Law Briefs

Manhole cover blamed for car crash

By Rossa Wijayanti · · 2 min read
Manhole cover blamed for car crash - manhole cover
Manhole cover blamed for car crash

A motorist, Pamela Dale, was driving south on Peachtree Road in Atlanta when her vehicle suddenly became airborne and crashed to the ground after driving over an uncovered manhole.

Dale claimed that she injured her lower back and left arm in the accident that occurred on Aug. 13, 2016.

Dale sued the city of Atlanta and the Department of Watershed Management, alleging that the manhole was a public nuisance and was installed in violation of municipal, county, and state regulations.

Dale alleged that the front of her vehicle became airborne four to five feet in the air when she drove over the uncovered manhole and then hit the street with force.

Her vehicle then proceeded to travel approximately 15 yards down the street before coming to a stop.

Dale’s accident-reconstruction expert opined that the city knew, or should have known, that by installing a manhole 4 to 6 inches below the street surface, the manhole posed a serious and dangerous hazard and/or nuisance to the public.

The expert stated that the city knew, or should have known, that constant and continuous pressure from trucks and automobiles would cause the manhole to dislodge and create a public hazard and imminent peril to the general public, including Dale.

Related: Cher faces $1M legal bill despite win

Dale was transported to the hospital and diagnosed with a compressed lumbar fracture at L5-S1, left wrist fracture, and lacerations to her left hand.

She also claimed a soft tissue neck injury and underwent a kyphoplasty to stabilize her back.

Dale was hospitalized for nine days and underwent four months of physical therapy sessions after her discharge.

She claimed she required the assistance of a walker for one year after the accident and was prescribed pain medication and wore a back brace for six months.

Dale’s treating doctor opined that her spinal complaints were caused by the accident, and she argued that she will require future medical care for pain management.

The defense argued that there was no notice of the alleged public nuisance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.