Loading
Government
7 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Traffic Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Accident Reconstruction, Economic Damages, Medical
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Louisiana State
A traffic signal malfunction was at the center of a lawsuit following a December 24, 2006, collision in Houma, Louisiana. Angela Cotton was driving through the intersection of Louisiana Highways 661 and 24 when her vehicle collided with another car operated by Kerry A. Carter. Both drivers maintained that their traffic lights were green when they entered the intersection. Officers investigating the crash later witnessed the signals displaying green for both directions simultaneously. The Cotton family subsequently sued the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), alleging that defective traffic-control equipment and inadequate maintenance contributed to the accident.
The dispute in Cotton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 65 So. 3d 213 (La. Ct. App. 2011), involved questions about electrical faults, traffic signal monitoring equipment, and DOTD's knowledge of previous malfunctions. Engineers presented competing explanations for the conflicting green indications, while maintenance records raised concerns about how earlier signal problems had been investigated. The jury assigned 100% responsibility to DOTD and awarded damages to Angela Cotton, her husband Andy, and her stepson Blaine. In May 2011, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the liability finding but removed part of Angela's damages award. The Louisiana Supreme Court declined further review that September.
Angela Cotton and her stepson, Blaine, were traveling south on Louisiana Highway 661 to attend midnight Mass when they approached the intersection with Highway 24. Angela stopped at a red light and entered the intersection after the signal turned green, where her vehicle collided with Kerry Carter's eastbound car. Carter also stated that he had received a green signal, leaving investigators with two accounts that appeared to conflict. Officers Jarrod Matherne and Joseph Renfro positioned their patrol vehicles to observe the signals controlling each direction and saw simultaneous green indications approximately once every four cycles. They reported witnessing the malfunction at least four times that evening.
Angela Cotton, Andy Cotton, and Blaine Cotton filed a damages lawsuit in Louisiana's 32nd Judicial District Court in Terrebonne Parish. The defendants included DOTD, Kerry Carter, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO). The family alleged that the traffic signal was defective and that DOTD had failed to correct a condition that created an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists. Before the case reached trial, the plaintiffs settled their claims against GEICO and dismissed them. They also dismissed Carter and State Farm with prejudice, leaving DOTD to defend the remaining claims concerning the traffic-control system.
During trial, the jury heard opposing traffic engineering testimony about the signal's electrical operation, earlier malfunctions, and DOTD's maintenance practices. Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Peter Parsonson discussed possible rainwater intrusion, electrical short circuits, and deficiencies in conflict-monitor testing, while DOTD's expert Vernon Odean Tekell challenged whether the proposed electrical conditions would produce simultaneous green signals. The jury also considered maintenance records documenting repeated flashing-signal incidents without consistently recorded causes. After finding DOTD 100% responsible for the collision, the jury awarded damages to the Cotton family, and the trial court signed its judgment on January 20, 2010. The awards totaled $351,973 for Angela Cotton, $3,204.93 for Blaine Cotton, and $20,000 for Andy Cotton's loss of consortium.
The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal reviewed DOTD's challenges to the traffic signal's defective condition, prior notice, and damages awarded to Angela Cotton. After examining the engineering evidence and maintenance history, the court upheld the jury's finding that DOTD had sufficient notice of the defective signal. The court also considered medical findings from Angela's treating orthopedist, Dr. Brett Casey, and testimony from her treating neurosurgeon, Dr. Phillip McAllister, in affirming that the collision caused additional neck and shoulder injuries despite her preexisting condition. However, it removed the $13,500 award for past and future disability because the evidence did not sufficiently establish the claimed impairment. In reviewing lost earnings, the court examined competing calculations presented by plaintiffs' economic expert Dr. Randolph Rice and DOTD's economic expert Dr. Kenneth Boudreaux. It upheld the $33,770 award as compensation for past lost earnings rather than future income loss, affirming the judgment in all other respects.
Following the appellate decision, DOTD sought review from the Louisiana Supreme Court under docket number 2011-C-1084. The court denied the application, allowing the amended judgment to remain in effect without further changes. Angela Cotton's award stood at $338,473 after the disability amount was removed, while Blaine Cotton's $3,204.93 award and Andy Cotton's $20,000 award remained unchanged. These amounts excluded applicable court costs and interest. The denial concluded the reported appellate proceedings concerning DOTD's liability and the Cotton family's damages.
