The Genoa Bridge collapse, otherwise known as the Morandi Bridge, occurred on 14 August 2018. This sudden and unexpected collapse led to the loss of 43 lives and a shameful blame game which continues today. This has opened up a whole can of worms in relation to the payment of personal injury compensation as a consequence of infrastructure failures. Who is liable? Who was at fault? Should the disaster have been averted?
Why Did The Genoa Bridge Collapse?
Just over one month after the disaster it is still unclear as to why a significant part of the Genoa Bridge collapsed, crushing cars and killing occupants. There are many different theories as to what happened, from extreme weather conditions to suggestions that the original design of the bridge was flawed from day one.
We know that the original construction built in 1963 used ground breaking reinforced concrete supporting piers as opposed to traditional steel supports. While there were additional elements added to the design to improve safety and stability, in reality there seem to have been problems from day one. At this moment in time it looks as though a nightmare perfect storm came together to literally send a section of the bridge crashing down. While the Italian government has been extremely supportive of those who died in the accident, who is liable to pay personal injury compensation when it comes to infrastructure failures?
Legal Position
Governments around the world adopt a similar position when it comes to public sector infrastructure so many of the issues arising in Italy will be valid in the UK. We will now take a look at some of the issues mentioned in the initial disaster report and how this might impact personal injury claims.
Initial Design
The bridge itself was designed by Riccardo Morandi who was seen as a genius engineer in his time. We can only assume that the appropriate structural checks were carried out back in the 1960s during building and eventual completion. More than 50 years later and experts are now looking back over the history of the bridge, with many pointing the finger of blame at the Italian civil engineer.
When it comes to liability for personal injury claims the likelihood is that the company which advised the Italian authorities is no longer in existence. It may be part of a larger group or it may well have ceased trading. In the modern day era, even if the company ceases trading it is possible to retrace the steps of insurance cover. If the company was covered for personal injury claims at the time then the insurance company which provided this cover would be liable to pay out. The likelihood is that the design company may well be found partially liable for the disaster but it is unlikely to be pursued for any share of compensation.
Was The Bridge Fit For Purpose?
It is difficult for anybody to foresee the massive increase in traffic from the 1960s to the current day. As the bridge and the design were commissioned to accommodate traffic at the time this may mean that part of the blame is apportioned to the Italian Department of Transport. As a rule of thumb, new bridges are expected to have a lifespan of at least 100 years and probably beyond. The fact that the Genoa Bridge has literally collapsed after 50 years probably prompts more questions than it answers with regards to liability for personal injury claims.
Records suggest that the Italian government had been warned as recently as 2016 that the bridge was struggling to cope with current traffic volumes (25 million vehicles a year) – literally crumbling during rush hour. If the requirements of the bridge were to change since it was opened then surely this must be responsibility of the Italian government to make the necessary upgrades?
Ongoing Bridge Maintenance
Questions are already being asked about the potential role played by construction workers who were on-site at the time of the collapse. If it is found that actions taken just prior to the collapse in some way weakened the structure, leading to the collapse, then the construction company employed by the Italian government may well have a degree of liability. On the flipside of the coin, records show that major structural work has been carried out on the Genoa Bridge in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and over the last decade.
Hundreds of millions of euros have been spent on maintaining the Genoa Bridge prompting the question; did maintenance in some way compromise the original design of the structure?
Reduced Government Spending On Transport
On the surface it is easy to point the finger at designers and construction companies associated with the Genoa Bridge. However, let us dig a little deeper into the transport budget of the Italian government over the last decade.
Data provided by the OECD shows that the Italian government had a road transport budget of €14 billion just prior to the 2007 worldwide economic collapse. This collapse prompted a significant tightening of government budgetary belts around the world and Italy was not immune to this. In 2009 the road transport budget fell to $6 billion, less than $3.5 billion in 2013 although it did recover back to $5 billion in 2015. This prompts the question; did a reduced maintenance budget impact safety inspections on the Genoa Bridge?
Legally governments around the world have a duty of care to those living in their country. This duty of care includes the maintenance of public services and public highways. It could be argued that a reduction in maintenance spending on the Italian road transport network led to structural improvements being delayed and in some cases safety issues going undiscovered. The case against the Italian government is further strengthened by the fact that 12 bridges/overpasses have collapsed in Italy since 2004. Does this point to systemic problems with the upkeep of Italy’s infrastructure?
Acts Of God
There are eyewitness reports suggesting that the Genoa Bridge was hit by lightning just prior to the collapse. If this is the case, this may have caused major problems with the reinforced concrete support. They may have crumbled and weakened leading to instability and an eventual partial collapse. While there is an onus on the owner/management of public infrastructure to maintain their safety, acts of God are difficult to account for with regards to liability. Whether or not the structure was already significantly weakened prior to the lightning strike remains to be seen but if the early reports are correct then the weather may well have played a prominent role in the collapse.
Shared Liability
Ultimately the liability for maintaining the Genoa Bridge falls with the Italian government. There will be sub-levels of liability relating to companies and individuals employed by the Italian government to design, build and carry out maintenance on the bridge. In these instances it is difficult to apportion 100% blame to any one party which would make them liable for all personal injury compensation. When those injured and the surviving partners of the deceased eventually pursue personal injury claims this will open a can of worms to the worldwide public.
Conclusion
When you consider the infrastructure of any country plays an integral part in the economy it is important it is maintained. A substandard transport network will slow down the transportation of goods and increase expenses. A fast flowing and safe transport infrastructure will attract inward investment and assist economic growth. We take transport structures such as bridges for granted, automatically assuming they are well maintained and monitored for possible issues. While there is no way of determining as yet the safety of the Genoa Bridge just prior to collapse, the mass of maintenance carried over the years does not bode well.
It is likely that a nightmare perfect storm came together on 14 August 2018 to prompt the collapse of the busy Genoa Bridge. Even if the original design was flawed this should have been noticed during safety checks in the many years prior to the disaster. Warnings that traffic volumes were way beyond the limit for which the bridge was designed are also a red light for potential negligence. The fact the authorities were actively considering erecting a new bridge to replace the Genoa Bridge suggests there were major concerns. Did the maintenance team, on-site at the time of the collapse, play any role as it has been suggested they were working on the foundations?
The fact that 12 bridges/overpasses in Italy have collapsed since 2004 will likely be used as evidence of maintenance issues. While the various parties involved in this particular project may even admit partial liability ahead of any court case, it will likely be up to a judge to rule on specific levels of liability and exposure to compensation payments.
