There could be unintended effects of raising municipal liability cap

I enjoyed Sean P. Murphy’s recent Fine Print column “Crash course: A seriously injured biker learns a hard lesson about the limits of municipal liability” (Business, Dec. 5), about a longtime cyclist who sustained serious injuries when he hit a pothole on a publicly maintained road in Halifax.

In arguing for an increase in the $5,000 liability cap, which the Legislature set in 1965, Murphy writes, “Lawyers can’t justify putting time into a claim that promises, at best, a fee of about $1,650 (one-third of the settlement, the standard compensation for lawyers in such cases).”

I’m concerned that a revision of the municipal liability cap could have unintended consequences. My town has recently funded a new public pool, high school, middle school, and police station. The town center had a recent makeover. Both fire stations, while no longer “new,” are of relatively recent vintage and state of the art. Youth soccer fields were recently dug up, and a new drainage system was put in. The town’s sewers and storm drains are being replaced over time in a major effort. All of these are areas in which the town has put its money because residents see these as public goods and priorities. We have repeatedly voted both for tax rate overrides and bond issues.

If the law on municipal liability were changed, would the legal system drain money from the town’s priority projects to ensure that all the roads, sidewalks, and other public facilities were pristine?

Everything cannot be a priority.

STUART GALLANT

Belmont