Originally Posted by
indyfabz
Anyone actually read the decision? There is a link to the decision in the article liked by the OP.
Post 7, I summarized the issue a little differently.
I think the Court's interpretation is reasonable, but the law distinguishing defective from damaged is not a reasonable line. If I had to guess if there was an actual legislative strategy involved here, it probably came down to the state not wanting govt. to be liable if they didn't reroute a road that necessitated a blind turn or the like. "Defective" may just be too broad a term in this context, and they didn't want to be on the hook any time someone can make a plausible argument that the design of the road caused an accident..