CALL 916-777-7777
Youtube Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in

Sacramento Negligent Road Design Accident Attorney

FREE EVALUATION (916) 777-7777

Negligent Road Design Accident Lawyers in Sacramento, CA

Some crashes aren’t caused by distracted drivers or speeding. Sometimes the real problem is the road itself. Poor layout, sharp turns with no warning, intersections without lights or signs—these kinds of hazards can lead to serious injuries. When that happens, it’s fair to ask whether the city or state should’ve done more to keep people safe.

Cases like this aren’t simple. If you were hurt because of the way a road was built or designed, you’re likely dealing with a government agency. That means different rules, strict time limits, and a higher bar to prove they were careless. To sue the city for bad road design in California, you’ll need to show they knew—or should’ve known—about the danger and didn’t fix it.

At Arnold Law Firm Accident & Injury Attorneys, we’ve handled claims involving dangerous roadways throughout Sacramento. If you’re dealing with injuries from a crash like this, talk to a Sacramento negligent road design accident attorney from our team to find out what your options are.

Don’t wait—contact our negligent road design lawyers today for a free consultation and let us start building your case.

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

SETTLEMENT

$60,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Morgan Stanley data breach class action lawsuit.

Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$18,276,000

Qui Tam / Whistleblower

A whistleblower case exposing fraudulent practices in the state of California resulted…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$17,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$17,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$8,000,000

Truck Accident

Late one spring afternoon, the Arnold Law Firm received a call from Angela, a young…
Learn More

JUDGEMENT

$3,900,000

Car Accident

The fatal collision between plaintiff’s Jeep Liberty and defendant’s Volvo truck…
Learn More

What Is Considered Negligent Road Design in California?

Negligent road design refers to the way a roadway was built or laid out in a way that creates a safety risk for drivers. That could include sharp curves with no visibility, sudden drop-offs along the edge, or roads with confusing or missing signage. In some areas, you’ll also find intersections placed too close together or lanes that narrow without warning, both of which increase the chances of a collision. What ties these issues together is that the hazard exists because of how the road was designed, not how it’s been cared for since.

That’s different from poor maintenance. A road might be unsafe because of a deep pothole, loose gravel, or a broken light—but those are repair problems, not design problems.

If you’ve been hurt in a crash and suspect the road itself played a role, a roadway hazard injury lawyer in Sacramento can look at the design and figure out whether it meets the safety standards it should have followed from the start. In those cases, you may have grounds for a claim.

Can I Sue the City or Caltrans for Dangerous Road Design?

In California, you can sue a government agency like the city or Caltrans for dangerous road design, but the process is different from filing a typical injury claim. The California Tort Claims Act sets specific rules for cases involving public entities. One of the most important is the deadline—you only have six months from the date of the accident to file a formal claim with the agency. If you miss that window, you likely lose your right to sue, no matter how strong your case may be.

That said, these claims aren’t easy. Government entities are often protected by immunity, which shields them from certain lawsuits. Still, there are exceptions. If a public agency knew—or should have known—about a dangerous road design and failed to fix it or warn drivers, they may be held legally responsible.

A Sacramento negligent road design accident lawyer can help you figure out whether your case fits one of those exceptions. Because these claims involve extra steps and tighter deadlines, it’s important to act quickly and have someone who understands how to challenge public agencies under California law.

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

What Evidence Can Support My Negligent Road Design Claim?

When you’re pursuing a claim for negligent road design, gathering the right evidence early can make a major difference. Since the conditions that caused the crash may change quickly, it’s important to act fast. A roadway hazard injury lawyer in Sacramento can help preserve the scene and start building the case right away. Key types of evidence often include:

  • Photos and videos of the road layout, signage (or lack of it), and any visual hazards such as blind curves, steep drop-offs, or unsafe merges
  • Damage reports from vehicles involved in the crash, which may help show how the road layout contributed to the impact
  • Witness statements from people who saw the accident happen or who drive the same stretch of road regularly and know it’s unsafe
  • Expert testimony from engineers or accident reconstruction specialists who can explain how the road design created an unreasonable risk

Preserving evidence before it’s repaired or altered is critical. Even a few days can make a difference. Working with someone experienced in these cases ensures the right steps are taken while the scene and details are still fresh.

