{"id":340,"date":"2011-11-21T12:55:14","date_gmt":"2011-11-21T12:55:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dev.boughlawfirm.com\/?page_id=340"},"modified":"2013-04-01T20:15:59","modified_gmt":"2013-04-01T20:15:59","slug":"iv-strategies-for-addressing-the-state-of-the-art-defense","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/heathinjurylaw.com\/articles\/road-design-cases\/iv-strategies-for-addressing-the-state-of-the-art-defense","title":{"rendered":"IV. Strategies for Addressing the “State of the Art” Defense"},"content":{"rendered":"
IV. Strategies for Addressing the “State of the Art” Defense<\/strong><\/p>\n Based on\u00a0Martin and Linton<\/em>, a plaintiff can overcome the “state of the art” defense by showing that MHTC has modified the highway or road subsequent to 1977. As with any case, the key to successfully overcoming the “state of the art” defense is a well thought out discovery plan. Below are suggestions on the type of discovery, from depositions to requests for production of documents, that an injured motorist should consider when pursuing a claim for negligent design against MHTC.<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n