BRIDGES
Structures constructed over obstructions to high-
ways or waterways, such as canals or rivers, in
order to provide continuous and convenient pas-
sages for purposes of transportation. A bridge
includes the necessary abutments and approaches
that make it accessible. A public bridge that spans
obstructions to a public highway is built on land
owned by the state government for public use,
while a private bridge is built on private property
for the use of particular individuals who own it.
The construction of public bridges is a func-
tion of the state government by virtue of statute
and is limited only by contractual or constitu-
tional provisions. A state may exercise its power
directly or delegate it to governmental agencies,
such as a state highway commission. Cities and
municipalities may erect bridges within their
borders if authorized to do so by the state legis-
lature. If a bridge is to be built within the bor-
ders of a state, the state has control of the
project; but if the bridge connects two states,
both states share involvement in the venture but
must yield to the power of the federal govern-
ment to supervise matters that have an effect on
interstate commerce.
The state determines the location of a bridge
subject to public safety and convenience consid-
erations. It may grant a franchise (special privi-
lege) to erect the bridge to a private bridge
company that is chartered to build and maintain
bridges. Such a corporation is considered a busi-
ness affected with a public interest. A state
agency may be organized to receive a franchise
to construct a bridge.
The money needed to finance the construc-
tion of a bridge is usually raised by appropria-
tions designed for the project—the sale of bonds
pursuant to statute, special assessments, or taxa-
tion. The legislature decides whether construc-
tion expenses will be borne by the entire state or
apportioned among its various subdivisions. It
may create special taxing districts to finance the
project as long as the district receives a propor-
tional benefit from the bridge. State taxes cannot
be used to defray the expense of purely local
bridge obligations.
A reasonable toll may be charged for using
the bridge when authorized by statute. The rev-
enue collected can be used for governmental
purposes as well as for the operating and main-
tenance expenses of the bridge.
The duty to maintain and repair bridges
rests with the government agency or private
company charged with their operation and
maintenance. Statutes frequently require warn-
ing signs on guardrails and bridge approaches to
caution drivers against known dangers. Civil or
criminal liability may be imposed for damages
resulting from the failure to maintain a bridge
properly. No liability generally, exists, however,
for any damages incurred by an adjoining
landowner from NEGLIGENCE or other wrongful
conduct in the construction or maintenance of a
bridge by a municipality or government agency
unless provided by statute.
A government entity is often shielded from
liability for general harm to persons or property
caused by negligent construction, repair, or
maintenance of bridges under the theory of
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY pursuant to statute. For
example, in the case of Hansen v. State Dept. of
Transportation, 1998 S.D. 109 (1998), plaintiff
Hansen was seriously injured after driving her
vehicle into an unmarked construction hole on
an interstate highway bridge. The South Dakota
Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s decision
to dismiss the case on the basis that sovereign
immunity barred Hansen from suing the state’s
department of transportation. Many states have
modified their immunity statutes to permit
claims premised on gross negligence; others
draw a distinction between ministerial (bound
by judicial command) and discretionary duties,
allowing claims only for negligence in the per-
formance of ministerial duties or functions.
Private companies may be liable for harm if
the law in the jurisdiction so provides. When a
pedestrian bridge over Interstate Highway 29 in
North Carolina collapsed in May 2000 at Lowe’s
Motor Speedway, 107 persons were injured.
More than half filed suits, many naming as
defendants the speedway, the bridge builder (a
private corporation), and the maker of a grout substance that corroded the steel supporting the bridge. As of early 2003, none of the cases had
yet completed trial.
FURTHER READINGS
Levy, James. 2003. “Corporate Defendants in Lowe’s Motor
Speedway Collapse Blame One Another.” Charlotte
Observer (February 1).
