Plaintiffs Seek Compensation for Bridge Collapse, but Who’s to Blame Remains Unclear

Hoping to be compensated for their loss, some victims in the Interstate 35W bridge collapse have retained high-profile attorneys. But the state’s limited liability statute and uncertainty about who should be responsible for the tragedy is casting serious doubts on the victims’ chances to be compensated.

Minneapolis attorney Jim Schwebel, a partner at the law firm Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben, confirmed that at least five victims have retained his firm. But he admitted that his office is trying to “determine the party-or the parties– responsible for the collapse.”

That might be too hard to do. Sources familiar with the bridge told Minnesota Monitor that two contractors who built the structure 40 years ago are out of business. But the engineering firm that designed the bridge and until recently was responsible for maintaining it is still around.

The company, URS Corp., one of the largest engineering firms in the world and a major federal contractor, recently examined the bridge,  found serious flaws and made recommendations for “fixing and monitoring the bridge,” said Schwebel, “but it never implemented its own recommendations.”

The company’s spokesperson was unavailable for immediate comment Tuesday.

The National Transportation Security Bureau is looking into URS Corp. and others who might have neglected the bridge. But Schwebel said someone is responsible for “gross negligence to cause the bridge to collapse.”

That’s legal terminology that carries a lot of weight. Depending on which party is found at fault for the disaster and or how far back the problem goes, the legal case has just begun.  Victims are seeking millions of dollars in damages, but where that money will come from is unclear.

`Limited liability’

The state of Minnesota, which is supposed to be the principal caretaker of bridges and roads, cloaked itself in an impenetrable immunity from lawsuits. A maximum of $1 million per “accident” is payable to parties who may be hurt in an incident like this.

Schewebel contends that the state doesn’t have “complete immunity.”

“The `limited liablity law,’ it’s known,  creates headaches for plaintiffs,” said David Prince, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul and an expert on tort claims.

An often-discussed but uncertain option for the state is to convene a special session of the legislature and create a victims’ compensation fund. Gov. Tim Pawlenty indicated that he would support such a move. 

But even if that happens, looming lawsuits would hardly go away, experts say. That’s partly because if private companies are found at fault for the bridge collapse, they will likely  lose court cases, too.