Dangerous by Design:
Early Strategy & Case Selection in Roadway Injury Litigation
Presented
by:
Furhad Sultani
I. Introduction: Why Roadway Design Cases Are
Unique
• High-stakes: Serious injury or death often required
• Complex: Governmental liability, engineering standards, foreseeability
• Resource-heavy: Experts, lots of documents, lots of depositions, multiple defendants
II. Identifying a Viable Claim
Key ingredients:
1. A serious injury – these cases don’t justify the cost otherwise
2. A defect created or ignored by the government – misfeasance or nonfeasance
Legal Standard:
• Government has a duty to provide roadways reasonably safe for ordinary travel. WPI 140.01
What does 'reasonably safe' mean? Questions of fact that must be answered in light of the totality of the circumstances.
Case Example #1
Pedestrian injured in crosswalk with poor visibility
• Likely viable, but:
• Injury not severe enough
• Two defendants (driver + government)
• Not economically practical
III. Gathering Information to Vet the Case
• Public Records Requests (PRRs):
• Crash data, design plans, maintenance history, traffic studies, complaints
• Draft smart: request nearby intersections, note recent projects
• Witness development:
• Use social media, Nextdoor, forums
• Tap into local outrage/history of complaints
Controlling Standard
Defines federal standards for traffic control
Supports claims of unsafe design
Ask: One-off or known pattern?
Engineering judgment controls.
IV. Foreseeability and Community Knowledge
A bad driver’s decision doesn’t defeat liability
Government must anticipate foreseeable misuse
Case Example #2
Drunk driver entered clear 'Do Not Enter’ closure
Community long complained about mistaken entries
State failed to act despite safer alternatives
V. Misfeasance vs. Nonfeasance
Misfeasance – government created danger
Nonfeasance – government was on notice but failed to fix
Strategy: convert nonfeasance into misfeasance
Case Example #3:
Roadway became cut-through after development
Stop sign worsened another intersection Complaints ignored despite safer alternatives
Easy and cheap fix avaliable
VI. Structuring the Case
Early
Look up WPIs early:
• Shapes theory of liability, focuses discovery
Preserve physical evidence:
• Prevent destruction of vehicles/parts
• Send spoliation letters for evidence in others’ possession
High-effort, high-impact cases – select carefully
VII. Final Takeaways
Not every bad crash = bad design
Good cases involve:
o Clear history of complaints
o Foreseeable misuse
o Ignored safer alternatives