IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
KEVIN BERETA and JENNY PLATT BERETA, husband and wife; and Kevin Bereta, as Guardian for their three minor children,
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES – HIGHWAY DESIGN
CASE SYNOPSIS
The barrier railing on the South Michigan overpass in Seattle is approximately 27 inches in height. Interstate 5 lies about 30 feet below.
In 2014, The Washington State Department of Transportation noted that a 42-inch traffic fall protection barrier was needed to render overpasses reasonably safe. But no adjustments were made to the South Michigan overpass.
In 2018, a motorcyclist was launched from the overpass onto the pavement below and died.
In 2020, a motorcyclist was launched from the overpass and struck the barrier rail on the right shoulder of Interstate 5 milepost 161. He was severely injured but survived.
On August 15, 2023, during the police escort of the visiting Vice President of the United States of America, Bellevue Police Officer Kevin Bereta was launched over the railing onto the pavement below. He was catastrophically injured but survived.
This lawsuit alleges that the State failed to provide a safe roadway to the travelling public including in this case, a police officer tasked with guarding the second highest official in the land.
Plaintiffs allege:
I. PARTIES
1.1Plaintiffs Officer Kevin Bereta and Jenny Platt Bereta, a nurse, are residents of Monroe, Snohomish County, Washington. They are parents of three minor children: B.M.B. (age 5); B.J.B. (age 4); B.L.B. (age 3). Kevin Bereta as Guardian brings claims on behalf of the children.
1.2Defendant State of Washington is a governmental entity that operates the South Michigan Street freeway on-ramp/overpass to Southbound Interstate-5, including the curb lane, curb, and railing barrier erected along the sides of the ramp (the overpass), and is responsible for its design, maintenance, and repair.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.1The Superior Courts of the State of Washington have jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject-matter of this legal action.
2.2Jurisdiction and venue are proper in the Superior Court of Washington for King County, because the incident which is the basis of this lawsuit occurred in Seattle, King County, Washington. RCW 4.12.020.
2.3Jurisdiction and venue are proper in the Superior Court of Washington King County - Kent Division, because the incidents occurred south of Interstate 90 within Seattle, King County, Washington.
III. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES
3.1Plaintiffs served Claims for Damages on the State of Washington on March 20, 2024, in accordance with RCW 4.92.100(1).
3.2More than 60 days have elapsed since the Claims for Damages was served on the Defendant State, the Defendant State has not responded to the Claims for Damages.
3.3On October 5, 2023, January 12, 2024, January 18, 2024, March 25, 2024, March 26, 2024, September 4, 2024, and November 4, 2024, both before and after service of the Claims for Damages but before the filing of this Complaint, the Plaintiffs’ attorneys issued Public Records Requests to the following State entities as follows: Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
All documents & records pertaining to the on-ramp/overpass from S. Michigan St to NB I-5 – including roadway, shoulder, and railing as follows:
o All related design plans, blueprints, measurements, decision making processes, construction, assessments, inspections, surveys, and code requirements; Identification of and any work done by any independent contractors, subcontractors or third parties;
o All changes made to the original design plans, including the related decision making process;
o All maintenance and repair work performed from January 1, 2018, to the present;
o Any fall risk analysis;
o Any vehicle and/or cycle ejection pattern analysis;
o History of all accidental or non- accidental falls of any sort onto I-5 below;
o All vehicle speed analyses;
o All materials in your possession (and/or to which you have access), in both print and electronic formats, including without limitation, reports, video footage, photos, charts, and illustrations, for the following: 1. The history of the AASHTO LRFD
Section 13 design criteria [“Section 13 criteria”], including the 42-inch barrier height referenced in the August 30, 2014 WSDOT Design Memorandum issued by Bijan Khaleghi to All Design Section Staff (Subject: “Bridge Traffic Barrier Design Requirements for Fall Protection” [“August 30, 2014 Memorandum”]); 2. The nature and extent of WSDOT’s knowledge of and familiarity with the Section 13 criteria prior to August 30, 2014, including AASHTO’s development of the Section 13 criteria, specifically including barrier height testing; 3. WSDOT’s adoption of the Section 13 criteria (including all bases for adoption, reports, video footage, photos, charts and illustrations prepared by AASHTO and WSDOT; 4. A list of all
bridge and overpass construction projects in Washington undertaken prior to August 30, 2014 that provided for a 42 inch barrier height; 5. A list of all bridge and overpass construction projects undertaken for new bridges and overpasses in Washington designed since August 30, 2014; 6. A list of all projects designed to modify barrier heights on bridges and overpasses already in existence in Washington as of August 30, 2014 to increase the barrier height to 42 inches, as provided for in the August 30, 2014 Memorandum; 7. WSDOT’s 2023 evaluation by bridge engineers of the subject South Michigan Street on-ramp referenced by WSDOT agency’s spokesperson Tina Werner (quoted in the March 5, 2024 issue of The Seattle Times, as reported by Lauren Rosenblatt, Seattle Times staff reporter).
