Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 48:35 (2026)

A. The Department of Transportation and Development shall adopt minimum safety guidelines with respect to highway and bridge design, construction, and maintenance. These guidelines shall correlate with and, so far as possible, conform to the system then current as approved by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials allowing the flexibilities incorporated therein. Hereafter, the state highway system shall conform to such safety guidelines.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§35. Minimum safety guidelines of highway design, maintenance, and construction; exemptions

A. The Department of Transportation and Development shall adopt minimum safety guidelines with respect to highway and bridge design, construction, and maintenance. These guidelines shall correlate with and, so far as possible, conform to the system then current as approved by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials allowing the flexibilities incorporated therein. Hereafter, the state highway system shall conform to such safety guidelines.

B. The chief engineer may designate highways within the state highway system for reconstruction or repair at guidelines which are less than those as approved by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; however, no reconstruction or repair shall be done on any highway under this Part which results in a pavement width of less than eighteen feet, and all reconstruction or repair done under this Part shall be accomplished within the existing right-of-way.

C. The Department of Transportation and Development shall adopt specific minimum safety guidelines with respect to highway and bridge design, construction, and maintenance for all public roads, highways, and streets under the jurisdiction of any political subdivision of this state and not in the state-maintained highway system. These guidelines shall correlate with and, so far as possible, conform to the system then current as approved by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials allowing the flexibilities incorporated therein. Prior to implementation by the department, the guidelines shall be submitted to the Senate and House committees on transportation, highways, and public works for review in accordance with the provisions of R.S. 49:950 et seq.

D. If any such improvements constructed by a political subdivision of this state fail to conform to such guidelines, payment of any funds allocated to the political subdivision for the construction purposes shall be withheld by the Department of Transportation and Development until such time as the guidelines established by the department are complied with. These guidelines shall not apply to maintenance, improvement, or blacktopping of existing dead-end alleys, local lanes, and other local roads that do not connect traveled throughways.

E.(1)(a) The state, the Department of Transportation and Development, and any political subdivision of the state have a duty to maintain, repair, construct, or reconstruct any public road, highway, bridge, or street, or any portion thereof, in a manner that is not unreasonably dangerous for a reasonably prudent driver.

(b) When any public road, highway, bridge, or street, or any portion thereof, is maintained, repaired, constructed, or reconstructed in accordance with the regulations or guidelines in effect on the date of approval by the chief engineer, or equivalent official in the case of a political subdivision of the state, of the original or amended design for the construction or major reconstruction, whichever is later, of such public road, highway, bridge, or street, or any portion thereof, there shall be a presumption that any such public road, highway, bridge, or street, or any portion thereof, is maintained, repaired, constructed, or reconstructed in a reasonably safe condition.

(c) When any public road, highway, bridge, or street, or any portion thereof, does not conform to one or more regulations or guidelines established or adopted subsequent to the date of such approval of the original or amended design plan for the construction or major reconstruction, whichever is later, of any such public road, highway, bridge, or street, or any portion thereof, such nonconformity shall not render any such public road, highway, bridge, or street, or any portion thereof, unreasonably dangerous or defective.

(2) When determining whether or not an unreasonably dangerous condition exists under this Paragraph, if a regulation or guideline is not directly applicable to the maintenance, repair, construction, or reconstruction, then evidence of failure to adhere to such regulation or guideline shall not be admissible in a court proceeding for any purpose.

F. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the requirement that the state, through the Department of Transportation and Development, prioritize the repair, maintenance, construction, or reconstruction of public roads, highways, bridges, or streets based on the need for repair, maintenance, construction, or reconstruction beginning with the public roads, highways, bridges, or streets which are most in need of repair, maintenance, construction, or reconstruction, and ending with public roads, highways, bridges, or streets which are least in need of repair, maintenance, construction, or reconstruction, and ensuring that the public roads, highways, bridges, or streets which are most in need of repair and maintenance will be repaired first, all pursuant to and consistent with the criteria contained in the priority program set forth in R.S. 48:228 through 233.

G. The priority program set forth in R.S. 48:228 through 233 is an administrative process for determining the order of repair, maintenance, construction, or reconstruction of public roads, highways, bridges, or streets and nothing contained therein creates an independent cause of action for personal injury or property damage.

H. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to regulations affecting the installation or design of signs imposed by the United States Department of Transportation.

Added by Acts 1968, No. 276, §1. Amended by Acts 1970, No. 126, §1, emerg. eff. June 23, 1970 at 2:00 p.m.; Acts 1976, 2nd Ex.Sess., No. 1, §1; Acts 1977, No. 291, §1; Acts 1984, No. 625, §1; Acts 1986, No. 119, §1, eff. June 26, 1986; Acts 1997, No. 1330, §1; Acts 1999, No. 1223, §1, eff. July 9, 1999; Acts 2004, No. 127, §1; Acts 2009, No. 219, §1, eff. June 30, 2009.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 76 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Brooks v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 74 So. 3d 187 (La. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brooks v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 74 So. 3d 187 (La. 2011). · cites it 4× “3d 839, 858 ; see also, La.Rev.Stat. § 48:35(E)(1)(a) (describing DOTD's duty in substantially similar terms).”

Hebert v. Rapides Par. Police Jury, 934 So. 2d 912 (La. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 7× “R.S. 48:35 [4] , the DOTD had a legal duty to withhold funds if improvements to public roads failed to conform with the minimum public road and highway safety standards that it was required to establish.”

Harris v. State Ex Rel. Dotd, 997 So. 2d 849 (La. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “R.S. 48:35, originally enacted in 1968, which provides, in pertinent part: A.”

