Contractors attempt to set up traffic break without CHP, resulting in crash. $5.5M. San Luis Obispo County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  On August 12, 2015 plaintiff was headed home from his job as a Caltrans inspector. He was traveling north on Highway 101 in the #1 lane on the Cuesta Grade. At this time the highway was undergoing a repaving project approximately three miles in length. The general contractor was Telfer. The sub-contractor was Anrak. 

  Anrak had equipment on site to grind off the existing pavement and Telfer was to lay the new asphalt directly behind the grinders. Anrak had staged its grinders from an earlier shift adjacent to the northbound (NB) lanes. On the night of the accident it had planned on working in the southbound (SB) lanes, which would necessitate getting the grinders from the staging area to the SB lanes. In order to do this Telfer proposed performing a traffic break using its own vehicles as opposed to seeking assistance by the CHP. Telfer needed three vehicles to cover the three NB lanes. It only had two available vehicles, so it sought assistance from Anrak. Anrak, by its contract and company policy, does not participate in any traffic control measures. Nonetheless, it offered up a 24-year-old employee who had never performed a traffic break. 

  The plan was to have the three vehicles leave the staging area, cross the three NB lanes and then travel SB to the Monterey Street off-ramp. They would then turn around and enter the NB lanes, fanning out to cover the three lanes, slowing traffic sufficiently to allow the 45-foot-long grinders to cross the highway.

  The Anrak employee attempted to cross the NB lanes but failed to assess oncoming traffic. A NB vehicle in the #1 lane, driven by Edward Clynes, was traveling at 67 mph when he saw the Anrak vehicle traveling perpendicular across his lane, causing him to come to a panic stop. Plaintiff, who was traveling 60-65 mph on a motorcycle, failed to realize that a vehicle had come to a stop and rear-ended the Clynes’ vehicle, causing him to be catapulted over it and resulting in severe injuries. 

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  Plaintiff contended that Telfer was negligent for its decision to perform its own traffic break instead of using available CHP, which it was required to do per Caltrans specs. Anrak was negligent by allowing an inexperienced employee to perform a traffic break against company policy and vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee in making an unsafe crossing maneuver on the highway. Plaintiff also contended that Caltrans was negligent by failing to inform Telfer that CHP was available that night.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Telfer contended it had no responsibility since the traffic break never occurred. Anrak maintained that it bore no direct responsibility for its employee since Telfer directed his activities and therefore became a special employer. Caltrans contended that it had no duty to inform Telfer of CHP presence. All defendants contended that plaintiff was negligent and inattentive and was the cause of his own injuries.