<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Trucking Litigation: A Forensic Analysis</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2635344</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report examines tractor-trailer tort cases from 2019 through 2024. Factors analyzed include: location of trial and the benefits of federal venues, trends over time of tractor-trailer tort cases, impact on awards from types of negligence such as failure to stop or speeding, injury type and impact on awards, settlements and verdicts, exaggerated claims, and defense strategies. Trends indicate that the number of tractor-trailer tort cases per year are rising and the total litigation award amounts are rising. In addition to litigation trends, four emerging trucking industry legal issues are discussed: lawsuits based on product liability claims, the use of extraneous evidence, litigation funded by third parties, and the argument that compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation (FMCSR) mandatory safety standards is the minimum level of care and therefore should be exceeded.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2026 08:54:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2635344</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Changing Plans: Flexibility, Accountability, and Oversight of Local Option Sales Tax Measure Implementation in California</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2611281</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report presents findings from research into the rules that govern amendments to and public oversight of local option sales tax (LOST) measures in California. While flexibility is needed to allow local transportation authorities to adapt in response to unforeseen circumstances, too much flexibility may hinder public accountability and allow for changes that fail to conform with the spirit of the project lists approved by county voters. Across all LOST measures enacted in California since 1976, I explore LOST measure provisions governing public oversight and expenditure plan amendments, and also explore the extent to which lawsuits affect LOST measure implementation and have bearing on the accountability and flexibility enjoyed by local transportation authorities. I find that many of the measures require the formation of independent Citizens Oversight Committees, whose roles vary from purely advisory (i.e., review, report, and advise authority boards) to more direct authority (e.g., veto power over proposed expenditure plan amendments). I also find that most of the measures allow for project lists and governing rules to undergo amendment during implementation, though the procedures for approving such changes and the circumstances under which such changes may take place vary across measures. In general, these findings suggest that most measures seem to achieve a relative balance between needed flexibility and public accountability, ensuring that amendments take place infrequently and that such changes tend to preserve the measure’s initial intention. Finally, I describe important findings related to lawsuits, and overview landmark legal cases with precedent for implementation of subsequent measures.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2025 09:26:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2611281</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Lesson 22: Tort Liability and Risk Management</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2593177</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation contains modular resource material that is intended for use in university courses on bicycle and pedestrian transportation. This lesson provides an understanding of tort liability, risk management principles, and techniques for monitoring and evaluating existing facilities and programs. Key definitions are provided, along with information on litigation trends, exposure evaluation methodologies, successful risk-reduction strategies, and case study examples. Students will study real cases that illustrate the importance of considering human performance in planning and design and of the role facilities play in creating predictable behavior. An understanding of tort liability and risk management issues will alert the designer to the need for evaluation and monitoring on an ongoing basis and for creating built-in feedback systems. More and more lawsuits are being settled against government entities that adopt a do-nothing posture. Identifying potential risks, doing something, and then evaluating the results as part of a systematic program is proving to be a more defensible approach.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2025 17:29:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2593177</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Legal Analysis of Labor Trafficking Cases with a Transportation Lens</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2606770</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Human trafficking is one of the fastest growing criminal industries with $150?billion in annual profits and an estimate of over 27.6?million victims exploited through commercial sex or forced labor activities. Although transportation of a victim is not necessary for a crime to be considered human trafficking, the transportation industry plays a crucial role in every stage of the trafficking process. This is especially true for labor trafficking victims, who generally have severely limited or no mobility during long periods of exploitation. As such, there is a great need for dedicated research focused exclusively on labor trafficking. Overwhelming evidence suggests that labor trafficking (without the presence of overlapping sex trafficking charges) is woefully underprosecuted in the United States. This study seeks to close a gap in understanding the labor trafficking timeline by examining the role of transportation through a systematic review of labor trafficking cases. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate successfully litigated cases with respect to the role of transportation. The insights from the 16 opinions selected, issued at various points in the litigation process, shed light on ways the transportation network could disrupt the trafficking process, serve as a resource point for victims attempting escape, and support the prosecution of traffickers.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2025 11:01:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2606770</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>FAA Enforcement: Waivers of Rights to Recover Attorney's Fees in Settlements</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2573190</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires pilots, mechanics, and others who hold FAA certificates to waive their rights to recover attorney's fees and expenses as a condition of settling enforcement actions against them, according to FAA officials. Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), individuals who prevail over FAA in certain FAA legal enforcement actions may, absent a waiver, be entitled to recover their attorney's fees and other expenses, if certain conditions are met. FAA officials said that they require these EAJA waivers to ensure that the individual cannot bring any additional claims against the agency and to avoid spending staff resources responding to frivolous EAJA applications. FAA took about 2,200 actions against individuals' certificates, including revocation and suspension, during fiscal years 2019 through 2023, according to FAA data. About 10 percent of those individuals signed a settlement agreement and could potentially have qualified for EAJA awards if they had not waived their rights to the fees and if they met additional eligibility requirements. In the United States, parties in litigation are generally responsible for their own legal expenses regardless of whether they win or lose the case. EAJA is an exception to this general rule in that it allows individuals in covered proceedings to which the federal government is a party to recover their attorney's fees and expenses, under certain circumstances. Section 340 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 includes a provision for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine FAA's use of waivers of rights to seek attorney fees under EAJA as a condition of settlement of certain legal enforcement actions against pilots, flight engineers, mechanics, and repair technicians (or individuals acting in those capacities). This report provides information on FAA's use of waivers in settlement agreements; legal and industry views on FAA's use of these waivers and FAA's perspective on these views; and a comparison of FAA's use of waivers with the practices of selected other agencies. GAO reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, case law, and data from FAA's enforcement-action database from fiscal years 2019 through 2023, which was the most current data available; interviewed industry groups representing individuals subject to FAA enforcement actions, law professors who had written about EAJA, and aviation lawyers; and spoke with officials from FAA, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Coast Guard.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2025 19:48:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2573190</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Excess of Judicialization and the Clinginess of Brazilian Courts to the Consumer Protection Code</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2572938</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Brazilian courts have resisted applying the Montreal Convention, preferring instead to apply the Brazilian Consumer Code (CDC) to consumer cases against airlines involving international flights.  The CDC was written to broadly protect consumer rights and indemnify consumers, while the Montreal system is based on predictability and uniformity of outcomes, making alignment with the CDC difficult.  Courts’ reluctance to apply the Convention – based largely on a desire to protect the weaker party in a situation of asymmetry of power – has made Brazil the world’s leader in claims against airlines.  Conflicting Brazilian court decisions and the recognition of moral damages as a separate category not subject to the Montreal Convention’s limits have resulted in an unparalleled increase in passenger claims, and a near-certainty that litigious passengers will be compensated.  This has raised ticket prices and put Brazilian airlines into survival mode.  This article analyzes the consequences of the excess of judicialization, focusing on lower courts’ avoidance of the Montreal Convention and demonstrating their pro-passenger bias.  Moral damages are also discussed; indeed, despite the international understanding that moral damages are not recoverable under Montreal, Brazil’s Supreme Court has taken the opposite view, mainly based on the concept of full compensation and human dignity found in the Brazilian Constitution.  While recent legislation removed the presumption favoring moral damages, an analysis of recent lower court decisions demonstrates that the presumption of moral damages still has vitality.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:00:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2572938</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Mapping Gaps in Australia’s Drone Regulation: Locating Contemporary Concerns from Civil Litigation in the USA</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2572937</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Drones are becoming more accessible economically, more sophisticated technologically, and more prevalent across many aspects of daily life. Soon, drones will be powerful enough to act autonomously.  By 2030, there may be as many as a billion drones in the world “each with the capacity of intentionally or unintentionally capturing images of…individuals.”  In tandem with this growth in both frequency and social integration, law has an increasingly important role in drone regulation, but it must keep pace in order to harness the use of drones and avoid the development of a legal gap.  Australia has focused on the regulation of drones themselves, leaving untouched relevant areas of law and social behavior that are affected by drone use.  Australia’s piecemeal and inconsistent drone legislation is a consequence of both the lack of federal intervention, particularly regarding privacy protections, and the “technology-specific” rhetoric of state-based laws which renders them inflexible to new developments.  Relatively little academic work exists with regard to drone use in Australia as compared with the United States and elsewhere.  Thus, this paper examines litigation emerging from various U.S. courts over the past few years as a means of capturing – in real time – the key areas of concern among everyday citizens.  From these areas of concern, the paper identifies gaps in the current legislation and makes suggestions for areas of reform.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:00:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2572937</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Civil Litigation and Dispute Resolution during Urban Tunnel Construction</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2447076</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Tunnel construction has to interact with many complex variables, both in the design phase and in the construction phase, especially in urban areas with high population density. For this reason, building a new metro line inevitably involves disputes. Even if companies have appropriate guarantees provided in the contract, the initiation of a claim normally involves a dispute, which can be resolved, through confrontation of the parties, or it can incur court proceedings. During the construction of Milan’s new subway line, Metro Blu, a great deal of effort was devoted to the management of damage complaints, induced mainly during the excavation phases and beyond. Thanks to the effort and commitment of numerous insurance companies, which supported the contractors, damage claims were collected and managed, almost always in conjunction with construction. Some disputes have been settled; others have resulted in court disputes. Although the most frequent claims have been for damage to the existing building (fractures and deformations), some disputes have involved claims for damages in relation