Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Liability And Crosswalks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Risk manager urges engineering-based crosswalk decisions, warns council communications are discoverable
Summary
AWCRMSA claims manager Ashley Jones told Gig Harbor council that roadway design and crosswalk placement decisions should be driven by engineering analysis because design or maintenance failures can lead to high-value liability claims; she recommended that council avoid ad-hoc public statements that could be used as evidence in lawsuits.
Ashley Jones, claims manager for AWCRMSA, told the Gig Harbor City Council on March 14 that government entities are legally obliged to keep roads in a reasonably safe condition and that design choices — from signal timing to signage — are treated as engineering decisions that can form the basis of litigation.
Jones said plaintiffs’ attorneys pursue engineering and maintenance records when a crash occurs and often frame road design disputes as professional malpractice. “When a municipality is accused of causing a crash, they’re essentially accused of professional malpractice,” she said, urging council to leave placement and schematic decisions to qualified staff and engineers rather than relying on anecdote.
Her presentation outlined objective design factors that should guide crosswalk placement, including sight distance, speed limit, mid-block vs. intersection context, ADA needs, and whether infrastructure such as medians, lighting or beacons is required. She cited a Federal Highway Administration study — the Zebra Report — that found no consistent pedestrian-safety advantage for marked versus unmarked crosswalks, and warned that marked crossings can sometimes create a false sense of security.
Council members asked whether the same liability principles apply to bike lanes and new e-mobility devices. Jones said wheeled users retain a duty of lookout and that comparative negligence principles frequently reduce municipal exposure when other road users are at fault, but she stressed that each case turns on records and design documentation.
Jones also cautioned that council members’ remarks and emails are discoverable in litigation. “Those opinions shared in a recorded session or via written correspondence are discoverable,” she said, recommending that staff prepare template language for council communications that acknowledges receipt of a request while avoiding statements that could be read as admissions of hazardous conditions.
The presentation did not propose immediate policy changes; rather, Jones urged stronger documentation of technical decisions and closer reliance on staff and consultants with engineering expertise. She offered to work with legal counsel and staff to provide template communications.
The council thanked Jones and asked staff to return recommended language and any additional clarifications.