o E-N ramp (bridge 5/533EN) Michigan St. to N/B I-5 On-Ramp:
Dimensions and Specifications for Single and Double Rails, Including Bolt Sizes and Quantities: It is essential to specify the exact dimensions and design specifications for both the single and double rail systems. This includes the size and quantity of bolts required for installation. These details are crucial for ensuring compliance with all relevant building codes and safety standards.
Request for a Copy of Drawings: Obtaining a copy of the construction drawings is a critical step. These drawings will provide the detailed technical specifications necessary to fully evaluate the project.
Details About the Concrete Wall (Thickness, Reinforcing, Strength): The design of the concrete wall must adhere to applicable building codes, which
dictate the minimum thickness, type of reinforcing material, and compressive strength of the concrete. Please provide these specific details.
Details About the Bridge Deck (Thickness, Reinforcing, Strength, Location): The bridge deck must be designed to withstand the necessary loads and stresses. Information on the thickness, reinforcing details, concrete strength, and the exact location of the bridge deck is required.
Feasibility Assessment: A comprehensive feasibility assessment can be conducted once all the technical details are provided. This assessment will review the plans for compliance with laws and regulations and evaluate any potential risks or liabilities.
Locations Where Double Railing Has Been Installed After the Issuance of the WADOT’s memorandum dated August 30, 2014 titled Bridge Traffic
Barrier Design Requirements for Fall Protection: Examples of where double railing has been successfully installed can offer valuable insights into the appropriateness and viability of this design element for your project. Examples of motorcycle incidents going over bridge railings.
All As-Built plans, drawings and details, standard plans and specifications of the construction of the tubular metal railing and bracket that was installed on the E-N ramp (bridge 5/533EN) Michigan St. to N/B I-5 On-Ramp.
Photographs of railings on list of bridge and overpass construction project undertaken on new bridges and overpasses in Washington state, since August 30, 2014.
Washington State Patrol (WSP)
Police report request
Law enforcement report(s) and associated police/sheriff/prosecution/investigation file(s)
regarding: --A police motorcycle incident on August 15, 2023, around 13:50 at or near ramp to NB I-5 - S Michigan Street, involving Bellevue Police Officer Kevin Bereta. --
Any criminal actions taken regarding the August 15, 2023 incident referenced above.
These requests include but are not limited to: 911 calls, radio/dispatcher transmissions, any other audio, in-car/dash cam video, body worn video, any other video, photographs, diagrams, FARO scans, EDR/"Black Box" data, CAD logs, witness statements, records of evidence collected, bloodwork results, reports, notes, database entries, correspondence, arrest records, citations, charging papers, criminal complaints, verdicts, plea agreements, and sentencing records.
Collision report, photos, witness statements.
3.4Prior to the filing of this Complaint and response to the PRRs, the State has provided the following responsive documents as follows:
Washington State Department of Transportation
Documents relating to subject incident
Interchange drawings
Bellevue Police Department & WSP reports of incident
AASHTO Bridge Committee
WSDOT Bridge Design Tech Committee
Fall Protection – Design emails & memos for bridges/barriers
WSDOT Diagram Data Coding Keys
Estimates for overpass repair
1/6/2018 Michigan overpass incident
Seismic testing data & retrofit
As-built plans
PDA Search result – right of way study
Contract plans for overpasses in Seattle
Washington State Patrol
CAD
Investigation Log
Incident details for disclosure
Photos
Field diagrams
Emails with Bellevue Police Department regarding incident
Officers Report of Incident
Captain’s message
Motorcycle analysis/measurements
WSP text messages from incident day
WSP emails
After action reports
Traffic collision report
Scene measurements
Project – 18-01-2024-13-29-58 files (requires viewer that is included)
Regulation manual for motors
Interchange drawings
Map images
Plans & Documents archive
Body Worn Video
Transcript of Officer Body Worn Video at time of incident
Escort & Movement training PowerPoint
Withholding Logs
Exemption Logs
3.5The State is aware both through the service of the Claims forms and because of its participation in the PRR process, of the general and specific liability facts related to this case.