What Should I Do After an Accident Caused by Poor Road Design?

If you were injured in a crash and suspect dangerous road conditions played a role, taking the right steps right away can help protect your claim. A dangerous road accident lawyer in Sacramento will often rely on early evidence that can disappear fast. To avoid losing crucial proof, follow this general process:

  • Call 911 so police and emergency responders can document what happened and assist with injuries.
  • Document the scene while you’re still there. Make a note of road layout, signage, traffic flow, and anything that seemed unsafe or confusing.
  • Take clear photos of the hazard itself—whether it’s a blind curve, lack of warning signs, or a poorly designed merge lane.
  • Get medical care even if you don’t feel badly hurt. You’ll need a record of any injuries connected to the crash.
  • Hold off on vehicle repairs until a lawyer or expert has reviewed the damage.
  • Speak to an attorney right away so they can secure the evidence, assess liability, and guide your next steps.

Acting early gives your case the best chance of moving forward.

WE FIGHT FOR YOUR MAXIMUM INJURY COMPENSATION

Free Case Evaluation
CALL 916-777-7777

What Compensation Can a Sacramento Negligent Road Design Accident Lawyer Help You Recover?

If a dangerous or poorly designed road caused your accident, a Sacramento negligent road design accident lawyer can help you pursue compensation for the full range of harm you’ve suffered—not just the immediate losses. These claims often involve both short-term expenses and long-term consequences, which fall into two broad categories: economic and non-economic damages. A skilled attorney will build a detailed case that accounts for both.

Economic Damages

Economic damages are the measurable financial losses tied directly to the accident.

  • Medical Expenses: This includes the full cost of medical care, such as emergency services, surgeries, hospital stays, rehabilitation, and physical therapy. If your injuries require long-term treatment, ongoing medication, or future procedures, those future costs can also be included in the claim.
  • Lost Income and Earning Potential: If your injuries keep you from working, you may be able to recover lost wages for the time you’ve already missed. If your condition affects your ability to work going forward—whether by reducing your hours, changing your role, or ending your career altogether—future lost earnings can also be factored into your recovery.
  • Property Damage: Compensation may cover repair or replacement costs for your vehicle and any other personal property damaged in the crash. Your lawyer can help document these losses clearly for the insurance companies or court.
  • Future Care and Accommodations: Serious injuries sometimes lead to long-term consequences, like the need for home health care, in-home modifications, mobility equipment, or psychological treatment. These costs should be estimated and included before any settlement is finalized.

Non-Economic Damages

Non-economic damages address the more personal and subjective impacts of an accident.

  • Pain and Suffering: This refers to the physical pain you’ve endured due to your injuries, including chronic pain or loss of mobility. It also includes the mental and emotional strain that can come with trauma, such as anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress.
  • Loss of Enjoyment of Life: If your injuries prevent you from taking part in hobbies, physical activities, or daily routines you once enjoyed, this loss may be included in the claim.
  • Emotional Distress and Mental Anguish: Long after your body starts to heal, the psychological effects of a serious crash can linger. A lawyer can help connect you with professionals who can evaluate these impacts and explain them as part of your case.

A Sacramento negligent road design accident lawyer will gather evidence, consult with 

experts, and work to ensure that both the visible and invisible costs of the accident are taken into account. That’s the only way to make sure your recovery reflects what you’ve actually been through—and what’s still ahead.

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

How Long Do I Have to File a Road Design Accident Claim?

When a road design defect leads to a crash, the timeline for taking legal action depends on who’s responsible. In most personal injury cases, California gives you up to two years from the date of the accident to file a claim. However, if the dangerous condition involves a government entity—like Caltrans or the city of Sacramento—you only have six months to file a notice of claim under the California Tort Claims Act.