Court:
Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal
Case Name:
Cotton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
A 2006 collision in Houma, Louisiana, involved a traffic signal that investigators later observed displaying green in both directions at the same time.
The case focused on electrical faults, conflict-monitor testing, signal maintenance, and whether DOTD had notice of earlier malfunctions.
Competing traffic engineering experts addressed possible water intrusion, short circuits, equipment behavior, and maintenance practices.
The jury assigned 100% responsibility to DOTD and awarded damages to Angela Cotton, her husband Andy, and her stepson Blaine.
The Louisiana First Circuit upheld DOTD’s liability in 2011 but removed $13,500 from Angela Cotton’s damages; the Louisiana Supreme Court later denied review.
Transportation And Traffic Engineering
Transportation Safety
Highway Maintenance
Highway Design
Highway Accidents
Traffic Laws
Electrical Defects
Electrical Systems
Electrical Devices
A traffic signal malfunction was at the center of a lawsuit following a December 24, 2006, collision in Houma, Louisiana. Angela Cotton was driving through the intersection of Louisiana Highways 661 and 24 when her vehicle collided with another car operated by Kerry A. Carter. Both drivers maintained that their traffic lights were green when they entered the intersection. Officers investigating the crash later witnessed the signals displaying green for both directions simultaneously. The Cotton family subsequently sued the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), alleging that defective traffic-control equipment and inadequate maintenance contributed to the accident.
The dispute in Cotton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 65 So. 3d 213 (La. Ct. App. 2011), involved questions about electrical faults, traffic signal monitoring equipment, and DOTD's knowledge of previous malfunctions. Engineers presented competing explanations for the conflicting green indications, while maintenance records raised concerns about how earlier signal problems had been investigated. The jury assigned 100% responsibility to DOTD and awarded damages to Angela Cotton, her husband Andy, and her stepson Blaine. In May 2011, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the liability finding but removed part of Angela's damages award. The Louisiana Supreme Court declined further review that September.
Angela Cotton and her stepson, Blaine, were traveling south on Louisiana Highway 661 to attend midnight Mass when they approached the intersection with Highway 24. Angela stopped at a red light and entered the intersection after the signal turned green, where her vehicle collided with Kerry Carter's eastbound car. Carter also stated that he had received a green signal, leaving investigators with two accounts that appeared to conflict. Officers Jarrod Matherne and Joseph Renfro positioned their patrol vehicles to observe the signals controlling each direction and saw simultaneous green indications approximately once every four cycles. They reported witnessing the malfunction at least four times that evening.
Angela Cotton, Andy Cotton, and Blaine Cotton filed a damages lawsuit in Louisiana's 32nd Judicial District Court in Terrebonne Parish. The defendants included DOTD, Kerry Carter, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO). The family alleged that the traffic signal was defective and that DOTD had failed to correct a condition that created an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists. Before the case reached trial, the plaintiffs settled their claims against GEICO and dismissed them. They also dismissed Carter and State Farm with prejudice, leaving DOTD to defend the remaining claims concerning the traffic-control system.
During trial, the jury heard opposing traffic engineering testimony about the signal's electrical operation, earlier malfunctions, and DOTD's maintenance practices. Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Peter Parsonson discussed possible rainwater intrusion, electrical short circuits, and deficiencies in conflict-monitor testing, while DOTD's expert Vernon Odean Tekell challenged whether the proposed electrical conditions would produce simultaneous green signals. The jury also considered maintenance records documenting repeated flashing-signal incidents without consistently recorded causes. After finding DOTD 100% responsible for the collision, the jury awarded damages to the Cotton family, and the trial court signed its judgment on January 20, 2010. The awards totaled $351,973 for Angela Cotton, $3,204.93 for Blaine Cotton, and $20,000 for Andy Cotton's loss of consortium.
The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal reviewed DOTD's challenges to the traffic signal's defective condition, prior notice, and damages awarded to Angela Cotton. After examining the engineering evidence and maintenance history, the court upheld the jury's finding that DOTD had sufficient notice of the defective signal. The court also considered medical findings from Angela's treating orthopedist, Dr. Brett Casey, and testimony from her treating neurosurgeon, Dr. Phillip McAllister, in affirming that the collision caused additional neck and shoulder injuries despite her preexisting condition. However, it removed the $13,500 award for past and future disability because the evidence did not sufficiently establish the claimed impairment. In reviewing lost earnings, the court examined competing calculations presented by plaintiffs' economic expert Dr. Randolph Rice and DOTD's economic expert Dr. Kenneth Boudreaux. It upheld the $33,770 award as compensation for past lost earnings rather than future income loss, affirming the judgment in all other respects.
