As stated numerous times before, I did not come here to ask an opinion of fault. I already know what you'd all say. The same as what you tell 99% of anyone who comes here...that I am 100% at fault and to pay up.
I came here because you guys seem to know statutes. I asked who polices and what doctrine sets policy and standards for roadside workers? Thus far, none of you can answer that simple question.
Oh, I also asked for the precedent set forth by court cases that states motorists are typically at fault when involved in a construction zone accident. No link or support was provided for that statement either.
How none of you can acknowledge any negligence on the truck's part is very curious to me.
A very small percentage of these cases ever see the inside of a courtroom. That is because the real professionals, who are the personal injury lawyers on both sides of the case, are able to see it from an impartial standpoint. They are also very aware of the risks and losses that could result from going to trial.
As said before, wise and learned persons do not only consider and repeat the defense's POV.
As for 'design immunity,' tell me that we do not see the State and Cities pay out large settlements for the negligence of their employees? The City Official who ultimately hired this private traffic company asked me to file a claim with the City for negligence on behalf of their private contractor. Why would they consider paying anything to me if they are not responsible for their sub-contractor's actions? As a Contractor myself, I know for a fact that primary contractors are responsible for their subs. And that Cities do pay out large settlements on a daily basis for negligence.
Cities and counties pay out "go away" money every day. It's not a measure of their culpability so much as it is a financial consideration. Very often the cost of litigation is more expensive than simply agreeing to a settlement. Larger jurisdictions even have a budget for these matters.
What a kind and compassionate statement.
Funny how even a City Official can see this from an impartial standpoint, yet you guys can't.
And, the default answer from any city functionary is to tell you to make a claim against the city. The clerk, bureaucrat, line officer, supervisor, whoever, is not in a position to tell you that you have a case, that you do not have a case, or anything else. All they CAN tell you is to pursue a claim because THAT is the process through which you get compensated if there is any compensation to be had. Saying they did not have a permit for work that day is hardly the same as admitting liability on the city's part or upon the part of the contractor. But, you can file suit and then call this functionary as a witness and ask him if he felt sorry for you or felt the city should pay out.
More than likely, if there is any merit to your legal claim, the city will settle out of court for what they feel is less than the cost of pursuing the matter to trial.