A judge has dismissed a $6 million lawsuit against the Chesapeake Bay-Bridge Tunnel for the death of a trucker whose rig went over the side four years ago.
The lawsuit against the CBBT claimed Joseph Chen should not have been allowed to cross the span at the time he did because the winds were too strong.
Chen, 47, was an experienced trucker from North Carolina returning from his regular delivery run for a seafood company. He died shortly after his 18-wheeler went through the railing near mile marker 15 on Feb. 9, 2017.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of his widow, said the CBBT violated its wind restrictions policy by letting Chen cross with a nearly empty trailer while gusts as high as 50 mph were being clocked on the 17.6-mile span.
The court found (1) the winds were a “proximate cause” of the accident, (2) there was no evidence to support defense claims that Joseph Chen’s behavior contributed to the accident, (3) bridge-tunnel personnel had correctly applied the wind policy, and (4) that sovereign immunity applies to the CBBT, making the Bridge and Tunnel District immune from the liability suit.
The CBBT’s wind restrictions policy consists of a six-level system that applies to certain types of traffic as winds escalate. Tractor-trailers like Chen’s — empty or lightly loaded and easier to blow over — are forbidden when winds exceed Level 1, which officially tops out at 46 mph.
But according to CBBT logs, a wind gauge near the scene of Chen’s accident detected a 50-mph gust at 12:21 pm, just as he lost control of his rig.
About the Author
(4) that sovereign immunity applies to the CBBT, making the Bridge and Tunnel District immune from the liability suit. ???????
GTFOH!!! Un-Funking-Believable!
Not really, unfortunately.
Sovereign immunity
Definition
The sovereign immunity refers to the fact that the government cannot be sued without its consent.
Overview
Sovereign immunity was derived from British common law doctrine based on the idea that the King could do no wrong.
end quotes
What the judge has done in this case is to say the CBBT is the king, and thus, cannot be sued by a mere subject.
Getting back to that from the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute website, it continues as follows:
In the United States, sovereign immunity typically applies to the federal government and state government, but not to municipalities.
end quotes
Is the CBBT the state?
Is it the federal government?
Or is it something else entirely, which raises the question of how it came to have sovereign immunity, which is something I have seen political judges hand out like candy to protect wrongdoers in government from the citizens their wrongdoing has harmed.
Getting back to that website, it continues as follows:
Various Considerations Related to Federal Immunity
Under the Feres Doctrine, those who are injured during their military service cannot sue the federal government.
Under the Westfall Act, federal employees cannot be sued for torts committed during the scope of their employment .
Citizens Suing Their Own State
When determining whether a citizen may sue a state actor (someone acting on behalf of the state: i.e. a state worker), courts will typically use one (1) of four (4) tests:
* Governmental v proprietary function test (Was the actor functioning in a governmental fashion or a proprietary fashion?)
* If the actor was performing a proprietary function (i.e. acting for financial gain for itself or its citizens; doing something that is not historically a governmental function; doing something that can be performed by a private corporation/contractor), then the actor is subject to liability
* If the actor was performing a governmental function (i.e. acting for the general public; doing something ordained by legislature; performing a historic gov function), then the actor is not subject to liability
2) Ministerial/operational v. discretionary functions/acts test (Was the actor performing a ministerial/operational task or a discretionary task?)
* If the actor is performing a ministerial/operational action, then there is not immunity.
* If the actor is performing a discretionary action, then there is immunity.
3) Planning v implementational (Was the actor planning an action or implementing an action?)
* If the actor’s planning of policy results in harm, then there is immunity
* If the harm happens due to the government’s implementation of the plan, then there is not immunity
4) Non-justiciable v. justiciable
If the action is justiciable under regular tort principles, then there is no immunity.
If the issue is not justiciable under regular tort principles, then there is immunity.
The CBBT is the worst thing that ever happened to The Eastern Shore of Virginia.
No it is not
Bless your heart…