Opinion ID: 2635221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Testimony of Krueper

Text: Krueper testified for the Appellants as a traffic and civil engineer specializing in highway and accident reconstruction. He testified that, based on his measurements of the P&amacr;hoa Bypass and its surrounding landscape, water runoff would travel across the roadway any time it rained. He noted that it was standard practice in roadway design to intercept water entering the roadway offside from the hill, from the dirt shoulder and channel it along the outside edge of the road. Krueper believed that the interception capabilities of offside water at the site of the accident were inadequate. During a visit to the scene for his report, Krueper also observed water coming off the driveway and sheet flowing across the road while it was drizzling, although later, on cross-examination, he confirmed that he had not observed any other runoff during that inspection. He testified that the State should have constructed a dip at the bottom of the driveway to prevent water from entering the roadway. Ultimately he concluded that a film of water on the roadway resulted in a loss of traction to Klink's vehicle, causing the accident, in part based on observed water flow and debris and in part based on the dynamics of the accident, asserting that there's no way a person can turn that sharp on dry pavement without rolling over. He emphasized that he did not believe that true hydroplaningor a complete loss of contact between the tires and the road surfacecaused Klink's vehicle to follow the trajectory that it did but, rather, that the trajectory of the vehicle indicated that contact with the roadway was only partially lost, caused by a film of water being on the roadway's surface and further causing the rear of Klink's vehicle to swing around toward the front in a counter-clockwise direction as the lighter rear end failed to brake as effectively as the heavier, front end of the vehicle when Klink entered the downhill-sloping superelevated curve. He also testified that, based on his analysis of the vehicle, the condition of Klink's tires did not play a role in the accident. With regard to the sufficiency of the roadway's design, Krueper stated that broad standards of roadway construction cannot substitute for an engineer's professional judgment based on particular on-site conditions. He testified that a basic principle of road construction is dewatering the roadway before a driver enters a superelevation. In his opinion, the design of the P&amacr;hoa Bypass did not demonstrate professional engineering judgment because there was no drainage for uphill water. Accordingly, in Krueper's opinion, the lack of a feature, such as a ditch, to intercept the water from the land abutting the highway before it reached the road rendered the design of the highway defective. Krueper opined that, if the supervising engineer had observed water flowing onto the roadway from the shoulder shortly after the highway had opened, he should have investigated to ensure that the highway had been built according to design specifications. Krueper further testified that the engineer should then have notified a supervisor of the condition, warning signs should have been installed, and methods to intercept the water should have been undertaken immediately. In Krueper's opinion, Haymore's failure to take action when he first observed water coming over the cutbank in 1991 was a deviation from professional and ethical standards. Krueper also testified that warnings signs should be placed far enough in advance of the object that you are to warn of so a driver can reasonably perceive, react, and do what the sign intends to tell you to do before you get to that point. Specifically, pursuant to DOT guidelines, in Krueper's opinion the appropriate location for a sign warning of flooding would be at least 450 feet prior to the condition, 500 feet if the roadway was downhill, which for the present matter would be approximately 50 feet south of station 0+00 on Exhibit 27. Krueper believed that the Road Floods During Rain sign he observed during his site inspection, located roughly at station 3+00 on Exhibit 27 approximately 100 feet south of where Klink's car began its spin, and approximately 350 north from the location Krueper believed it should have been located to provide adequate warningwas nevertheless not present on the day of the Klink accident because it appeared to be brand new and there was no mention of it in the police report.