3.6There are no deficiencies in the content of the Claims for Damages or in the service of the Claims on Defendant State.
IV. FACTS
4.1Defendant State designed the overpass for public travel.
4.2Defendant State is responsible for the proper design, maintenance, and repair of the overpass.
4.3Defendant State had/has a duty to maintain the overpass in reasonably safe conditions for motorists.
4.4A police officer operating a motorcycle is a motorist.
4.5The overpass rises about 30 feet above Interstate 5:
4.6Motorists who travel on the overpass encounter a significant curve which the State has attempted to address with signage:
4.7There are two travel lanes on the overpass: an HOV lane to the left and a regular traffic lane to the right. The curb lane abuts a raised concrete curb. The concrete curb abuts a 27” railing barrier.1
4.8Defendant State is required by Washington law to maintain the overpass in a reasonably safe condition, including providing a barrier that adequately protects motorcyclists from falling off the overpass onto I-5 below.
4.9As presently configured, the overpass is dangerous and defective given the curb’s proximity to the relatively low bridge rail.
4.10This curb design has been known to be problematic from a barrier safety perspective for a considerable time.
1 Note: the orange paint marks are from the investigation of this incident; the white paint marks are from the investigation of a separate motorcycle incident at this same location.
4.11The curb effectively serves as a ramp for vehicles, lowering the effective height of the bridge rail and compromising its safety function.
4.12In 2014, WSDOT noted the inadequacy of 27” barriers on its overpasses and bridges and that a 42” traffic fall protection barrier was needed to render overpasses and bridges reasonably safe.2
4.13The standard for traffic barriers on bridges is a “42-inch high Single Slope or Fshape concrete barrier,” with the Single Slope traffic barrier used on all interstates, major highway routes, and over National Highway System (NHS):
4.14Defendant State has not modified the curb or the height of the 27-inch railing on the overpass since its installation on or about 1965.
2 August 30, 2014, WSDOT Design Memorandum – “Bridge Traffic Barrier Design Requirements for Fall Protection” –attached hereto as Exhibit A.
4.15On August 15, 2023, Bellevue Police motorcycle officer Kevin Bereta was honored to be part of a team of local officers charged with assisting the secret service in escorting VicePresident Kamela Harris during her official visit to Seattle.
4.16Officer Bereta met up with fellow officers at Boeing airfield, escorted the VicePresident’s procession to its first event, waited, then continued to the second event.
4.17The motorcycle officers’ primary responsibility was to lead the way and clear the intersections in advance of the Vice-President’s procession. This was accomplished with alternating the multiple motorcycle officers.
4.18Once the procession drove past the cleared area, the motorcycle officers would then catch up and overtake the procession so that they could lead the way and get to pre-clear the next intersection.
4.19On this day, this protocol was followed by Officer Bereta who cleared his designated intersection then accelerated with the intent to pass the Vice-President’s procession and resume his position in leading and clearing intersections with the other motorcycle officers.
4.21An officer from another police department was traveling right behind and at/around pace with Officer Bereta.
4.22As Officer Bereta travelled across the overpass, he was unable to negotiate the turn.
4.23Officer Bereta separated from the motorcycle upon its impact with the curb and was launched over the offramp.
4.24Officer Bereta’s body made contact with the railing, and he tried to grab hold to no avail.
V. NOTICE
5.1By 2006, Defendant State knew that a 42-inch High Performance Concrete Barrier was needed at locations on Interstate or freeway routes where accident history would suggest a need.3
5.2By 2014, the Defendant State knew that a 27-inch traffic barrier was inadequate for fall protection.4
5.3On July 4, 2018, a motorcyclist was traveling in lane 2 of 2 on the on ramp from South Michigan Street to Northbound Interstate 5. The motorcyclist was unable to negotiate the left-hand curve. The motorcyclist went across lane 1, struck the concrete barrier to the right of the
