Mirzada

Mirzada v. Department of Transportation

Good Law
111 Cal. App. 4th 802·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1317·4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 205·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7890
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 7, 2003C040665California3,028 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nicholson, J.

Plaintiffs brought this personal injury and wrongful death tort action against the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) after a drunk driver crossed the median on Interstate 5 and collided with them. They assert Caltrans should be held liable because, at the time of the accident, it had not installed a barrier in the median. While they concede Caltrans, at one time, enjoyed immunity for the design at the accident site, they contend Caltrans lost that immunity because the design had become dangerous as a result of changed physical conditions. We conclude, as did the trial court when it granted summary judgment in favor of Caltrans, that the evidence does not support plaintiffs’ contention.

BACKGROUND CONCERNING MEDIAN BARRIERS

“Median barriers result in a trade-off. They prevent nearly all cross-median accidents, but usually result in an overall increase in accidents and injuries. A median barrier is a fixed object which, when hit, can cause serious injury either by direct impact or by deflecting vehicles back into traffic. In addition, a barrier eliminates half the recovery area for out-of-control vehicles. Based on studies of the effectiveness of median barrier…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.