Road weather information systems (RWIS) provide snowfighters with unprecedented access to crucial, real-time information enabling improved winter roadway operations, improved public safety, mobility and productivity. Like all road management improvements, innovative RWIS technologies reduce the exposure of road agencies and road users to certain liabilities.

The effect can be cross-cutting. The potential for improved safety, for example, raises realistic public expectations that better plowing and salting will cut the number of crashes, injuries and fatalities. These issues are examined in a new report issued earlier this month by Jaime Rall of the National Conference of State Legislatures, Weather or Not? State Liability and Road Weather Information Systems (RWIS) . The NCSL report is a resource for state legislators and state DOTs.

NCSL explains why this is an important question:

Weather significantly affects the traveling public and the transportation agencies that operate and maintain the nation’s roadways. Recent studies estimate that 24 percent of all crashes and 17 percent of traffic fatalities are weather-related—more than 1.5 million accidents per year, resulting in over 673,000 injuries and nearly 7,400 fatalities.1 Adverse weather also is the second-largest cause of non-recurring highway congestion, accounting for approximately 15 percent of traffic delays nationwide. Winter road maintenance alone accounts for about 20 percent of state DOT maintenance budgets. State and local transportation agencies spend more than $2.5 billion each year on snow and ice control operations, and more than $5 billion to repair weather-damaged roadway infrastructure.

Because RWIS systems deliver a benefit cost ratio between 2:1 and 10:1, RWIS adoption has been broad and rapid in the North American snowbelt; at least 44 states and DC have RWIS systems. The data from 33 states and three cities are integrated into the huge "anytime, anywhere" Clarus database available to all transportation users and operators.

The power of this information is a two-edged sword and state DOTs, says NCSL, are exposed to legal liabilities with regard to its public, particularly online, dissemination of this information (the problem isn't entirely mitigated if a third party like Clarus is involved), altered standards of liability for road agencies under their duty to respond to the new RWIS information and potential suits for agencies that choose not to use this useful tool.

The report makes it clear that

RWIS can help DOTs avoid a “breach of duty,” without which there is no liability, by helping them meet their legal duties. When a DOT has notice of a dangerous condition, these duties include exercising reasonable care to either alleviate the condition or provide adequate warning to the traveling public. Because RWIS can help a DOT meet these responsibilities—for example, by supporting better informed maintenance decisions, automated road treatments and real-time traveler information—it can thus reduce exposure to certain liabilities.

RWIS also creates new duties: Undertaking a new practice or service that affects public safety creates a duty to perform it with reasonable care." In sum:

RWIS might also affect what constitutes a standard of reasonable care for the traditional duties of state DOTs, raising expectations for how DOTs handle dangerous situations. There are earlier decisions in which the lack of advanced RWIS-type technologies was mentioned. In 1982, for example, the Supreme Court of Michigan held the state DOT not negligent because, among other factors, “the technology available at the time of the accident was not advanced to such point as would permit the installation of a flashing sign which would be automatically activated upon the actual appearance of ice on [a] bridge…” Now, however, real-time detection and automated
warnings are available.

The report makes a series of recommendations on how agencies can manage these new liabilities.