This shorter deadline makes it critical to act quickly. Waiting too long can cost you the right to pursue compensation, even if your injuries are serious and the road hazard is well documented. Because these claims often involve public agencies and strict filing rules, reaching out to a lawyer early on can help protect your case and give you a better chance at recovering what you’re owed.

How Do You Prove Liability in a Negligent Road Design Case?

To hold a government agency responsible, you have to prove it failed to meet a basic legal obligation. Public entities have a duty to design roads that are reasonably safe for everyday use. That doesn’t mean roads must be flawless, but they shouldn’t pose preventable dangers. A Sacramento negligent road design accident attorney will focus on showing that the road in question didn’t meet this standard—and that this failure caused your injuries.

What Counts as Negligence

Negligence usually comes down to whether the agency acted—or failed to act—when it had the chance. If a road design includes a hidden curve, missing signage, or poor visibility and no steps were taken to fix it, that’s often enough to raise legal concerns. The more obvious the hazard, the harder it is for the agency to claim it wasn’t aware.

How Prior Complaints Strengthen a Claim

Records of past accidents, public complaints, or inspection reports can show the agency knew the area was unsafe. If it failed to act despite this knowledge, that history can help prove your case.

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Can Multiple Parties Be Held Liable in a Dangerous Road Accident?

Yes, more than one party can be held legally responsible when poor road design or construction contributes to a crash. In California, liability may be shared between different government agencies, private engineering firms, and outside contractors who were involved in the design, inspection, or construction of the road. Each party has its own set of legal responsibilities, and when those duties are ignored or mishandled, they can all become part of the claim.

California also follows comparative fault rules, which means liability can be divided between multiple entities—and even the injured person—based on each one’s role in causing the accident. If a city failed to fix a known hazard and a contractor cut corners during construction, both could be held accountable. Sorting this out can be complex, but an attorney can help trace responsibility across every party involved.

Do I Need a Lawyer for a Sacramento Negligent Road Design Case?

If your accident involved a poorly designed or hazardous roadway, having a lawyer on your side is especially important. These cases often involve government entities, which means stricter deadlines, complex procedures, and legal protections that can make it harder to recover compensation without help.

A roadway hazard injury lawyer in Sacramento knows how to navigate the claims process under the California Tort Claims Act, which has a six-month deadline to file notice against public agencies. Beyond meeting deadlines, an attorney can gather the right evidence, consult with engineers or accident reconstruction experts, and identify which agency—or combination of agencies—may be responsible.

Proving that a road’s design created a danger to drivers takes more than showing photos. It usually requires technical analysis, policy reviews, and public records. An attorney understands how to build a claim that not only meets the legal standard but also protects your right to hold the right parties accountable.

Why Choose Arnold Law Firm Accident & Injury Attorneys?

When you’re dealing with a serious crash caused by poor road design, experience matters. Our team brings over 50 years of focused, local experience to every case we take on. As Sacramento negligent road design accident lawyers, we understand how Caltrans operates, how city planning decisions are made, and how to challenge the legal defenses government agencies rely on.

We’ve built a strong reputation for holding public entities accountable, and we know the ordinances, engineering standards, and legal strategies needed to move these cases forward. Our firm works on a contingency fee basis, which means you don’t pay unless we win. That structure allows us to fully invest in your case without adding pressure to your recovery.

We also take pride in treating clients with compassion and respect. If you want a team that’s local, experienced, and ready to fight for you, Arnold Law Firm Accident & Injury Attorneys is ready to help. Whether you were driving a car, riding a motorcycle, or operating a truck, our Sacramento accident attorneys are here to fight for your rights.

