Police: Overweight truck causes 113-year-old bridge to collapse | TribLIVE.com

Police: Overweight truck causes 113-year-old bridge to collapse

Frank Carnevale
Grand Forks County (N.D.) Sheriff’s Office
An overweight semi-truck tried to cross a historic bridge in North Dakota and caused it to collapse on Monday, according to the Grand Forks County (N.D.) Sheriff’s Office.

It may cost up to $1 million to replace a 113-year-old bridge in North Dakota after an overweight tractor-trailer truck tried to cross the historic structure and caused it to collapse on Monday afternoon, according to officials.

According to the Grand Forks County Sheriff’s Office, Michael Dodds was driving a the truck loaded with dry beans attempted to cross the bridge, but the bridge collapsed, and the trailer became hung up on an abutment. The bridge was rated for 14 tons gross weight, while the trailer and the load it was carrying was just over 42 tons.

The bridge, built in 1906 and listed on the National Registrar of Historic places, spans a section of the the Goose River in Northwood, N.D.

The sheriff’s office posted photos of the crash on its Facebook page.

Dodds was uninjured and issued a citation of $11,400.

The estimated replacement cost of the bridge could be between $800,000 and $1 million, according to the sheriff’s office.

Frank Carnevale is a Tribune-Review digital producer. You can contact Frank via Twitter .

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.