Opinion ID: 1658036
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: duty risk

Text: Next, we must ascertain whether DOTD owed a legal duty and whether that duty encompassed the particular risk, exposure to which caused the death of Forest. Hill v. Lundin, supra; Pierre v. Allstate Insurance Co., supra . With respect to whether the State owed a duty to alert the motorists to unusually hazardous conditions existing on its highways (in this case, the presence of a barricade obstructing the frontage road, and the detour), the answer is obvious. The State indeed has that duty, for under LA.-R.S. 48:21 they must study, administer, construct, improve, maintain and regulate the use of public transportation systems and ... perform such other functions with regard to public highways, roads and other transportation related facilities as may be conferred on the [D]epartment [of Transportation and Development] by applicable law. And, of course, the Department concedes that this particular highway was under their administration and control. The jurisprudence clearly expresses that included in the Department's obligation is the duty of properly signing and marking highways to alert unwary drivers to unusually perilous hazards such as unexpected or improperly marked intersections. Wall v. American Employers Insurance Co., 215 So.2d 913 (La.App.2d Cir.1968), writ denied, 217 So.2d 415 (La.1969); Hall v. State, Dept. of Highways, 213 So.2d 169 (La.App.3d Cir.1968); Martin v. State, Dept. of Highways, 175 So.2d 441 (La.App. 4th Cir.1965); Davis v. State, Dept. of Highways, 68 So.2d 263 (La.App.2d Cir.1953); Rosier v. State, Dept. of Highways, 50 So.2d 31 (La.App.2d Cir.1951). Whether or not this duty to properly sign and mark highways, to alert unwary drivers to unusually perilous hazards, encompasses the risk of the harm which befell James Forest is the next inquiry in a proper duty risk analysis. More simply stated, is the risk that an unwary driver would crash through an improperly marked barricade and kill a pedestrian [7] encompassed within the duty of the State to make highways safe by the proper use of warning devices? DOTD contends that its duty to properly sign the barricade in question extends only to the protection of the motoring public from hazardous situations which might be encountered on the other side of the barricade. There is no merit to that contention. DOTD's duty to regulate the highways requires that they insure that the roadways are safe, safe for all persons who might otherwise be harmed, not just for occupants of motor vehicles. The purpose of imposing this duty to warn a motorist of an unexpected and abrupt road closure is not only to protect the unwary driver and his passengers, but also to protect persons and property in the vicinity. Furthermore, a risk is not excluded from the scope of the duty simply because it is individually unforeseeable. A particular unforeseeable risk may be included if the injury is easily associated with the rule relied upon and with other risks of the same type that are foreseeable and clearly within the ambit of protection. Carter v. City-Parish Government of East Baton Rouge, 423 So.2d 1080 (La.1982). Even if the risk of a bicyclist's being killed (as he stands in front of a highway barricade) by an oncoming motorist who does not see the barricade is not distinctly foreseeable, his death by this means is easily associated with the violation of DOTD's duty to properly and safely sign the barricade and is like risks of the same type that are clearly within the ambit of protection. Another necessary inquiry is whether the actions of Vils in failing to see what he should have seen and negligently driving through the barricade and killing James Forest should be viewed as an intervening cause absolving the state from liability. We find that it is not. Rather the two were concurrent causes. A public authority is liable in solido with a motorist when its negligence, combined with that of a motorist, is found to be the cause of the accident. Holmes v. Christopher, 435 So.2d 1022 (La.App.4th Cir.1983), writ denied, 440 So.2d 765 (La.1983); Brandon v. State, Through Dept. of Highways, 367 So.2d 137 (La.App.2d Cir.1979), writ denied, 369 So.2d 141 (La.1979). We therefore conclude that both lower courts were correct in holding DOTD solidarily liable with defendant Vils and his insurer. The evidence and law support the judgment of the district court. The trial judge was correct in determining that, along with defendant Vils, DOTD was negligent, that they breached their duty to properly warn the motoring public of the abrupt and unexpected road closure and detour, and that risk of the harm which in fact befell James Forest was within the ambit of that duty. Defendants, Vils and DOTD were properly held solidarily liable for the damages suffered by plaintiffs.