A few years ago, MRH Injury Law was hired to represent a woman who was a passenger in a vehicle that was struck at an intersection. The impact caused the vehicle to flip over, leaving our client with severe injuries.
At first glance, it appeared to be a typical intersection crash. But the crash report revealed an important detail: the traffic signals at the intersection were completely dark and nonfunctional at the time of the crash.
Both vehicles had entered the intersection without stopping, and both drivers’ insurance carriers ultimately paid their policy limits. But those payments were not nearly enough to compensate our client for the severity of her injuries.
That raised a critical question:
Why were the traffic signals not working?
The Legal Challenge
Who is responsible when a traffic signal isn’t working?
The initial evidence suggested that both drivers may have contributed to the crash. But if the intersection’s traffic signals had been functioning properly, the circumstances could have been very different.
MRH Injury Law needed to determine why the signals were dark and whether someone else could be held responsible for the dangerous condition at the intersection.
Because the available insurance from the two drivers wasn’t enough to compensate our client, finding the answer was especially important.
How MRH Injury Law Dug Deeper
1. Investigating the Traffic Signal Outage
We began investigating how long the traffic signals had been out and whether anyone knew about the problem.
A search of Kansas City’s 311 call database revealed that people had been reporting the dark traffic signals for several weeks.
That raised another question: If the signals had been nonfunctional for weeks, who was responsible for fixing them?
2. Reviewing the Intersection Camera
MRH Injury Law also obtained footage of the crash from an intersection camera.
The footage revealed construction equipment, including cones and tape, around the intersection.
That provided another important clue.
3. Identifying the Construction Company’s Role
Further investigation revealed that Kansas City had hired a construction company to build a bus rapid transit line along the road and through the intersection.
The cones and tape belonged to the construction company, and the company had taken over control of the traffic signals along the construction route.
The investigation had now moved beyond a simple two-car crash. We had identified a potential third party whose work may have contributed to the dangerous condition that caused the crash.
4. Finding Out Why the Signals Were Dark
The lawsuit provided even more answers.
During the litigation, we learned that an employee of the construction company had struck electrical conduit while demolishing part of the road.
The damage created a hole in the conduit, allowing water to leak inside and short out the wires controlling the traffic signals.
That explained why the signals had been dark and nonfunctional for weeks.
The investigation connected the dots:
Construction work → damaged electrical conduit → water intrusion → shorted wires → nonfunctional traffic signals → dangerous intersection → serious crash.
How Did Digging Deeper Change the Outcome?
The two drivers’ insurance carriers had already paid their policy limits, but that wasn’t enough to compensate our client for her severe injuries.
Had we stopped there, the case would have been worth substantially less.
Instead, the investigation uncovered the construction company’s role in the traffic signal outage and led MRH Injury Law to pursue claims against both the construction company and the city.
The city and its contractor eventually settled the case for $1 million.
Without investigating why the traffic signals were out, and who was responsible for them, our client may never have received the compensation necessary to account for the full extent of her injuries.
Why This Case Matters
Can a city or construction company be liable for a crash caused by a malfunctioning traffic signal?
Potentially. The answer depends on the specific facts, including who was responsible for the traffic signal, what caused it to malfunction, whether the dangerous condition was known or should have been known, and whether another party’s conduct contributed to the problem.
In this case, the investigation uncovered a chain of events that wasn’t apparent from the initial crash report.
What looked like a straightforward intersection crash turned out to involve construction work, damaged electrical infrastructure, a prolonged traffic signal outage, and potentially responsible parties beyond the two drivers.
That’s why a serious injury case often requires looking beyond what happened in the moments immediately surrounding the crash.
Attorney Perspective
“At first, this looked like a straightforward intersection crash involving two drivers. But when we learned the traffic signals had been out for weeks, I knew we needed to find out why. Digging into the construction work and the cause of the signal outage ultimately uncovered another source of liability and made a significant difference for our client.”
— Matt Meyerkord, Attorney, MRH Injury Law
When the Answer Isn’t Obvious, Dig Deeper
A serious injury case may look straightforward at first. But the circumstances surrounding a crash can reveal additional causes, responsible parties, and sources of compensation.
At MRH Injury Law, we dig deeper to understand not just what happened, but why it happened and who may be responsible. Here’s Why Clients Choose MRH Injury Law for Personal Injury Cases in Kansas City.
If you or a loved one has suffered a serious injury, contact MRH Injury Law to learn how we can help.
Key Takeaways
- A crash that initially appears straightforward may have a more complicated cause. Investigating the conditions surrounding an accident can uncover important facts.
- Evidence from before and during a crash can reveal additional liability. Here, 311 records and intersection-camera footage provided critical clues.
- Digging deeper can uncover additional sources of compensation. Identifying the construction company’s role ultimately led to a $1 million settlement.