Trucker blames NJ DOT for concrete that fell from Teaneck bridge and pierced his skull

It was just another little Route 4 bridge ahead — the kind that Earl Egbert's 18-wheeler had scooted under dozens of times nearly every day for more than a decade.

But last January, the 56-year-old trucker encountered a driver's worst nightmare when a 40-pound chunk of concrete fell from beneath the pedestrian bridge in Teaneck, crashing through his truck's windshield and piercing his skull.

A small piece of cement remains embedded in his brain.

"Surgeons won't touch it," Egbert said as he pointed to the scar just above a black patch he wears over his now-sightless left eye. "They say it's too dangerous to operate."

Barely able to walk, no longer able to drive and partially blind, the father of eight often speaks in brief, disjointed sentences.

But he was crystal clear on one point: He plans to file damage claims against the state Department of Transportation to recover losses he believes could easily exceed $10 million.

Although he wouldn't confirm that figure, Egbert's personal-injury lawyer Patrick Metz said his client was a poster child for the kind of damage and injuries that have become commonplace on New Jersey's deteriorating roads and bridges.

"Unfortunately," said the Hackensack-based attorney, "it's only after incidents like this occur that people take a look at how bad it's getting — and it's only going to get worse."

In a recent analysis, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association ranked New Jersey among the 22 states with the greatest percentage of structurally deficient bridges — 596 out of 6,737, or 8.8 percent.

"I know I look up when I go under bridges now," Metz added. "I think everybody should."

That advice might not have helped his client much, however, as he drove on the highway's westbound side to a delivery point in Fair Lawn. Avoiding a falling object generally takes much more luck than skill.

These crashes are considered extremely rare — so exceptional that the lifetime odds of getting killed this way aren't even calculated by the National Safety Council, which typically tracks such headline-grabbing dangers as motor-vehicle crashes (1 in 112), firearms discharge (1 in 6,669) and lightning strikes (1 in 164,968).

SUBSCRIBE: Get the Road Warrior's weekly newsletter delivered to your inbox

The latest example to make news was a Chinese space station called Tiangong-1, which caused some mild panic as it hurtled out of control for several days last month, mainly because scientists were unsure exactly when or where on Earth it would land. The mystery was solved on April Fools Day when its charred remains splashed harmlessly into the southern Pacific.

In North Jersey, with its confluence of highways, airports, tall trees and taller buildings, road warriors are more likely to be taken out by a wheel bouncing off a truck, a plane landing on a highway, a branch blowing down in a storm or a hammer falling from a worker's tool belt atop a 30-story construction site.

Even vehicle rooftop snow and ice, a huge danger that causes thousands of crashes each winter, has produced only one North Jersey death in the last 22 years.

Although public safety campaigns about removing snow and ice from a vehicle after a storm have ramped up in recent years after reporting by The Record and NorthJersey.com focused on the danger it can cause. Now, even inspection stickers display warnings about removing the white stuff before pulling onto the roads.

But the failure to carefully track every one of these events should not suggest that bridges don't spit occasional danger.

"It happens more than you might think, although they don't always cause injury or damage," said bridge engineer Richard Balgowan. "That's why DOT has maintenance schedules."

Balgowan ought to know. He headed the department's bridge division until 2004 when he became an engineering consultant who is frequently hired by attorneys.

A 20-foot span is inspected every two years, he said, and shorter, less-traveled spans, such as most footbridges, are examined every three years — schedules confirmed by the DOT.

In other words, bridges leave paper trails.

"So, we now have to see if the Route 4 footbridge was inspected on schedule and what the reports said about it," said Balgowan, who has been retained by Metz's law firm -- Dario, Albert, Metz & Eyerman.

DOT spokesmen declined to comment on the case.

Pending examination of engineering paperwork, the most dramatic pieces of evidence besides police and medical reports available to Metz are a post-crash video, shot by an anonymous passing motorist on the eastbound side, as well as large chunks of a five-foot-long cement support recovered from the cab of his client's truck.

The video, taken within minutes of the crash, confirms police accounts that the windshield was smashed in from the outside while the cement chunks match similar supports located beneath the span. Indeed, others were found on the opposite, eastbound side.

But this may not be enough to collect damage claims in the seven-figure range.

The reason: Government agencies in almost every state are generally immune from liability lawsuits. In New Jersey, this immunity is embodied in a statute called Title 59, which protects government and its employees on the legal theory that a glut of such suits could cripple the administration of necessary government services.

Government is required, however, to keep records of complaints and inspections, and failing to do so — or ignoring this chore — can constitute negligence, a factor generally considered grounds for a lawsuit and trial under some circumstances.

"The state department.... responsible for this bridge should maintain it more," Egbert said firmly during a brief visit to the Teaneck site.

Proving that, however, will take more than a few documents and 40 pounds of rock-hard evidence. Anybody seeking redress from a public agency for serious injuries allegedly caused by one of New Jersey's nearly 600 defective bridges will have to elicit complete answers to several big questions:

Are two or three years an adequate time frame to inspect a bridge that, according to its markings, was erected in 1962?

Have people complained about this bridge in the past?

If so, has DOT responded adequately to those requests?

But no one should dismiss the value of graphic evidence if the answers to these questions lead to a civil trial over a crash that might be as rare as a lightning strike.

"It's extremely rare," agreed Metz as he pointed to a table in his office covered with stony, red-tinged chunks of cement. "But the fact that we have the debris that came through his cab is also very rare... the instrument that caused his injuries."

So here's another question: At trial, what might jurors composed of drivers who dodge potholes and debris each day think of such evidence?

Earl Egbert doesn't talk much these days, but as he picked up one of the fragments and examined it, he offered a brief answer that only a victim could provide.

"This one has my blood on it," he said.

Email: Cichowski@northjersey.com

MORE FROM THE ROAD WARRIOR:

Road Warrior: NJ's pedestrian bridges are often in disrepair, leaving walkers to dash across busy highways

Road Warrior: NJ Transit bus-route battle heats up in Bergen County, with commuters in the balance

Road Warrior: The snow has stopped, now clean it off your car before hitting the road