an areas needs attention? Please listen to the people and repair that area for safe pedestrian flow!

by projectfluidity on Mar 13, 2011 6:44 pm • link • report

@projectfluidity: The people of PG County have spoken. The message is to make that area safer for both pedestrians and the homeowners of that community.

I must have missed this in the coverage. When was the vote held? What were the results?

by David desJardins on Mar 13, 2011 7:00 pm • link • report

@ David desJardins: I must have missed this in the coverage. When was the vote held? What were the results?

Read the first line of the article David. A Prince George's County jury found the state of Maryland liable for the death of a pedestrian because they didn't install a sidewalk.

Would you deny that a jury is made up of people of PG? Would you deny that the jury did not take a vote on the verdict? Was the verdict not "guilty".

The people have spoken. Too bad someone had to die before the government listened.

by Jasper on Mar 13, 2011 10:38 pm • link • report

@Jasper: Would you deny that a jury is made up of people of PG?

I would deny that they represent the opinion of the people of PG County, or that a jury trial is a useful way to determine what the public thinks. You might as well argue that if some random resident of PG County suggests that the county devote its entire budget to farming snails, that "the people have spoken" and the county should do that forthwith.

by David desJardins on Mar 13, 2011 10:53 pm • link • report

P.S. The point, in case it is too obscure, is that the jury primarily sees a sympathetic victim and thinks they might as well give her some "free" money.

This is pretty much nothing like analyzing all of the actual needs and revenues of the county and putting this improvement at the top of the priority list.

by David desJardins on Mar 13, 2011 10:55 pm • link • report

the jury primarily sees a sympathetic victim and thinks they might as well give her some "free" money.

I have been called for jury duty for cases like these, against a government authority, to which I personally pay fees. Let me assure you, juries are quite aware of who ultimately pays the judgment.

by goldfish on Mar 14, 2011 9:35 am • link • report

@ David desJarinds: I would deny that they represent the opinion of the people of PG County, or that a jury trial is a useful way to determine what the public thinks..

Juries are supposed to represent the people. That's the idea at least. They're not an opinion poll. They're supposed to apply the law and determine guilt.

This is pretty much nothing like analyzing all of the actual needs and revenues of the county and putting this improvement at the top of the priority list.

I agree. But this is the second best thing, that only gets to work when the best option, political system, fails. And it did because someone died and the government was found negligent.

by Jasper on Mar 14, 2011 11:45 am • link • report

@Jasper: But this is the second best thing, that only gets to work when the best option, political system, fails. And it did because someone died and the government was found negligent.

Well, I will return to observing that, as a practical matter, such lawsuits actually do have very little impact on government policy or priorities, regardless of the outcome. I think you are arguing that they should. I am arguing that because of the high degree of randomness and skewed perspective of juries, it's pretty wise that governments regard these sorts of random payouts just as noise and a drain on public resources but not a very useful indication of where they should set their priorities. I wish it were different but as long as we have the system we have I think it's not likely to change.

by David desJardins on Mar 14, 2011 12:49 pm • link • report