In Ceja v. Department of Transportation, ordered published December 19, 2011, the Fifth District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court's decision in a lawsuit dealing with a cross-median accident to exclude evidence of four cross-median accidents that occurred before the roadway was reconfigured. In 1992, the roadway met the accident-history criteria ("accident warrant") for installing a median barrier. The state decided not to install a median, because the roadway was to be reconfigured in 1994 from four lanes of expressway and freeway with an 84-foot median to six lanes of freeway with a 60-foot median.
The trial court acted within its discretion in excluding the accidents that occurred when the freeway was in a different configuration, the appellate court ruled. To have the prior accidents admitted into evidence, the plaintiff had to prove that there was no substantial change in the roadway between those accidents and the one at issue. The change in configuration was a substantial change. It did not matter that the number of lanes was irrelevant to the accident warrant. An accident warrant does not govern whether a roadway has substantially changed; it is merely an indication that the roadway's design should be evaluated further.
Comments