Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC, the barrier was damaged from an accident that happened 11 days prior [0]. One or two weeks later, I remember driving past the area of the crash a Sunday or two Sundays after the Tesla fatal wreck (I vaguely remember the time period because I remember picking up a visiting friend in early April). Traffic had slowed down to a crawl for miles, and it appeared that a crew was doing work on that barrier -- I assume…
There should have been no delay - it is designed as a critical part of highway safety infrastructure, as the death in this situation highlights; it should have been immediately reconstructed - and hopefully this lawsuit will lead to that protocol being implemented/adhered to.
> "Once our Maintenance team has been notified, the Department's goal is to repair or replace damaged guardrail or crash attenuators within seven days or five business days, depending on weather. These are guidelines that our Maintenance staff follow. However, as in this case, storms can delay the fix."
The delay may or may not have been justified (I guess we'll find out if the family decides to sue the state). But an actual regulation is important, because not only would it provide explicit criteria to show Caltrans is in the wrong, it would've (or at least should've) meant funding and procedures are in place. There's always a tradeoff between cost and safety. If the state of California doesn't provide the funding and staffing it would require to replace this barrier with "no delay", then it seems difficult to fault Caltrans for negligence.