The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 47-48

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 47... ... NCHRP LRD 82 47 that the plaintiffs failed to show that the New York State DOT had actual or constructive notice of a soil slope failure hazard at the time of the 2006 incident, and thus the New York State DOT was not liable.608 Presumably the outcome would have been less favorable to the New York State DOT if the plantiffs had been injured by a rockfall rather than a mudslide, given the New York State DOT's failure to show that it had performed routine maintenance to address rockfall concerns. Likewise, if the New York State DOT's slope rating procedure accounted for soil failure modes (slides) Read the entire page →
From page 48... ... 48 NCHRP LRD 82 rock scaling and installation of protective devices, in order to show that it was not negligent. Courts will consider whether the State DOT's mitigation activity or inactivity was reasonable and conformed with the State DOT's duty to maintain the highway in a reasonably safe condition. Read the entire page →

From page 47...

... NCHRP LRD 82 47 that the plaintiffs failed to show that the New York State DOT had actual or constructive notice of a soil slope failure hazard at the time of the 2006 incident, and thus the New York State DOT was not liable.608 Presumably the outcome would have been less favorable to the New York State DOT if the plantiffs had been injured by a rockfall rather than a mudslide, given the New York State DOT's failure to show that it had performed routine maintenance to address rockfall concerns. Likewise, if the New York State DOT's slope rating procedure accounted for soil failure modes (slides)

Read the entire page →

From page 48...

... 48 NCHRP LRD 82 rock scaling and installation of protective devices, in order to show that it was not negligent. Courts will consider whether the State DOT's mitigation activity or inactivity was reasonable and conformed with the State DOT's duty to maintain the highway in a reasonably safe condition.

Read the entire page →

Key Terms

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.