Contact a Sacramento Negligent Road Design Accident Attorney Today

If you’ve been hurt because of a poorly designed or unsafe road, don’t wait to take the next step. The sooner you reach out, the sooner we can begin gathering evidence, identifying who’s responsible, and protecting your right to fair compensation. At Arnold Law Firm Accident & Injury Attorneys, we’ve helped Sacramento residents hold government agencies accountable for over five decades, and we’re ready to do the same for you.

Call (916) 777-7777 now to schedule a free, no-obligation consultation. We’ll listen to your story, explain your legal options, and outline what to expect if you move forward. There are no upfront costs, and you won’t pay us a dime unless we win your case.

This is your chance to put experience and local knowledge on your side—contact our negligent road design accident lawyers today.

LATEST NEWS

Treble Damages in California Trucking Cases

justice4you January 30, 2026

California law provides a specific statutory remedy for victims injured by impaired commercial vehicle drivers when their employers fail to meet federal safety requirements. Understanding when treble damages apply—and how they differ from standard punitive damages—is crucial for truck accident victims seeking maximum compensation. What Are Treble Damages? Treble damages allow injured parties to recover three times their actual damages under specific legal circumstances. In California trucking cases, this remedy is narrowly defined and differs significantly from general punitive damages available in other personal injury cases. California Civil Code § 3333.7: Statutory Treble Damages Requirements for Recovery Under California Civil Code § 3333.7, injured parties may recover treble damages from a commercial motor vehicle driver’s employer when all of the

California Trucking Accidents: Standards of Care

justice4you January 29, 2026

California law establishes different standards of care for trucking operations depending on the type of service provided. While most commercial trucking companies transporting freight are subject to ordinary negligence standards, federal motor carrier safety regulations impose enhanced duties that can significantly affect liability in truck accident cases. Key Takeaways: Commercial carriers of goods generally DO NOT have the duty of “utmost care” Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) DO create heightened standards in specific situations Large truck drivers must exercise greater caution than ordinary motorists Licensed motor carriers have nondelegable safety duties Common Carrier Standard: When Does “Utmost Care” Apply? The Enhanced Duty for Passenger Transportation California Civil Code section 2100 requires carriers of persons for reward to use “the

Punitive Damages in California Personal Injury Cases

justice4you January 28, 2026

What Are Punitive Damages? Punitive damages are extra money a court can order a wrongdoer to pay, on top of the money that compensates an injured person for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The main goal of punitive damages is not to repay the victim, but to punish especially bad behavior and to discourage similar conduct in the future. Think of punitive damages as a financial penalty for conduct that is much worse than ordinary carelessness. In California, punitive damages are not common. They are reserved for cases where the defendant’s conduct is particularly harmful, intentional, or shows a conscious disregard for the safety or rights of others. Most personal injury cases involve simple negligence (for example,

Settlement - $3,900,000

Car Accident

The fatal collision between plaintiff’s Jeep Liberty and defendant’s Volvo truck left Ryan Eisenbrandt’s surviving wife and parents with a judgment of $3.9 million, but the defendant’s insurance company refused to pay. This resulted in a second, intense legal battle between Plaintiffs and Defendant’s insurance company.

During the pendency of the wrongful death case, Defendant’s insurance company had filed a federal court action to rescind the defendants $1,000,000 insurance policy, claiming that defendant had made misrepresentations when applying for that policy. Initially, the federal court agreed with the insurance company, granting summary judgment that effectively denied recovery to the Eisenbrandts given the defendant was otherwise insolvent. The Arnold firm and the Eisenbrandts refused to accept this unfair outcome. They appealed the federal judge’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court and sent the case back to the same federal judge for a trial on the merits.

Christine Doyle of the Arnold Firm tried the case in February 2011 in front of the same judge who had previously thrown out the Eisenbrandt’s case. A unanimous advisory jury and the trial judge, after hearing the true facts about the insurance company’s effort to avoid responsibility, found in the Eisenbrandts favor. After four years of fighting for what is right, the insurance company was ordered to pay up.