Following the appellate decision, DOTD sought review from the Louisiana Supreme Court under docket number 2011-C-1084. The court denied the application, allowing the amended judgment to remain in effect without further changes. Angela Cotton's award stood at $338,473 after the disability amount was removed, while Blaine Cotton's $3,204.93 award and Andy Cotton's $20,000 award remained unchanged. These amounts excluded applicable court costs and interest. The denial concluded the reported appellate proceedings concerning DOTD's liability and the Cotton family's damages.
Traffic Signal Engineering Expert Witness – Dr. Peter Parsonson (Plaintiffs)
Dr. Peter Parsonson testified for the plaintiffs about two possible causes of the conflicting green signals: a malfunctioning conflict monitor and an intermittent electrical short circuit caused by rainwater entering the signal wiring. He identified a quick-disconnect hanger on the suspended signal assembly as a possible entry point for water, which could allow electricity to reach a green-light circuit at the wrong time.
Parsonson also examined the conflict monitor, a device designed to detect incompatible signal indications and activate flashing operation. He testified that industry and manufacturer guidance supported annual bench testing, but DOTD acknowledged that the monitor had never undergone such testing. He also criticized maintenance practices that restored signal operation by resetting the equipment without identifying the underlying fault. Earlier work orders lacked consistent explanations for repeated flashing-signal incidents, which he believed could allow electrical problems to remain undetected.
Traffic Engineering Expert Witness – Vernon Odean Tekell (Defense)
Vernon Odean Tekell testified for DOTD as an expert in traffic engineering, traffic control, accident reconstruction, and highway design and maintenance. He challenged Dr. Peter Parsonson's explanation of the electrical malfunction, questioning whether water intrusion and short circuits could produce simultaneous green signals. Although Tekell acknowledged that moisture could cause electrical faults, he maintained that the proposed condition could instead make red and yellow lamps glow faintly while a green lamp remained bright.
Tekell explained that additional wiring or insulation conditions would be necessary to produce the conflicting green indications observed by investigators. His testimony presented an alternative interpretation of the signal's electrical behavior. After considering both engineers' opinions and the officers' observations, the jury found the traffic signal defective. The appellate court upheld that finding without determining which electrical component caused the malfunction.
Treating Medical Witnesses – Dr. Brett Casey (Plaintiffs) and Dr. Phillip McAllister (Plaintiffs)
Dr. Brett Casey, Angela Cotton's treating orthopedist, evaluated her right shoulder before and after the December 2006 collision. Angela had developed scapular winging following colon surgery, but Casey identified additional shoulder pain, weakness, and signs of rotator cuff impingement after the accident. He later performed arthroscopic surgery, including a rotator cuff repair, and related the repair to the collision based on her medical history and earlier examinations.
Dr. Phillip McAllister, Angela's treating neurosurgeon, evaluated her cervical spine and compared diagnostic tests performed before and after the accident. A January 2007 examination revealed right C6 radiculopathy, indicating a new cervical nerve problem, and McAllister subsequently performed cervical surgery. The appellate court considered both physicians' findings and upheld the determination that the collision caused additional neck and shoulder injuries. However, it removed the separate $13,500 disability award because the evidence did not sufficiently support that claim.
Economic Damages Expert Witnesses – Dr. Randolph Rice (Plaintiffs) and Dr. Kenneth Boudreaux (Defense)
Dr. Randolph Rice testified as the plaintiffs' economic expert regarding Angela Cotton's claimed earnings losses. He calculated past lost income using an assumed wage of $10 per hour and a 40-hour workweek, covering the period from January 1, 2007, through trial. He also estimated future income losses based on different assumptions about her remaining working years and retirement age.
Dr. Kenneth Boudreaux, DOTD's economic expert, presented lower estimates of past wage losses based on Angela's actual earnings from 2004 through 2006, including a separate calculation using her two highest-earning years. He did not project future losses because a functional capacity evaluation indicated she could return to work at her previous earning level. The jury awarded $33,770 for lost earnings, which the appellate court interpreted as compensation for past income losses rather than future lost earning capacity. The court upheld the award.
