The bridge collapsed. Concrete fell from the overpass onto your vehicle. The deteriorating structure gave way without warning. Bridge failures cause catastrophic accidents with multiple victims and complex liability questions spanning government agencies, engineers, and contractors.
Georgia’s aging infrastructure creates ongoing risks as bridges built decades ago approach or exceed their design lifespans. When bridge failures occur, understanding liability helps victims pursue all responsible parties.
Types of Bridge Failures
Structural collapse represents the most catastrophic failure mode. Primary load-bearing members fail under weight or stress, and part or all of the bridge falls. Vehicles on the bridge plunge into voids below. Vehicles under the bridge may be crushed by falling structure.
Concrete spalling occurs when pieces of concrete separate from bridge decks, barriers, or structural members. The freeze-thaw cycle, reinforcement corrosion, and chemical deterioration cause concrete to delaminate and fall. Concrete chunks striking vehicles below cause serious accidents.
Deck failures involve the driving surface deteriorating, developing holes, or collapsing while primary structural members remain intact. Vehicles may fall through deteriorated decks, lose control on failed surfaces, or suffer damage from deck defects.
Expansion joint failures create gaps, height differences, or loose components in driving surfaces. Vehicles striking failed joints may lose control or suffer damage.
Guardrail and barrier failures allow vehicles leaving the roadway to fall from bridges or fail to provide adequate crash protection for vehicles remaining on the bridge.
Scour undermining occurs when water erosion removes soil supporting bridge foundations. Floods particularly accelerate scour, and bridges may collapse into waterways they cross.
Government Maintenance Liability
Bridges are government property maintained by state, county, or municipal entities depending on which road system the bridge serves.
Georgia DOT maintains bridges on state routes and interstates. Counties maintain bridges on county roads. Municipalities maintain bridges on city streets. Identifying the responsible entity is the first step.
Inspection obligations are federally mandated. The National Bridge Inspection Standards require regular inspection of public bridges. Inspection frequency depends on bridge characteristics, but most bridges require inspection at least every two years.
Inspection reports document bridge conditions in detail. These reports often identify deterioration, rate structural adequacy, and flag needed repairs. Reports establish what the government knew about bridge conditions.
Maintenance obligations require governments to address identified problems appropriately. Options include repair, rehabilitation, posting load limits, closing bridges, or replacement. Operating deteriorating bridges while deferring maintenance is negligent when the government knows of dangers.
Government claims face sovereign immunity with limited waivers. Georgia Tort Claims Act procedures apply to state claims. Municipal and county notice requirements apply to local government claims.
Design Professional Liability
Engineers who designed bridges or evaluated their conditions may face liability for professional negligence.
Original design defects may have created structures inadequate for intended loads, lacking sufficient redundancy, or vulnerable to failure modes the design should have addressed.
Inspection engineering involves professional evaluation of bridge conditions. Engineers who performed inspections may face malpractice claims if they negligently failed to identify dangerous conditions.
Rehabilitation design introduces modifications that may create new problems. Engineers designing repairs or upgrades may be liable when their work proves inadequate.
Design professional claims have specific limitations periods and procedural requirements that differ from ordinary negligence claims.
Contractor Liability
Contractors who built bridges or performed repairs may face liability for defective work contributing to failures.
Original construction defects including improper concrete placement, inadequate reinforcement positioning, poor compaction, deficient welding, and other workmanship failures may contribute to failures decades later.
Repair contractors who performed substandard rehabilitation work or used inadequate materials face liability when their work fails to perform as intended.
Material suppliers may be liable when defective materials contributed to failures. Substandard concrete, corroded reinforcement, or other defective materials create product liability claims.
Contractor liability may be limited by statutes of repose that bar claims beyond specified periods after construction regardless of when problems manifest.
Evidence Investigation
Bridge failure claims require extensive technical investigation.
Physical evidence from failed structures must be preserved. Governments and NTSB may conduct official investigations, but plaintiffs may need independent preservation and analysis.
Design documents including original plans, specifications, calculations, and any modifications establish what the bridge was supposed to be.
Complete inspection history documents the bridge’s condition over time and what problems were identified. Open records requests obtain these public documents.
Maintenance records show what repairs were performed and what recommendations were deferred due to funding or other constraints.
Expert witnesses in structural engineering, bridge inspection, metallurgy, construction practices, and accident reconstruction are essential for technical claims.
Multiple Victim Coordination
Bridge failures often produce many victims requiring coordinated litigation approaches.
Mass tort organization may consolidate claims for efficiency while preserving individual case characteristics.
Government damage caps create allocation challenges. The $1 million per person and $3 million per occurrence caps under the Georgia Tort Claims Act may be grossly inadequate when multiple catastrophic injuries occur.
Coordination among plaintiffs’ attorneys may benefit all claimants through shared expert costs, coordinated discovery, and consistent liability theories.
Bridge failure claims involve complex engineering evidence and multiple potential defendants. This article provides general information about bridge claims in Georgia. For specific guidance, consult with a Georgia personal injury attorney experienced in infrastructure litigation.