CHEYENNE, Wyo. (Legal Newsline) – It was not unreasonable for a Wyoming jury to determine two companies botched traffic control at a paving job, leading to the death of a man in a head-on collision.
The Wyoming Supreme Court made that ruling June 7 in the case of the death of William Gray, Jr., who was hospitalized for more than two weeks following the wreck before succumbing to his injuries. His estate sued the other driver, the company hired by the Wyoming Department of Transportation for the paving job and the subcontractor it hired to handle traffic control.
A jury gave 30% of the blame to the subcontractor (RoadWorx), 60% to general contractor Knife River and 10% to the driver. The state Supreme Court affirmed.
“We conclude the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to Ms. Gray-Dockham, permitted more than one reasonable inference as to whether the harm was caused by an act or omission committed by Knife River’s project superintendent… pursuant to orders or directions negligently given, and that inferences favorable to Knife River were subject to doubt,” the decision says.
“The issue was therefore for the jury to decide, and the jury was mandated to allocate the percentage of fault attributable to each actor, including Knife River.”
On Sept. 12, 2017, Lana Simmons experienced confusion trying to make her way through the traffic control setup on Yellowstone Highway in Casper, where Knife River was hired to pave nearly five miles of road. As she tried to make a left turn, she realized she was turning into the wrong lane and zagged.
But she and Gray struck each other head-on, with Gray driving approximately 37 to 42 miles per hour at the time.
Knife River had chosen to be the middleman for communication between WYDOT and RoadWorx but complained Gray’s estate could sue it for both direct negligence and vicarious liability. It claimed the verdict amounted to double liability.
“Appellants’ contentions ignore Wyoming’s comparative fault scheme,” the decision says.
The defendants also argued the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence because the traffic control was not a substantial factor in causing the accident. They said Simmons caused the accident by being too focus on a barrel instructing her to keep right.
The plaintiff’s expert testified placing barrels for her turn lane all the way to the intersection would have provided her with proper guidance for a normal left turn.
“(W)hile the Appellants’ expert witness… opined nothing about the traffic control setup causing the accident, he admitted his analysis did not account for Ms. Simmons stopping at the last barrel or for the subtle ‘s’ or ‘zig-zag’ maneuver she made in the intersection,” the decision says.