Police Observations Confirmed Conflicting Green Signals
The investigating officers witnessed both intersecting approaches displaying green during multiple signal cycles. Their observations were consistent with the accounts given by Angela Cotton and Kerry Carter, who each maintained that they entered the intersection with a green light. The evidence established that conflicting indications occurred after the collision, although it did not conclusively identify the electrical fault that produced them. The jury found that the defective traffic signal caused the accident, and the appellate court upheld that determination.
Conflict-Monitor Testing Raised Maintenance Questions
The intersection was equipped with a conflict monitor designed to detect incompatible signal indications and activate flashing operation when the system registered a conflict. During trial, Parsonson explained that certain electrical defects could remain undetected without periodic testing of the monitor's internal functions. DOTD acknowledged that the unit had never undergone the bench testing discussed in his testimony. The absence of testing formed part of the evidence concerning the condition of the equipment and how DOTD maintained it.
Earlier Signal Malfunctions Supported DOTD's Notice Finding
Maintenance work orders recorded previous occasions when the intersection's traffic signal had entered flashing operation. Those reports did not consistently identify the underlying problem, making it difficult to determine whether the events resulted from temporary power disturbances or equipment faults. DOTD maintenance supervisor Travis P. Cortez acknowledged that repeated work orders caused him to suspect an ongoing problem at the intersection. The appellate court concluded that the jury could reasonably rely on the maintenance history, incomplete records, and testing practices when finding that DOTD had notice of a defective condition.
Louisiana Public Entity Liability Required Proof of Notice
The claims against DOTD were governed by Louisiana Revised Statutes § 9:2800, which addresses liability involving defective public property. The plaintiffs had to establish that DOTD controlled the traffic signal, that the equipment presented an unreasonable risk of harm, that DOTD had actual or constructive notice and failed to take corrective action within a reasonable time, and that the defect caused the injuries. DOTD did not dispute its custody of the signal but contested whether the plaintiffs had proved a defect and sufficient notice. Applying the manifest error standard of review, the appellate court determined that the jury's findings were reasonably supported by the trial evidence.
The Court Separated Injury Causation From Disability Damages
Angela Cotton's preexisting shoulder condition became part of the dispute over the extent of her accident-related injuries. Her treating physicians described additional neck and shoulder problems supported by post-accident examinations and diagnostic testing. The appellate court accepted the jury's determination that the collision caused further injury but examined the separate disability award under the evidence presented. It concluded that the record did not sufficiently establish the claimed disability and removed $13,500 without disturbing the remaining injury compensation and past lost-earnings award.
The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal left DOTD's liability determination intact after reviewing the traffic signal malfunction, maintenance history, and competing testimony presented at trial. While the court accepted the findings concerning defective equipment, prior notice, and injuries caused by the collision, it reduced Angela Cotton's compensation by removing the separate disability award. The amended judgment provided $338,473 for Angela, $3,204.93 for Blaine, and $20,000 for Andy, excluding applicable costs and interest. DOTD sought further review, but the Louisiana Supreme Court denied its application on September 2, 2011, leaving the appellate judgment in place.
Where did the Cotton v. State Farm traffic accident happen?
The collision occurred on December 24, 2006, at the intersection of Louisiana Highways 661 and 24 in Houma, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. Angela Cotton was driving south with her stepson, Blaine, when her vehicle collided with Kerry Carter's eastbound car. Both drivers maintained that their traffic signals were green as they entered the intersection.
Did the traffic lights display conflicting green signals throughout the night?
Investigating officers observed simultaneous green indications intermittently rather than continuously. They testified that the conflicting displays appeared approximately once every four signal cycles and reported witnessing the condition at least four times. Their observations were made after the collision while they monitored the two intersecting approaches.
Had DOTD received reports of earlier problems with the traffic signals?
Maintenance records showed that the signal had previously entered flashing operation on several occasions. However, the work orders did not consistently explain the causes, and the evidence did not establish that DOTD had received an earlier report specifically describing simultaneous green signals. The jury nevertheless found that the prior maintenance history and DOTD's response were sufficient to establish notice of a defective condition.
Why did State Farm appear in the lawsuit's name?
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company insured Kerry Carter, the other driver involved in the accident. The Cotton family initially named Carter and State Farm among the defendants, along with DOTD and GEICO. The claims against Carter and State Farm were later dismissed with prejudice before trial, while DOTD remained the defendant found responsible for the collision.
