Posted on 07/24/2010 4:04:30 PM PDT by Willie Green
INDIANAPOLIS – An accident on an icy Indiana Toll Road almost two years ago is at the heart of a legal battle over whether the company operating the road under a 75-year lease enjoys governmental immunity.
Chicago resident Aimee Campbell has sued ITR Concession Co. for not closing or adequately maintaining the road, which was allegedly dangerous for travel on Dec. 22, 2008.
A Spanish-Australian consortium paid $3.8 billion to the state in 2006 to rent the Indiana Toll Road for the next 75 years. That group formed ITR Concession Co. to operate and manage the road.
According to the court file, Campbell was driving east on the road about 10:30 a.m. when she lost control of her car on the ice and snow, rolled three times and ended up at the bottom of a 40-foot embankment in LaGrange County.
She suffered a broken arm, cuts and bruises.
According to Campbell’s amended complaint, she had been driving on the road for more than two hours and saw no plows, salt trucks or other ice- or snow-removal equipment.
She also saw multiple cars and tractor-trailer rigs on the side of the road as the result of crashes.
“They had the opportunity to close the road,” said Michael Ely, attorney for Campbell. “If it’s open, they are saying it’s good to go.”
A major ice storm, along with blustery winter conditions, gripped the northern part of the state just days before Campbell’s crash.
ITR Concession responded in court filings that the road surrounding the crash spot received 33 tons of salt and 74 gallons of anti-icing solution the day before the crash and had been plowed and received anti-icing solution Dec. 22.
But a key argument in the case is that ITR Concession is claiming a type of legal immunity usually reserved for governments.
State law, for instance, says governmental entities or employees cannot be held liable if a loss results from the “temporary condition of a public thoroughfare … that results from weather.” The court filing claims the operation and maintenance of the road constitute “governmental functions undertaken for the public purpose” and that governmental tort immunity should extend to ITR Concession.
A tort is a civil wrong that could be cause for liability.
Norman Barry, attorney for the Toll Road company, said this is not a new legal theory.
“Other quasi-governmental entities have been afforded immunity under Indiana law,” he said. “We are asking the same.”
A federal judge in Illinois, where the case was filed, initially declined to dismiss the case but hasn’t definitively ruled on the issue.
“Traditionally, common law is that governments can’t be sued for weather-related issues,” Ely said. “I have no problem when the government claims immunity. I have a serious problem when a private company does.”
Such immunity is not provided for in the exhaustive contract between ITR Concession and the state, said Rep. Win Moses Jr., D-Fort Wayne.
“But nothing about (this deal) surprises me anymore,” he said. “If they negligently cared for the road, then it’s a legitimate question for the woman to pursue. It will be settled in the courts.”
Rep. Jeff Espich, R-Uniondale, didn’t remember the issue of immunity coming up in the debate but said it makes sense that the private company would be afforded the same protection for performing the same function as the state.
“If they are subject to a level of liability that government doesn’t experience,” he said, “why would anyone ever agree to run the road?”
Professor Andrew Klein, a tort law expert from the Indiana University School of Law in Indianapolis, said he has seen similar theories used for military contractors engaging in activity on behalf of the government.
“I wouldn’t immediately dismiss the argument as implausible. On the other hand, I’m not aware of any precedent that makes it a definitive winner,” he said. “It’s an interesting issue. Then again, I’m a torts professor.”
ping
If they have immunity, what incentive do they have to do their best in maintaining the road? Why not cut repair costs by 10%-30%?
I bet not everything is spelled out in the contract.
“She also saw multiple cars and tractor-trailer rigs on the side of the road as the result of crashes.”
That should have been her first clue that the driving conditions had deteriorated and were treacherous.
“what incentive do they have to do their best in maintaining the road?”
That is something they can directly control. They cannot control the weather.
Because the expected revenue far exceeds the expected liability.
The firm failed to negotiate this term.
Too bad for them.
Couldn’t they control the access to the road?
This is an interesting case.
Yes, perhaps she should have gotten off, but then if they had closed the road, then no one would have spunout...Also, they seem to claim they acted responsibly, the case will determine that.
Perhaps she could not exit after seeing numerous accidents prior to her spinout.
If private companies have immunity, then where is the citizen’s remedy?
Case with many facets.
Another Chicagoan probably an obama voter, with their hand out.
I do not believe that the consortium should be immune to tort claims, however I believe that it is still up to the state whether to close the toll road due to weather.
Is this any different than the government taking taxes for the same purpose?
The very first thing negotiated in any contract is indemnification and limitation of liability. There’s no way it wasn’t a subject of negotiation. I suspect the state held firm and wouldn’t accept liability and the company finally capitulated.
Giving a company a 75 year lease (probably unbreakable) and also no liability should be a crime that gets the politician tarred and feathered and the lease broken.
I comes down to what the nature of a road, is.
In this case, it's not some path through some privately held property that is posted as "pay fee, pass at your own risk."
Instead, it's a right-of-way toll road leased from the government. That means there is a certain expectation of passability connected with the toll fee, an implied contract, if you will.
So ultimately, the fight is over where the threshold of liability is - the level of expected performance by the toll road company when they put up that "open" sign.
But it's also common for a defendant to start with the most grotesque defense - i.e. "road, what road?" and force the plaintiff to fight for every application of responsibility.
And of course, all of this also follows the most fundamental principle of civil law, i.e.: Got Money?
If they lose the case, they'll shut down I80 every time it sprinkles.
How fast was she driving? It seems that to roll over three times she may well have been driving too fast for the road conditions at the time.
“Giving a company a 75 year lease (probably unbreakable) and also no liability should be a crime that gets the politician tarred and feathered and the lease broken.”
You’re talking about Mitch Daniels.
Is this any different than the government taking taxes for the same purpose?”
Can’t sue the King because he will just raise your taxes to pay the fine :)
It's like asking, if failing to meet a deadline at work is not punishable by death, what incentive do people have in meeting the deadline?
Doesn't make much sense, does it?
"I bet not everything is spelled out in the contract."
You probably meant charter. It is a well known fact that entirely complete contracts do not exist. That is why we have courts and lawsuits. Now what, what is the relationship of what you said with the article?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.