1. Overview
Incident occurred on a rural road
Involved Parties: A woman in her 60s (Driver A, wrong-way driver) / A man in his 30s (Driver B, oncoming vehicle)
Driver A mistakenly entered the wrong direction near a construction zone and drove about 500 meters before colliding head-on with Driver B.
2. Facts
The rural road was under construction and had been temporarily converted into a detour.
There were no adequate “Do Not Enter” signs or traffic guidance measures in place.
Driver A attempted a right turn at an intersection, but due to the absence of warning signs,
She mistakenly believed it was the correct direction and entered the wrong lane.
Driver B was traveling at the posted speed limit (around 55 mph) and tried to brake, but could not avoid the collision.
Driver A sustained serious injuries, and Driver B suffered minor injuries.
Driver A filed a lawsuit against Driver B and the local road authority for medical costs and damages.
3. Key Legal Issues
Was the lack of signage and poor road layout during construction the primary cause of the wrong-way entry?
Between driver negligence and the road authority’s fault, who bears greater responsibility?
Could Driver B have reasonably avoided the crash?
4. Court Ruling
60% fault assigned to the road authority
There were no “Do Not Enter” signs at the detour entry point,
and the court found barriers like cones or fences insufficient to prevent wrong-way access.
Expert testimony emphasized that a non-local driver like A could easily be misled by the road layout.
40% fault assigned to Driver A
She was still expected to assess the road carefully and avoid entering if uncertain.
However, she had no visual or cognitive impairments and was driving below the speed limit.
She also took emergency measures (e.g., activating hazard lights), which was taken into account.
5. Outcome
Out of a total damage award of approximately $300,000,
Driver A received about $180,000 (60%) from the road authority.
Driver B sought compensation from A through civil court, but the court determined shared fault.
The court upheld A’s right to partial compensation and acknowledged shared responsibility.