This month, Snohomish County published something it had never released before: an interactive dashboard and maps presenting a decade of county crash data to the public for the first time, showing where, when, and how serious crashes happen. If you or someone in your family was badly hurt on one of those roads, that data matters, because Washington law holds a county responsible when a road it knew was dangerous contributes to a crash.
The numbers behind the release are blunt. Serious and fatal traffic injuries in Snohomish County rose 70 percent from 2014 to 2024, and the county is developing a Safety Action Plan to reverse that trend. Lynnwood Times / My Edmonds News
What is in the county’s new Online Open House?
A self-guided tour of ten years of crash data, and a survey where you can flag the roads that scare you. The county launched its Road Safety Program Online Open House in mid-July, and it stays open until September, letting people explore on their own schedule and specify locations of concern through the survey.
The centerpiece is the High Injury Network, the county’s own map of where people keep getting seriously hurt. Just 93 miles of rural roads, about 4.3 percent of all rural roads in the county, carry 57 percent of all serious and fatal crashes. Read that again. The county has identified a small fraction of its road network that produces most of its catastrophic crashes. That is useful public health information. It is also, in plain terms, a public record of what the county knows about its own roads.
Can you sue Snohomish County for a dangerous road?
Yes, when the road’s design or maintenance contributed to the crash. The Washington Supreme Court has held that governments owe a duty to all persons, whether negligent or fault-free, to build and maintain roadways in a condition that is reasonably safe for ordinary travel.
Notice is often the fight. A government is generally liable for a dangerous condition it created, or one it knew about or should have discovered with reasonable care. A published map of high-injury corridors is exactly the kind of information that bears on what a county knew and when.
While appearing on the High Injury Network does not, by itself, prove the county did anything wrong, it is evidence that supports questions worth asking. Proving a road defect takes engineering analysis, not a map alone.
What if a drunk or uninsured driver caused the crash?
The road can still be part of the case, and in my experience it is looked at far too rarely. Across the catastrophic crash cases our firm reviews, almost no one, not the family, not the adjuster, sometimes not even prior counsel, has examined whether the roadway itself contributed. Even when the obvious cause is a drunk driver or a medical emergency, we look at the road in every catastrophic case.
An illustrative composite, drawn from more than one matter our firm has handled: a driver crosses the centerline to pass, drunk, and hits an oncoming car head-on near a blind corner. Open and shut against the driver. But the centerline striping was dashed at the start of the passing zone, inviting a pass where sight distance could not support one. Suddenly the state’s striping decisions are in the case, and the family is no longer limited to a minimal liability policy.
Defense lawyers in these cases almost always argue the same thing: the road was reasonably safe, and the crash had other causes. Highway engineers answered that argument decades ago with the forgiving roadway principle. Drivers make mistakes. Roads are supposed to be designed so that an ordinary mistake does not become a funeral.
The County's Road Safety Program follows the Safe System Approach, and among the county’s published guiding principles is the recognition that people make mistakes and the transportation system should be designed, operated, and maintained in a manner that accommodates human mistakes, along with the belief that traffic deaths and serious injuries are preventable.
Why does being fault-free matter so much?
Because fault-free plaintiffs get the benefit of joint and several liability, and partially at-fault plaintiffs generally do not. Passengers are almost always fault-free. And when we represent the family of a driver, we often retain reconstruction experts to establish that the driver could not have avoided the collision, proving through investigation that the person was without fault, not just assuming it.
Do these cases actually change anything?
They do. Our firm has seen roundabouts installed, lanes restriped, barriers moved or modified, and signage changed after crashes we investigated. The evidence rules generally keep those later fixes out of trial, and that is fine. The fix is not for the courtroom. It is for the next family that drives through.
There is a version of that work anyone can do this summer. The county’s survey asks residents to identify the locations that worry them, and it stays open until September. Every concern submitted becomes part of the record of what the county has been told about its roads.
FAQ
How long do I have to bring a claim against Snohomish County for a dangerous road? Washington’s personal injury statute of limitations is generally three years for negligence claims, like highway design. There is also a tort claim filing requirement with its own mechanics.
Does being on the High Injury Network prove the county is liable? No. It is evidence relevant to what the county knew about its roads. Liability requires proving an unreasonably dangerous condition, notice, and causation, usually through engineering experts and skilled lawyering.
Is a road design claim worth pursuing for a minor injury? Usually not. These cases are expensive to build and generally require significant damages to justify the cost. Whether yours qualifies, and whether exceptions apply to an apparent deadline problem, is a case-specific question for a consultation.
About the Author:
Brian M. Sullivan is a WSBA-licensed trial lawyer who has practiced in Washington since 2007. He founded Sullivan Law Group, PLLC, and his practice is limited to representing people injured by negligence and prosecuting insurance bad faith claims.
This article is informational only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.