Settlement - $8,000,000

Truck Accident

Morgan Stanley Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

Late one spring afternoon, the Arnold Law Firm received a call from Angela, a young mother of three. She was calling from the hospital where her husband Christopher had been air-lifted for treatment of severe injuries from a tragic motor vehicle accident earlier that day. Angela’s mother, a past client of our firm, had encouraged her to give us a call.

As it turns out, Angela’s prompt contact with us was a very important decision for their family. Immediate representation allowed our team to secure critical evidence right away — appropriate storage and analysis of the vehicle to avoid tampering, timely professional photography of the scene, and interviews of involved parties — which ended up being imperative to the details of Christopher’s case.

A commercial vehicle had failed to stop at a rural stop-sign intersection, colliding with the compact sedan driven by Christopher, an active 33-year-old father. The impact caused extensive damage to his spinal cord in the cervical area. Despite multiple surgeries, rehabilitation programs for physical and psychological therapy, and in-home care, his injuries rendered him a paraplegic, paralyzed from the mid-chest. In an instant, life as he had known it was gone forever.

At the time of the accident, the at-fault driver of the commercial vehicle was acting within the scope of his employment with a large corporation. With the employer being directly liable, as such, defense counsel fought hard to minimize Christopher’s damages, claiming that his being unemployed at that time devalued his losses. Our legal team made sure Christopher’s true losses were represented, including his potential income, his options and mobility, his ability to provide for and support his family, and the lifetime of care he now needed. Christopher’s injuries also dramatically affected his spouse’s daily life, resulting in a claim on her behalf.

Furthermore, the extent of Christopher’s injuries were, in part, due to defects involving the dual-restraint system in his own vehicle. Despite the manufacturer’s efforts to deny any responsibility, the Arnold Law Firm established negligence relevant to his case.

The result was a settlement of $8 million — the largest pre-trial settlement for this type of case in the region. Christopher now has the resources to receive the ongoing care he now requires, improve the quality of his life and take care of his young family.

Verdict - $10,200,000

Motorcycle Accident

The Arnold Law Firm is pleased to report that our attorneys received a $10.2 million verdict handed down in Modesto. Defense counsel was Kevin Cholakian of San Francisco. The defense rejected a 998 within the $1 million policy limits three years ago. The highest defense offer was $350k.

The case involved a blind corner dirt fire road collision between a truck driven by the defendant and a motorcycle driven by the plaintiff Dan Nixon. THe plaintiff had no recollection of the collision. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had too much speed for the corner and lost control. The plaintiff’s son (who identified the wrong curve in discovery) claimed that the defendant was on the wrong side of the curve, causing his dad to make an unsuccessful emergency maneuver. The jury assessed 70% fault to the defendant and 30% to plaintiff.

The plaintiff, now 50-years-old, suffered a dislocated right knee with popliteal artery rupture which has left him with an unstable knee, and permanently damaged lower leg. Because of vascular damage he is not a candidate for knee reconstruction or replacement. The plaintiff’s treating doctors testified that he will require an above knee amputation within 20 years. Past lost wages were $78,000 and past medicals were $570,000. The jury awarded $7.5 million in general damages (3 m. past and 4.5 m. future) as well as all future economic damages asked for by the plaintiff. The jury deliberated for 3 and a half hours.

Settlement - $17,000,000

Data Breach

Infinity/Kemper Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, and Mason, Lietz, & Klinger, and Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, & Herz LLP, reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach class action lawsuit, also known as Irma Carrera et al. v. Kemper Corporation and Infinity Insurance Company, filed in the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:20-cv-01883. The settlement is valued at over $17 million.

The Honorable Judge Martha M. Pacold granted Preliminary Approval of the settlement on October 27, 2021.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the class members will receive access to Aura’s Financial Shield Services for a period of 18 months, up to $10,000 for reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket losses reasonably traceable to the Data Breach, up to 3 hours of time spent remedying issues related to the breach at $18 per hour, and $50 for Class Members who are California residents.