to property rights and compensation for property expropriation. The authors expose two case histories of recurring disputes involving the construction of the new subway line, with the aim of reflecting on the patterns of large-scale litigation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:31:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2447076</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Planning and Environment Linkages: Review of Statutory Authority and Case Law</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2110696</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This digest presents the key legal bases and aspects of the Planning and Environment Linkages (PEL) program. It covers the evolution of PEL, highlighting key statutory and regulatory authorities for PEL and corresponding agency guidance and policy. This digest includes a description and comparison of the various approaches to PEL at the federal and state levels. It also analyzes the history of litigation relevant to PEL. Finally, this digest summarizes key considerations for PEL going forward. This digest will be helpful to all involved in the development, construction, and planning of transportation projects, including attorneys, planners, state transportation agencies, metropolitan regional planning organizations, federal personnel, consultants, and contractors.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2023 18:02:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2110696</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Impact of Small Verdicts and Settlements on the Trucking Industry</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1892960</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report presents an analysis of litigation-related settlements, in cases spanning the last 14 years, to investigate the impact on motor carriers of “small” litigation, lawsuits resulting in verdicts under $1 million. It begins with a look at factors that have led to an increase in small litigation. Next it analyzes the relationship between small litigation and commercial motor vehicle insurance rates. Payment size by State is outlined, with California, New Jersey and Missouri having the highest average payment sizes. In addition, the impacts of crash characteristics on payment sizes and whether a case is settled in or out of court are discussed. The average litigation-payment for fatal crashes was $607,532. Data in the report includes: average litigation-related payment size by injury, litigation-related payment size by alleged infractions, and litigation-related payment size by State vs Federal Court. The report also discusses settlements and verdicts by State vs Federal courts and the significance on verdicts of expert witness testimony.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:18:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1892960</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Problems Arising out of Highway Programs. Topic 26-02. Analysis of Arbitration and Holdings in Construction Disputes</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1889476</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Arbitration can be a useful tool to save time and money in resolving disputes concerning the construction of transportation projects, but the process can be opaque and risky since the results are rarely made public. State departments of transportation (DOTs) would benefit from a database of the various dispute resolution processes being implemented, and the outcomes of those processes that could be used to spot trends in the processes and the results. The research team will ask state DOTs to share what processes they use to resolve construction disputes and the results from those processes, while working closely with the states to protect confidential and privileged information. Many of the available court records and reports may have sections redacted, but even heavily redacted information may be useful to help spot trends in processes and results since very little data currently exists. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to produce a legal research digest that includes the following:
1.    What state statutes or regulations are in place governing resolution of disputes?
2.    What processes are DOTs using for resolution of construction disputes (e.g., contracting officer decisions, executive directors or transportation commission decisions, mediation, dispute review boards (binding) or panels (non-binding), arbitration (binding, dispute size limits, etc.), and litigation)?
3.    What rules are used for the different processes (e.g., timing, makeup, and administration of panels, enforcement of contract clauses) and how do the rules affect the outcome of disputes?
4.    Analysis of binding dispute process decisions to determine whether it’s a useful tool to save time and money for construction disputes. Identify: (1) contract provisions that arbitrators are typically asked to enforce; (2) fact patterns and other issues that cause arbitrators to deviate from settled law and contract terms; (3) levels of proof required to prove damages; (4) percentage of holdings that materially deviate from settled law; and (5) differences in the levels of discovery conducted between the arbitration hearings and similar court hearings. 
 
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2021 15:06:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1889476</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Problems Arising out of Highway Programs. Topic 26-01. Effects of Indian Treaties on Development and Operation of Transportation Facilities</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1889475</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The State of Washington was recently required to redesign the culverts beneath its roads to facilitate the passage of salmon. This mandate arose from the interpretation of treaties with American Indian tribes dating back to the 1850s, which predated Washington’s admission to the United States. These treaties specifically address fishing rights. A proceeding in the ongoing case of United States v. Washington affirmed these rights, leading to the recognition that the state must update its transportation infrastructure to ensure the protection of salmon habitats.

The significance of tribal treaty rights is now increasingly influencing local and state planning and regulatory bodies, particularly in their decisions regarding the construction and operation of transportation facilities.

In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced the fact that American Indian treaties established before statehood—and never abrogated by Congress—remain in effect. In McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Court ruled that a Native American accused of crimes committed within the boundaries of a reservation established prior to Oklahoma’s statehood could not be tried in state court (591 U.S. ____ (2020)) because, pursuant to a treaty with the Muscogee Nation, the State of Oklahoma remained, for relevant purposes, “Indian country” subject to federal jurisdiction. This decision underscores the necessity for states to reassess the ongoing relevance of treaties enacted before they achieved statehood.

