You hit a pothole the size of a small crater, or maybe loose gravel sent your tires sliding. It’s annoying in a car. In a multi-ton commercial truck? It’s potentially catastrophic.

The short answer is yes, pursuing legal action after a truck accident caused by poor road maintenance is possible. However, it’s far from straightforward, especially when the government is involved. Getting compensation requires navigating a specific set of rules designed to protect government entities.

If a badly maintained road played a part in a truck accident that harmed you or someone you care about, don’t assume it’s an open-and-shut case against the driver alone. Call an experienced truck accident attorney from Yosha Law Firm at (317) 334-9200 to discuss the situation.

GET A FREE CASE EVALUATION

Why Bad Roads Are Brutal for Big Rigs

Trucks are massive and heavy. This means:

• Longer Stopping Distances: They simply can’t stop on a dime. A sudden hazard caused by road damage leaves little room for error.
• Higher Center of Gravity: This makes them more susceptible to tipping or jackknifing, especially on uneven surfaces, sharp drop-offs at the road edge, or during sudden evasive maneuvers forced by unexpected road conditions.
• Tire Impact: A deep pothole or significant crack can cause tire blowouts or damage steering components on a heavy truck, leading to immediate loss of control.
• Load Shifts: Uneven surfaces, unexpected bumps, or abrupt stops caused by road defects can cause cargo to shift, dramatically altering the truck’s stability and handling.
• Drainage Issues: Poorly designed or maintained drainage can lead to standing water or icy patches, particularly hazardous for vehicles with long braking distances and less nimble handling. Think hydroplaning, but with tens of thousands of pounds behind it.
• Lack of Signage/Warnings: Missing or inadequate warnings about upcoming road damage (like “Bump Ahead” or lane shifts due to repairs) removes the truck driver’s chance to adjust speed or prepare, turning a manageable defect into a sudden emergency.

Pointing Fingers: Who Owns the Road (and the Problem)?

It seems simple – sue the government entity responsible for that stretch of road. But reality introduces a concept called sovereign immunity.

The Shield of Sovereign Immunity

Historically, the doctrine of sovereign immunity meant you simply couldn’t sue the government (the “sovereign”) without its permission. While this absolute shield has been lowered over time, significant protections remain. In Indiana, the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA), codified under Indiana Code § 34-13-3, governs lawsuits against governmental entities and their employees.

The ITCA essentially says that while government entities can be sued under certain circumstances, they retain immunity for many types of claims and actions. Suing the government isn’t like suing a private citizen or company; there are specific rules, deadlines, and limitations.

Exceptions to the Rule: Finding Cracks in the Shield

The good news, relatively speaking, is that the ITCA does include exceptions where immunity might not apply. Regarding road maintenance, liability hinges on whether the government entity had a duty to maintain the specific road and whether it breached that duty negligently.

Common arguments for overcoming immunity involve proving:

• Known Hazards: The government entity knew, or reasonably should have known, about the dangerous condition (e.g., reported potholes, documented history of accidents at that spot).
• Failure to Act Reasonably: After becoming aware of the hazard, the entity failed to take reasonable steps to repair it or adequately warn motorists within a reasonable timeframe. What constitutes “reasonable” is often a key point of legal argument.
• Negligent Design or Construction: In some cases, the road itself might have been negligently designed or built in a way that created an inherent hazard.

However, ITCA also explicitly lists situations where immunity does apply (Indiana Code § 34-13-3-3). For instance, immunity generally holds for discretionary functions (policy decisions about which roads get prioritized for repair funding) and for losses resulting from the temporary condition of a highway if caused by weather. This makes proving liability complex.

Identifying the Right Entity

Compounding the complexity is figuring out which government entity is responsible.

• State Highways & Interstates: Generally maintained by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT). Claims against the state fall under specific ITCA rules.
• County Roads: Maintained by the relevant County Highway Department.
• City/Town Streets: Maintained by the municipal street department.

Each level of government operates under the ITCA, but identifying the correct one is step one. Suing the wrong entity means your case goes nowhere.

What About Private Contractors?

Sometimes, government entities hire private companies to perform road construction or maintenance. If a private contractor’s negligence during their work (e.g., improper traffic control, creating a hazard, shoddy repair work) causes an accident, they may be held liable just like any other private company, potentially bypassing some of the ITCA hurdles associated with suing the government directly. However, the government entity might still share liability depending on the circumstances and contract terms.

Identifying the potentially liable party – state, county, city, or private contractor – is a foundational step that requires careful investigation.

Proving Negligence Against the Government

Simply pointing out a pothole existed where the truck crashed isn’t enough. To successfully sue a government entity (or a contractor) for poor road maintenance, you must legally prove negligence. This involves establishing four specific elements. Failure to prove even one of these means the case falls apart.