History of the data breach: On April 8, 2021, the Arnold Law Firm and Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, & Herz LLP filed the first class action complaint against Kemper and Infinity in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Irma Carrera Aguallo et al. v. Kemper Corporation and Infinity Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01883. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se, (3) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unlawful Business Practices, (4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unfair Business Practices, (5) violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, et seq., (6) violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq., (7) violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Statute § 501.201, et seq., (8) breach of implied contract, (9) declaratory judgment, and (10) unjust enrichment arising from the data breach.

Settlement - $18,276,000

Qui Tam / Whistleblower

Whistleblowers Represented by Arnold Law Firm Expose Fraudulent Practices by the Pill Club, Case Settled With California DOJ

The Arnold Law Firm and the Hirst Law Group represented two whistleblowers who helped expose fraudulent practices by a start-up online pharmacy company called The Pill Club.

The company allegedly used fraudulent practices to bill California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, for their services. The Pill Club is also alleged to have violated state laws by allowing nurse practitioners to prescribe contraceptive products to women without proper supervision or training from a licensed medical doctor.

For their part in blowing the whistle on the company they worked for, and as part of California Qui Tam laws, the whistleblowers and their attorneys recovered $4.9 million from the $18.275 million settlement paid to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the California Department of Insurance (CDI).

Settlement - $60,000,000

Data Breach

Morgan Stanley Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. and others, reached a settlement in the Morgan Stanley data breach class action lawsuit, also known as In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, filed in the United States District Court Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-05914-AT. The settlement resulted in a $60 million settlement fund to benefit class members.

The Motion for Preliminary Approval was filed on December 31, 2021 with the Honorable Judge Analisa Torres.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the 15 million class members will be provided access to Aura’s Financial Shield services for at least two years, which includes a $1 million insurance policy protecting each subscriber, credit monitoring, identity freezing, dark web monitoring, income tax protection and more services. The fund will also provide payments to people who submit valid claims for out-of-pocket expenses and/or up to four hours of lost-time incurred as a result of the data breach. Lost time allows victims of the data breach to be paid at $25 per hour for up to four hours of attested time spent dealing with the data breach. Out-of-pocket expenses can be claimed up to $10,000 if the costs or expenditures are fairly traceable to the data breach.

History of the data breach: On July 29, 2020, the Arnold Law Firm and Morgan & Morgan filed the first class action lawsuit against Morgan Stanley in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Sylvia Tillman et al. v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05914. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) invasion of privacy; (3) negligence per se; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unlawful Business Practices; and (6) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unfair Business Practices.

Settlement - $3,767,000

Truck Accident

A 20-year-old man who had been married for just 12 days left home on his way to work. He was driving on Pleasant Grove Road in Sutter County in the early morning when he came upon a slow-moving truck. As he pulled out to pass the truck, the truck driver turned left in front of him. The young man attempted to steer back into his lane but his vehicle struck an un-flagged piece of metal extending from the back of the truck. He died in the resulting crash.

Expert witnesses brought in by the Arnold Law Firm proved that the truck, owned and operated by a hauling firm, should never have been on the highway that morning. Specifically, the rear and side turn signals did not work and the rear-view mirror was in a poor state of adjustment at the time of the collision. As a result, the driver, who had failed to properly inspect the vehicle before setting out that morning, couldn’t see the young man’s vehicle as it attempted to pass.

The poor condition of the truck, its lack of maintenance and the manner in which it was operated were found to be substantial factors in causing the collision that killed the young man. The testimony also established that the man had been making a lawful pass at the lawful speed limit and acted reasonably when he attempted to avoid the collision.

The man’s 20-year-old widow was awarded $3,767,000.77, his parents were awarded $185,131 and the family was reimbursed $11,899 in funeral expenses. Though money is a poor substitute for a young man’s life, this verdict demonstrates that drivers who endanger the lives of others will be held accountable for their actions.