Hernandez v. Ridley, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22882

Duit Construction contracted by ODOT as general contractor on I-40 near Yukon, OK.
Hernandez family members were Duit employees killed by a distracted motorist during construction.
Henderson (ODOT resident engineer) had ultimate authority over traffic control devices, lane closures, speed reductions, and project suspensions.
Contract imposed penalties on Duit for delays and required ODOT approval of traffic controls and barrier walls; lane closures had fees and potential waivers.
Duit requested lane closures and speed reductions prior to the accident; Henderson denied those requests; Duit sought safety measures which were also denied.
Hernandez sued Duit, the driver, and several ODOT employees; the district court dismissed most ODOT defendants, leaving Ridley and Henderson, whose qualified immunity was upheld by the district court but reversed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hernandez plausibly alleged a substantive due process violation under danger-creation against Ridley and Henderson.	Hernandez argues Henderson and Ridley created danger and violated due process.	Ridley/Henderson contend no affirmative conduct caused danger and no viable due process claim.	Reversed; no viable substantive due process claim established, thus immunity applies.

Gray v. Univ. of Colo. Hosp. Auth., 672 F.3d 909 (10th Cir. 2012) (danger-creation requires private violence and affirmative conduct creating danger)
Estate of B.I.C. v. Gillen, 710 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2013) (six-part danger-creation test)
Moore v. Guthrie, 438 F.3d 1036 (10th Cir. 2006) (substantive due process requires conscience-shocking conduct)
Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567 (10th Cir. 1995) (limits on due process breadth; deference to local policy decisions)
Collins v. City of Harker Heights Tex., 503 U.S. 115 (1992) (due process not a guarantee of safe working conditions; defer to state policy)