Williams v. City of Monroe, 658 So. 2d 820 (La. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “LSA-R.S. 48:35 mandates that, if possible, DOTD shall meet minimum safety standards regarding roadways, such as highways and bridges, under its care and custody.”

Boland v. West Feliciana Par. Police Jury, 878 So. 2d 808 (La. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Boland also insists liability in this case is based on the parish's failure to comply with LSA-R.S. 48:35, under which she alleges the parish has a duty to design and construct roads and bridges within its purview according to AASHTO standards.”

Forbes v. Cockerham, 5 So. 3d 839 (La. 2009). · cites it 2× “R.S. 48:35 stated the following, in pertinent part: Section 35.”

Lasyone v. Kansas City S. RR, 786 So. 2d 682 (La. 2001). “§ 48:35. Heeding those directives, we note that the AASHTO guide cautions: [I]t cannot be overemphasized that a traffic barrier is itself a hazard.”

Hebert v. Rapides Par. Police Jury, 974 So. 2d 635 (La. 2008). “R.S. 48:35 imposes a legal duty on the DOTD in this case, we find that the DOTD assumed a duty to maintain this bridge because it carried out biennial inspections of this non-conforming bridge over a fifteen-year period, participated in the construction of the bridge in 1980,…”

Snearl v. Mercer, 780 So. 2d 563 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “R.S. 48:35(A)(1). Design standards, both at the time of original construction and at the time of the accident, may be relevant factors in determining whether a given stretch of roadway presents an unreasonable risk of harm but are not determinative of the issue.”

Rosen v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 809 So. 2d 498 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “R.S. 48:35. These AASHTO standards provide for guardrails on all bridge abutments.”

Forbes v. Cockerham, 985 So. 2d 86 (La. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “R.S. 48:35, and provides, in pertinent part: A.”

Traweek v. Jackson, 709 So. 2d 867 (La. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “The law imposes upon the DOTD the duty of maintaining public roads in a safe condition so as prevent exposure of the public to unreasonable dangers.”

Show all 76 citing cases →

— La. Rev. Stat. § 48:35(A) — 14 cases

Aucoin v. State Through Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 712 So. 2d 62 (La. 1998).

Brown v. Louisiana Indem. Co., 707 So. 2d 1240 (La. 1998).

Dennis v. the Finish Line, Inc., 781 So. 2d 12 (La. Ct. App. 2000).

Tassin v. Bendel, 989 So. 2d 217 (La. Ct. App. 2008).

Capone v. Ormet Corp., 822 So. 2d 684 (La. Ct. App. 2002).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 48:35(A)(1) — 3 cases

Cormier v. Comeaux, 714 So. 2d 943 (La. Ct. App. 1998).

Deville v. Louisiana Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 719 So. 2d 584 (La. Ct. App. 1998).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 48:35(B) — 1 case

Royer v. State, Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 210 So. 3d 910 (La. Ct. App. 2017).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 48:35(C) — 4 cases

Allums v. Par. of Lincoln, 15 So. 3d 1117 (La. Ct. App. 2009).

Patrick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 957 So. 2d 894 (La. Ct. App. 2007).

Johnson v. State Through Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 275 So. 3d 879 (La. Ct. App. 2019).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 48:35(E)(1)(a) — 6 cases

Brooks v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 74 So. 3d 187 (La. 2011). “3d 839, 858 ; see also, La.Rev.Stat. § 48:35(E)(1)(a) (describing DOTD's duty in substantially similar terms).”

Sonnier v. State, 249 So. 3d 51 (La. Ct. App. 2018).

Johnson v. State Through Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 275 So. 3d 879 (La. Ct. App. 2019).

Van Winkle v. Rogers (W.D. La. 2022).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 48:35(E)(1)(b) — 3 cases

Johnson v. State Through Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 275 So. 3d 879 (La. Ct. App. 2019).

Craft (M.D. La. 2026).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 48:35(E)(1)(c) — 1 case

Craft (M.D. La. 2026).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 48:35(E)(l)(a) — 1 case

Brooks v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 74 So. 3d 187 (La. 2011). “3d 839, 858 ; see also, La.Rev.Stat. § 48:35(E)(1)(a) (describing DOTD's duty in substantially similar terms).”

— La. Rev. Stat. § 48:35(F) — 4 cases

Hager v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 978 So. 2d 454 (La. Ct. App. 2008).

Sonnier v. State, 249 So. 3d 51 (La. Ct. App. 2018).

Hager v. State, Ex Rel. Dotd, 978 So. 2d 454 (La. Ct. App. 2008).

Moss v. State, 993 So. 2d 686 (La. Ct. App. 2008).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 48:35(F)(1)(a) — 2 cases

Boland v. West Feliciana Par. Police Jury, 878 So. 2d 808 (La. Ct. App. 2004). “Boland also insists liability in this case is based on the parish's failure to comply with LSA-R.S. 48:35, under which she alleges the parish has a duty to design and construct roads and bridges within its purview according to AASHTO standards.”

Sonnier v. State, 249 So. 3d 51 (La. Ct. App. 2018).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 48:35(F)(1)(b) — 1 case

Hager v. State, Ex Rel. Dotd, 978 So. 2d 454 (La. Ct. App. 2008).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 48:35(F)(2) — 2 cases

Hager v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 978 So. 2d 454 (La. Ct. App. 2008).

Hager v. State, Ex Rel. Dotd, 978 So. 2d 454 (La. Ct. App. 2008).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 48:35(F)(l)(b) — 2 cases

Harris v. State Ex Rel. Dotd, 997 So. 2d 849 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “R.S. 48:35, originally enacted in 1968, which provides, in pertinent part: A.”

Hager v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 978 So. 2d 454 (La. Ct. App. 2008).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.