1. Duty of Care: You must first show that the entity you are suing actually had a legal responsibility (a duty) to maintain the specific road in a reasonably safe condition for the traveling public, including truck drivers. As mentioned, the ITCA outlines governmental duties and immunities. Generally, once a government entity controls a road, it assumes a duty to maintain it, though the scope of that duty is subject to ITCA limitations (like discretionary function immunity). For a private contractor, their duty arises from their contract and general principles of ensuring their work doesn’t endanger others.
2. Breach of Duty: Next, you need to prove that the entity failed to meet that duty of care. This is the “negligence” part. Did they fail to repair a known dangerous pothole for an unreasonable amount of time? Did they neglect to replace a missing stop sign critical for intersection safety? Did they design a curve improperly without adequate banking or warnings? Did a contractor leave debris on the road or fail to set up proper warning signs in a work zone? Evidence is key here. This could include:
   • Photographs and videos of the hazardous road condition immediately after the accident.
   • Official accident reports noting the road condition.
   • Statements from witnesses who saw the accident or were familiar with the hazardous condition.
   • Records of prior complaints made to the government entity about the specific road hazard.
   • Maintenance logs (or lack thereof) from the responsible government agency.
   • Expert analysis from engineers regarding the road defect and standard maintenance practices.
3. Causation: This is often the most challenging element. You must demonstrate that the entity’s breach of duty was a direct and proximate cause of the truck accident and your injuries.
   • Direct Cause (Cause-in-Fact): Would the accident have happened but for the dangerous road condition? If the road had been properly maintained, would the truck driver have avoided the crash?
   • Proximate Cause (Legal Cause): Was the accident a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the entity’s failure to maintain the road? Or was there some other intervening event that broke the chain of causation? The defense will likely argue that the truck driver’s actions (speeding, distraction, fatigue) were the real cause, not the road condition. Proving the road defect was a substantial factor is necessary.
4. Damages: Finally, you must prove that you suffered actual, compensable harm as a result of the accident. This isn’t just about property damage to a vehicle; it includes:
   • Medical expenses (past and future).
   • Lost wages and diminished earning capacity.
   • Pain and suffering.
   • Permanent impairment or disfigurement.
   • Other related costs.

GET A FREE CASE EVALUATION

The Clock is Ticking: Indiana’s Tort Claims Act Notice Requirements

If proving negligence wasn’t tricky enough, suing a government entity in Indiana adds another significant hurdle: the strict notice requirements mandated by the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA). Fail to follow these rules precisely, and your right to sue vanishes, regardless of how strong your case might be.

Think of it as a mandatory heads-up to the government before you can file an actual lawsuit. This “Tort Claim Notice” gives the governmental entity a chance to investigate the claim and potentially settle it before litigation begins.

The Deadlines Are Absolute

The most unforgiving part of the ITCA is the deadline for filing this notice.

• Claims Against the State of Indiana (e.g., INDOT): You must file a Tort Claim Notice with the Attorney General and the relevant state agency (like INDOT) within 270 days of the date of the loss (the accident). (See Indiana Code § 34-13-3-6).
• Claims Against Political Subdivisions (Cities, Counties, Towns): You must file a Tort Claim Notice with the governing body of that political subdivision (e.g., the County Commissioners, City Controller) and the Indiana Political Subdivision Risk Management Commission within 180 days of the date of the loss. (See Indiana Code § 34-13-3-8).

Let that sink in: you have roughly six months (for local entities) or nine months (for the state) from the date of the accident to formally notify the correct government bodies in the correct way.

What Goes in the Notice?

The ITCA also specifies what information the notice must contain (Indiana Code § 34-13-3-10). It needs to describe, in writing:

• The circumstances which brought about the loss.
• The date, time, and location of the loss.
• The names of governmental employees involved, if known.
• The extent of the loss (damages suffered).
• The amount of damages sought.
• Your residence at the time of the loss and at the time of filing the notice.

The notice must be delivered in person or by registered or certified mail.

Damage Limitations

Another feature of the ITCA is a cap on the amount of damages you can recover from a government entity. Indiana Code § 34-13-3-4 sets limits per person and per occurrence. While these caps are substantial, they mean that even in catastrophic injury cases, recovery from the government entity itself might be limited.

Navigating the ITCA’s procedural requirements is fraught with potential pitfalls. Incorrectly identifying the entity, missing the deadline, or submitting an incomplete notice can doom your claim before it even gets started.

Sharing the Blame: Comparative Fault in Indiana

Life, and accidents, are rarely simple. It’s possible, even likely, that poor road maintenance wasn’t the only factor contributing to the truck accident. Maybe the road had a dangerous drop-off, and the truck driver was going slightly over the speed limit. Maybe there was oil on the road from poor drainage, and the trucking company hadn’t properly maintained the truck’s brakes. This brings us to the concept of comparative fault.

Indiana uses a modified comparative fault system (Indiana Code § 34-51-2). This law dictates how damages are awarded when multiple parties share responsibility for an accident. Here’s the breakdown:

• Assigning Percentages: After hearing all the evidence, the judge or jury will assign a percentage of fault to each party involved – this could include the government entity responsible for the road, the truck driver, the trucking company, and even potentially the injured party if their actions contributed to the accident.
• The 51% Rule: The crucial part of Indiana’s modified system is this: you, the injured party (the plaintiff), can only recover damages if your assigned percentage of fault is 50% or less. If you are found to be 51% or more at fault for the accident, you recover nothing. Zero.
• Reduced Damages: If your fault is 50% or less, you can still recover damages, but the amount will be reduced proportionally to your percentage of fault. For example, if your total damages are calculated at $100,000, but you are found 10% at fault, your recovery will be reduced by 10%, meaning you would receive $90,000. If the government entity is found 60% at fault and the truck driver 30% at fault, you could potentially recover 60% of your damages from the government (subject to ITCA caps) and 30% from the truck driver/company.

What This Means for Your Road Maintenance Claim

Comparative fault is almost guaranteed to be a factor in a truck accident case involving poor road conditions. The government entity’s defense lawyers will absolutely try to shift as much blame as possible onto the truck driver (excessive speed, distraction, improper evasive action, vehicle defect, driver fatigue) or even onto you, if applicable.

Successfully pursuing a claim requires not only proving the government’s negligence regarding the road but also minimizing your own attributed fault and potentially demonstrating the fault of other parties like the driver or trucking company.

Pave Your Path to Justice

If a poorly maintained road contributed to a truck accident that injured you or a family member, take the first step. Let the team of personal injury attorneys at Yosha Law Firm review the details of your situation and help you understand your options.

Call us today at (317) 334-9200.

GET A FREE CASE EVALUATION