I5 Bridge Collapse in Washington

Hey , so I was seeing double at the moment. lol

 

No surprise; you break it, you buy it...

Court says trucking company to blame for bridge collapse — even though they had a permit

This week, the Washington Supreme Court ruled in favor of state transportation officials and against two trucking companies in the case of a 2013 bridge collapse involving an oversized load.

On Thursday, October 31, the Washington Supreme Court ruled against Canadian trucking company Mullen Trucking 2005 Ltd. and Motorways Trucking in a 5-4 decision, arguing that the Washington State Department of Transportation should not be held liable for a major bridge collapse.

The ruling comes after years of litigation in the wake of the collapse of the I-5 bridge over the Skagit River that occurred on May 23, 2013.

According to court documents, Mullen Trucking driver William Scott was transporting a 15 foot 11 inch oversized load from Canada to a location in Vancouver, Washington when the bridge collapse occurred.

Scott was reportedly boxed into the right lane by a Motorways Trucking semi at the time of bridge strike when only the left lane had enough clearance for the height of his load.

From the court documents:

As Scott neared the bridge, he noticed a truck behind him quickly approaching. About a half mile before they entered the bridge, the approaching truck,which was owned by codefendant Motorways Transport Ltd. and driven by Amandeep Sidhu, was “virtually beside” Scott on his left. As they entered the bridge, Sidhu’s truck was halfway beside Scott’s truck, confining Scott to the right side of the bridge. Scott’s oversize load struck the lower right curvature portion of 11 sway braces. Next there was a giant bang, and “everything got violent.”
​

Two other vehicles carrying three people also fell into the river. No one was seriously injured.

Following the bridge collapse, state officials sued Mullen Trucking and Motorways Trucking for $17 million to help pay for bridge repairs.

In the lawsuit, state officials also accused the pilot car driver of distracted driving as she was allegedly talking to her husband on a hands-free device just before the bridge strike.

The trucking companies countersued, saying that the state had issued the permit to haul the oversized load on the route. The countersuit also argued that the bridge was poorly maintained by the state and that this contributed to bridge collapse.

In the end, the court ruled that the truck operators were responsible for making sure that they were clear to pass under a structure and that the state could not be held liable for damages caused by an oversized truck.

- Court says trucking company to blame for bridge collapse -- even though they had a permit​

 

That's unfortunate. Based on what I've read, it looks like there is culpability on both the trucking company and the state. My opinion... liability should have been split equally between the parties involved. Oh, wait, what am I thinking... the state government being held responsible for something... not a chance!

As with any litigation, the true winners are the lawyers. But that's another matter!

 

I can't understand why the Motorways truck passing on the left is being held liable. Are they saying he was speeding while passing on the left and that prevented the oversized load from moving over? I can't think of any other reason.

 

From what I can tell, the pilot car driver failed to block the Motorways truck from getting on the left side of the oversize truck while he was crossing the bridge. The left lane was where oversize needed to be in order to clear the bridge, and they apparently knew it.

I can't figure out why the oversize driver didn't slow down until he could get over to the left lane safely. Maybe it happened very fast. But I also can't figure out why the hell you would pass a 15'11" load on a narrow bridge. You can't wait thirty seconds to get around him in a wider spot? Motorways driver was an idiot too, and I think they deserve to get tagged for part of the repairs.

 

I ttrust people realize they are responding to a thread that is 6 years old?

 

The Washington Supreme Court decision was just this past week.

It never hurts to be reminded of the inherent responsibilities and liabilities... especially in the O/S world.

 

I remember when this went down (pun intended). It's good to get some follow up reporting from the Washington Supreme Court decision. There's still some unanswered questions regarding how it all happened.

 

Did I read right in seeing that the bridge was declared structurally deficient...in 1992??? Has the state done anything to even try to rebuild/refurbish that bridge since then? If not, wouldn't that then also put some liability back on the state for failing to address that? (I genuinely do not know which is why I pose the question.)

 

It should, but we've got to remember that it's a state government agency and they aren't responsible (even through they truly are; in this case at least twice - bridge structure integrity & oversize permit).