Traffic Signal Engineering Expert Witness – Dr. Peter Parsonson (Plaintiffs)
Dr. Peter Parsonson testified for the plaintiffs about two possible causes of the conflicting green signals: a malfunctioning conflict monitor and an intermittent electrical short circuit caused by rainwater entering the signal wiring. He identified a quick-disconnect hanger on the suspended signal assembly as a possible entry point for water, which could allow electricity to reach a green-light circuit at the wrong time.
Parsonson also examined the conflict monitor, a device designed to detect incompatible signal indications and activate flashing operation. He testified that industry and manufacturer guidance supported annual bench testing, but DOTD acknowledged that the monitor had never undergone such testing. He also criticized maintenance practices that restored signal operation by resetting the equipment without identifying the underlying fault. Earlier work orders lacked consistent explanations for repeated flashing-signal incidents, which he believed could allow electrical problems to remain undetected.
Traffic Engineering Expert Witness – Vernon Odean Tekell (Defense)
Vernon Odean Tekell testified for DOTD as an expert in traffic engineering, traffic control, accident reconstruction, and highway design and maintenance. He challenged Dr. Peter Parsonson's explanation of the electrical malfunction, questioning whether water intrusion and short circuits could produce simultaneous green signals. Although Tekell acknowledged that moisture could cause electrical faults, he maintained that the proposed condition could instead make red and yellow lamps glow faintly while a green lamp remained bright.
Tekell explained that additional wiring or insulation conditions would be necessary to produce the conflicting green indications observed by investigators. His testimony presented an alternative interpretation of the signal's electrical behavior. After considering both engineers' opinions and the officers' observations, the jury found the traffic signal defective. The appellate court upheld that finding without determining which electrical component caused the malfunction.
Treating Medical Witnesses – Dr. Brett Casey (Plaintiffs) and Dr. Phillip McAllister (Plaintiffs)
Dr. Brett Casey, Angela Cotton's treating orthopedist, evaluated her right shoulder before and after the December 2006 collision. Angela had developed scapular winging following colon surgery, but Casey identified additional shoulder pain, weakness, and signs of rotator cuff impingement after the accident. He later performed arthroscopic surgery, including a rotator cuff repair, and related the repair to the collision based on her medical history and earlier examinations.
Dr. Phillip McAllister, Angela's treating neurosurgeon, evaluated her cervical spine and compared diagnostic tests performed before and after the accident. A January 2007 examination revealed right C6 radiculopathy, indicating a new cervical nerve problem, and McAllister subsequently performed cervical surgery. The appellate court considered both physicians' findings and upheld the determination that the collision caused additional neck and shoulder injuries. However, it removed the separate $13,500 disability award because the evidence did not sufficiently support that claim.
Economic Damages Expert Witnesses – Dr. Randolph Rice (Plaintiffs) and Dr. Kenneth Boudreaux (Defense)
Dr. Randolph Rice testified as the plaintiffs' economic expert regarding Angela Cotton's claimed earnings losses. He calculated past lost income using an assumed wage of $10 per hour and a 40-hour workweek, covering the period from January 1, 2007, through trial. He also estimated future income losses based on different assumptions about her remaining working years and retirement age.
Dr. Kenneth Boudreaux, DOTD's economic expert, presented lower estimates of past wage losses based on Angela's actual earnings from 2004 through 2006, including a separate calculation using her two highest-earning years. He did not project future losses because a functional capacity evaluation indicated she could return to work at her previous earning level. The jury awarded $33,770 for lost earnings, which the appellate court interpreted as compensation for past income losses rather than future lost earning capacity. The court upheld the award.
Police Observations Confirmed Conflicting Green Signals
The investigating officers witnessed both intersecting approaches displaying green during multiple signal cycles. Their observations were consistent with the accounts given by Angela Cotton and Kerry Carter, who each maintained that they entered the intersection with a green light. The evidence established that conflicting indications occurred after the collision, although it did not conclusively identify the electrical fault that produced them. The jury found that the defective traffic signal caused the accident, and the appellate court upheld that determination.
Conflict-Monitor Testing Raised Maintenance Questions
The intersection was equipped with a conflict monitor designed to detect incompatible signal indications and activate flashing operation when the system registered a conflict. During trial, Parsonson explained that certain electrical defects could remain undetected without periodic testing of the monitor's internal functions. DOTD acknowledged that the unit had never undergone the bench testing discussed in his testimony. The absence of testing formed part of the evidence concerning the condition of the equipment and how DOTD maintained it.