3 WSDOT’s Design Manual, M22-01, Chapter 710, Traffic Barriers, November 2006, p. 710-19-attached hereto as Exhibit B
4 Incident Report E15227 dated July 4, 2018-attached hereto as Exhibit C.
roadway and was ejected. The rider was launched over the 27” railing and landed on the Northbound exit ramp to Corson Avenue South. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
Figure 10: Investigator's illustration of the July 4, 2018, incident
5.4On July 7, 2020, a motorcyclist was traveling northbound on the onramp to northbound Interstate 5 in lane 2 of 2. The motorcyclist entered the overpass interchange curve, crossed over lane 1, struck the concrete jersey barrier on the right shoulder, and the rider was ejected. The motorcyclist continued northbound on the interchange ramp and motorcyclist fell from the overpass, struck the bridge rail on the right shoulder of Interstate 5 at milepost 161.5
5 Incident Report EA47910 dated July 7, 2020-attached hereto as Exhibit D.
Figure 11: Investigator's illustration of the July 7, 2020, incident
5.5From about July 2018 to about August 2023, there have been at least thirty-three reported related incidents on the onramp, eight of which involved motorcycles, and three of the motorcyclists were ejected over the railing including Officer Bereta.6
VI.CAUSES OF ACTION
6.1The Defendant State was negligent.
6.2The Defendant State had a continuing duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, construction, inspection, maintenance, and repair of the overpass.
6.3The Defendant State failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, construction, inspection, maintenance, and repair of the overpass.
6 Reports from July 4, 2018 to August 14, 2023—attached hereto as Exhibit E.
6.4The Defendant State failed to take reasonable steps to correct the inherently dangerous condition of the insufficient overpass barrier.
6.5The Defendant State failed to post adequate signage warning motorcyclists that the overpass presented a particular danger to them.
6.6The negligence of Defendant State was a proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ damages.
VII. NO OTHER FAULT
7.1Plaintiff Bereta committed no negligent act that was a proximate cause of the subject incident and his resulting injuries and losses.
7.2The Bellevue Police Department committed no negligent act in assigning Plaintiff Bereta to the Vice President’s procession.
7.3The City of Seattle committed no negligent act as the overpass is wholly owned and maintained by the State.
7.4The Secret Service committed no negligent act by providing the protocol described above to the Washington State Patrol and assigned officers.
VIII. INJURIES
8.1Officer Bereta survived the fall but was catastrophically injured.
12: Officer Bereta at Harborview
8.2Officer Bereta was rushed to Harborview where he underwent numerous surgeries for polytrauma. The general nature of his physical injuries included, among others:
L1-L2 burst fractures with subsequent spinal court injury,
T11 – L4 Posterior Spinal Instrumentation & Fusion Surgery (PSIF),
L1 Laminectomy,
Multiple metatarsal fractures in Left Foot, requiring surgical repair,
Left tibial plateau fracture, requiring surgical repair,
Right leg internal de-gloving injury,
Left clavicle fracture,
Multiple Right rib fractures,
Sacral fracture,
Left leg compartment syndrome requiring emergent fasciotomy,
Retroperitoneal bleed, requiring mass blood transfusion intraoperatively,
Numerous ruptures/severing of tendons in left elbow, and
Extensive nerve pain and nerve damage from spinal fractures.
8.3Officer Bereta has sustained economic losses, including past and future medical expenses, lost past and future earnings, loss of earning potential, household assistance, and other economic damages in amounts to be proven at time of trial.
8.4Jenny Bereta has sustained economic losses, including lost past and future earnings and loss of earning potential related to providing nursing and other care services for her spouse and taking on more of his share of services otherwise performed on behalf of the family unit, and other economic damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
8.5Officer Bereta has sustained noneconomic damages including pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, emotional trauma, loss of enjoyment of life, and other noneconomic damages in amounts to be proved at the time of trial.
8.6 Jenny Bereta has sustained noneconomic loss of consortium damages, including loss of her husband’s emotional support, love, affection, care, services, companionship, cooperation and aid in amounts to be proved at the time of trial.
8.7The three minor children have sustained noneconomic loss of consortium damages including love, care, companionship, and guidance, in amounts to be proved at the time of trial.
IX.PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs ask for the following relief:
9.1 Judgment against the Defendant;
9.2For economic and noneconomic damages in amounts to be proved at trial;
9.2 For costs and disbursements;
9.3 For statutory attorney fees;
9.4 For prejudgment interest on liquidated damages;
9.5For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.
DATED this 13th day of November, 2024.
STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE
/s/ Karen Koehler
Karen Koehler, WSBA#15325
Mo Hamoudi, WSBA#48512 Counsel for Plaintiffs
