State’s Legal Action Against Companies Accused of Negligence in Bridge Failure Faces Initial Hurdles
Rhode Island’s high-profile lawsuit against 13 contractors accused of negligence related to the Washington Bridge has entered the courtroom, with defense lawyers seeking a swift dismissal of the case. This legal showdown stems from the state’s attempt to hold contractors accountable for a series of failures that led to the closure of a vital bridge section, disrupting traffic for thousands of commuters.
The case has been the subject of significant attention since the westbound Washington Bridge, which crosses the Seekonk River, was shut down in December 2023 after broken anchor rods were discovered. The malfunction posed a serious risk of collapse, prompting an immediate closure of the bridge section that previously carried about 96,000 vehicles daily. The state, led by Governor Dan McKee, has made it clear that it wants to seek justice and financial restitution from the contractors involved in the alleged negligence.
Rhode Island’s Case: Breaches and Negligence
The lawsuit, filed by Attorney General Peter Neronha on August 16, 2024, accuses the 13 contractors of a broad range of infractions, including breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and negligence. According to the state’s legal team, these companies were responsible for failing to detect, address, or report ongoing structural issues that worsened over time.
The bridge’s structural problems had been overlooked for decades, the state argues. In its filing, the Attorney General’s office contends that the negligence of these companies was a contributing factor to the eventual collapse risk the bridge faced.
A long list of contractors is named in the lawsuit, including major engineering firms such as AECOM Technical Services Inc., Barletta Heavy Division Inc., Jacobs Engineering Group, and Collins Engineers Inc. The state’s complaint alleges that these companies were tasked with inspections, designs, and rehabilitation plans for the bridge, but consistently failed to ensure its integrity.
Contractor Defense: A Political Case?
The defense attorneys for the contractors have been pushing hard for a dismissal of the case, arguing that the lawsuit is politically motivated and legally unfounded. Some lawyers have gone so far as to describe the state’s claims as “legally absurd.” They maintain that the allegations lack substance and are based on a political agenda rather than solid legal grounds.
The motion to dismiss argues that the lawsuit is vague and fails to offer specific details on how each company’s actions directly contributed to the bridge’s failure. Contractors, including Barletta and Aetna, have also asserted that the lawsuit does not sufficiently connect the contractors’ work to the actual causes of the structural problems that led to the bridge’s closure.
Despite these arguments, legal experts suggest that the defense may struggle to convince the court to dismiss the case outright. Roger Williams University School of Law Professor Michael Yelnosky noted that, while motions to dismiss are common in such cases, the court typically requires a higher level of specificity to justify a dismissal.
“If the judge decides on this in February, that would actually be a fairly brisk pace,” Yelnosky said. “It’s not unusual for these types of motions to linger much longer before a decision is made.”
What’s at Stake for Rhode Island?
For Rhode Island, the stakes are high. The Washington Bridge is a crucial transportation link, and the state has emphasized the significant disruption caused by its closure. The repairs required to restore the bridge are expected to be costly, and taxpayers could be left footing the bill if the contractors are not held accountable.
The state’s legal team argues that the contractors’ failure to detect or address the broken anchor rods directly led to the closure, and that their negligence has placed an undue burden on the people and businesses relying on the bridge. In fact, the state has made clear that it views this case as essential not only for the immediate remediation of the bridge but also for setting a precedent for how contractors are held accountable for their roles in major infrastructure failures.
Judge Stern’s Decision: A Wait for February
Superior Court Judge Brian Stern, who is overseeing the case, is expected to rule on the contractors’ motion to dismiss by February. His decision will be closely watched, as it could determine the direction of the case going forward. A dismissal could potentially delay any further legal action, while a rejection of the motion could lead to a lengthy court battle.
This case is not just about one bridge—it represents a larger fight over accountability in construction and infrastructure projects, especially when taxpayer money and public safety are at stake.
As the court proceedings unfold, all eyes will be on the outcome of this motion, which could reshape the landscape of how infrastructure failures are handled in Rhode Island and beyond.
Comments