NCHRP LRD 94: Effects of American Indian Treaties on Development and Operation of Transportation Facilities examines how state departments of transportation (DOTs) plan, develop, and operate transportation infrastructure that crosses lands reserved by treaty. Key considerations include:

    Ongoing validity of treaties.
    Impact on modern development.
    Engagement with tribal stakeholders.                                   

This digest will be valuable to transportation attorneys representing state departments of transportation (DOTs) and authorities, as well as their contractors and consultants. It will also benefit policymakers, local, state, and federal personnel, transportation practitioners, decision-makers, and stakeholders involved in ensuring that transportation projects comply with legal and cultural obligations. 
 ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2021 15:15:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1889475</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on the Trucking Industry</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1759238</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Large legal verdicts have been on the rise in the United States. To identify how different factors impact the size of verdicts in the trucking industry, the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) compiled a database of 600 truck-involved crash verdicts. Using this data, relationships between verdict size and various crash-related factors were estimated and analyzed. These statistical methods indicate that the size and frequency of large verdicts has been rising over time, and different crash-related factors play a statistically relevant role in the size of the verdict. These findings document that, on average, large verdicts are increasing at a rate of 51.7 percent per year. Life-altering injuries, like traumatic brain injuries, increase the size of verdicts by approximately $770,000. When children are either injured or killed in the crash, the verdict size increases by $27 million per child. These findings suggest that the size of large verdicts are increasing, and that certain litigation-related factors impact the respective size of these verdicts.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2021 10:57:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1759238</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Critical Analysis of Contract Clauses in Road Sector: Case Study</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1740032</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Construction litigation in the infrastructure sector has long had the potential of locking in investments. The court case in this study finally ended, with the judgment delivered by the high court of Delhi, on March 16, 2012. The court itself took 2.25 years to adjudicate and give its judgment. The case was filed challenging the arbitration award by a public authority. The reason for challenging the award arose out of claims emanating from alleged extra costs incurred by the respondent, particularly in the extended period of the contract which were upheld by the arbitral tribunal. The grant of extension of time was never a controversy in the present case, but the related costs formed the core issues under arbitration, followed by the litigation. The claims included amount against loss of profit and financing charges, and the award against these two claims by the tribunal was finally struck down by the court. The court was of the opinion that these two claims were beyond the scope of the contract provisions and that they were not costs but damages. The judgment in the case did not violate the established doctrine of precedent.” The award pronounced by the arbitral tribunal was not in the true spirit of the settled principles of law and not aligned to the appropriate interpretation of the clauses stipulated in the contract. Therefore, the judgment delivered by the high court quashed and modified many of the awarded amounts; still, this wasn’t a case of violation of the doctrine of precedent by any stretch of imagination. However, there are many cases where precedent has been violated. Examples of such cases include ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd. Although interference by courts is undesirable and it is settled that facts need not be appreciated again, the present case involved a mixing of facts and law with pure law. The methodology adopted involves ensuring the compliance of general and specific conditions stipulated while granting environmental clearance. These conditions comprise, for example, (1) whether or not a sewage treatment plant was built for the construction workers, (2) whether or not compensatory afforestation was taken up and completed, and (3) ensuring that the natural profile of the slopes were not disturbed. Whether or not these conditions were complied with by the concessionaire and public authority needed to be evaluated. Constraints to ensure compliance needed to be mitigated. This paper contributes toward greater awareness on the part of contract framers of apt language to be used when detailing contract clauses and provisions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2020 12:25:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1740032</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Understanding the Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on the Trucking Industry</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1715637</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A nuclear verdict is a large verdict awarded to the plaintiff in a trial, these verdicts can be in excess of $10 million dollars. In this study, case data was analyzed and industry stakeholders were interviewed to determine the impacts of nuclear verdicts on the trucking industry. Statistical analysis of litigation data from cases between 2006 and 2019 shows that verdicts over $1 million have increased dramatically. The number of cases with verdicts over $1 million from 2005 to 2011 was 79. This number increased to 265 cases during 2012 to 2019, a 235% increase. The report also discusses crash characteristics, such as injuries sustained, and litigation factors, such as presence of expert witnesses, that impact verdict sizes. Data presented includes average verdict for spinal injuries, average damages based on crash type, number of deaths by verdict size, and rear-end crashes and mean verdict size. Using regression analysis, the authors find that the number of children injured or killed in a crash is the largest factor in verdict size. The second half of the report focuses on information gathered through interviews and surveys with subject matter experts. Topics include: motor carrier pre-crash action, pre-trial preparation, litigation strategies, unfavorable practices, mediation and settlements, litigation financing, and litigation impacts of nuclear verdicts on safety, stakeholder costs, and economic costs. The report concludes with a comparative industry analysis of the aviation industry, medical industry, and nuclear power industry to identify tactics that the trucking industry could apply to mitigate large settlements.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2020 17:40:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1715637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>