Earlier Signal Malfunctions Supported DOTD's Notice Finding
Maintenance work orders recorded previous occasions when the intersection's traffic signal had entered flashing operation. Those reports did not consistently identify the underlying problem, making it difficult to determine whether the events resulted from temporary power disturbances or equipment faults. DOTD maintenance supervisor Travis P. Cortez acknowledged that repeated work orders caused him to suspect an ongoing problem at the intersection. The appellate court concluded that the jury could reasonably rely on the maintenance history, incomplete records, and testing practices when finding that DOTD had notice of a defective condition.
Louisiana Public Entity Liability Required Proof of Notice
The claims against DOTD were governed by Louisiana Revised Statutes § 9:2800, which addresses liability involving defective public property. The plaintiffs had to establish that DOTD controlled the traffic signal, that the equipment presented an unreasonable risk of harm, that DOTD had actual or constructive notice and failed to take corrective action within a reasonable time, and that the defect caused the injuries. DOTD did not dispute its custody of the signal but contested whether the plaintiffs had proved a defect and sufficient notice. Applying the manifest error standard of review, the appellate court determined that the jury's findings were reasonably supported by the trial evidence.
The Court Separated Injury Causation From Disability Damages
Angela Cotton's preexisting shoulder condition became part of the dispute over the extent of her accident-related injuries. Her treating physicians described additional neck and shoulder problems supported by post-accident examinations and diagnostic testing. The appellate court accepted the jury's determination that the collision caused further injury but examined the separate disability award under the evidence presented. It concluded that the record did not sufficiently establish the claimed disability and removed $13,500 without disturbing the remaining injury compensation and past lost-earnings award.
The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal left DOTD's liability determination intact after reviewing the traffic signal malfunction, maintenance history, and competing testimony presented at trial. While the court accepted the findings concerning defective equipment, prior notice, and injuries caused by the collision, it reduced Angela Cotton's compensation by removing the separate disability award. The amended judgment provided $338,473 for Angela, $3,204.93 for Blaine, and $20,000 for Andy, excluding applicable costs and interest. DOTD sought further review, but the Louisiana Supreme Court denied its application on September 2, 2011, leaving the appellate judgment in place.
Where did the Cotton v. State Farm traffic accident happen?
The collision occurred on December 24, 2006, at the intersection of Louisiana Highways 661 and 24 in Houma, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. Angela Cotton was driving south with her stepson, Blaine, when her vehicle collided with Kerry Carter's eastbound car. Both drivers maintained that their traffic signals were green as they entered the intersection.
Did the traffic lights display conflicting green signals throughout the night?
Investigating officers observed simultaneous green indications intermittently rather than continuously. They testified that the conflicting displays appeared approximately once every four signal cycles and reported witnessing the condition at least four times. Their observations were made after the collision while they monitored the two intersecting approaches.
Had DOTD received reports of earlier problems with the traffic signals?
Maintenance records showed that the signal had previously entered flashing operation on several occasions. However, the work orders did not consistently explain the causes, and the evidence did not establish that DOTD had received an earlier report specifically describing simultaneous green signals. The jury nevertheless found that the prior maintenance history and DOTD's response were sufficient to establish notice of a defective condition.
Why did State Farm appear in the lawsuit's name?
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company insured Kerry Carter, the other driver involved in the accident. The Cotton family initially named Carter and State Farm among the defendants, along with DOTD and GEICO. The claims against Carter and State Farm were later dismissed with prejudice before trial, while DOTD remained the defendant found responsible for the collision.
How did Cotton v. State Farm end?
On May 6, 2011, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed DOTD's liability but removed $13,500 from Angela Cotton's damages because the evidence did not support the separate disability award. The remaining awards were $338,473 for Angela Cotton, $3,204.93 for Blaine Cotton, and $20,000 for Andy Cotton, excluding court costs and interest. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied further review on September 2, 2011, leaving the amended judgment in effect.
Transportation And Traffic Engineering
Transportation Safety
Highway Maintenance
Highway Design
Highway Accidents
Traffic Laws
Electrical Defects
Electrical Systems
Electrical Devices
Government, +4
Government
Transportation, +4
Government
How did Cotton v. State Farm end?
On May 6, 2011, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed DOTD's liability but removed $13,500 from Angela Cotton's damages because the evidence did not support the separate disability award. The remaining awards were $338,473 for Angela Cotton, $3,204.93 for Blaine Cotton, and $20,000 for Andy Cotton, excluding court costs and interest. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied further review on September 2, 2011, leaving the amended judgment in effect.