Cyclist suing railroad company for crashing on tracks
Bike lawsuit seeks up to $10,000 for crash along Springwater Trail in Southeast Portland
Damage to Jacobs' custom Erickson bike cost $4,149.54 with another $631.05 to travel three times between Portland and Seattle for repairs, the suit says. Jacobs also had $110 in medical expenses. |
THATS ONE EXPENSIVE BILL. 4K+ for the bike and around 650 to travel between 2 places for repairs. Clicking on the article and seeing the picture; that's one nasty crack to get caught in, I've been caught in plenty of cracks where I'm at and fallen off, but I'm never going all that fast. I feel that 10k is quite a bit to ask, especially if she could've avoided the crack in the first place, as harsh as I may be, if there was room to go around it she should've gone around it. Being attentive while you bike and knowing what kind of road conditions lie ahead are something that should always be done when biking. If I was in the situation, I definitely wouldn't be trying to get 10k, I'd get enough to cover the repair fees, medical fees, and maybe a little more.
|
Oh great. A cyclist doesn't know how to ride, manages to crash herself and then tries to collect from the railroad company, effectively undoing dozens of years of work by cycling advocates who have been working with the railroads to improve access for cyclists. If she is so blind that she can't see the joint, many of which are wide enough to grab a road wheel, then however does she manage to ride on the road?
|
So the railroad guy thinks he can refuse access for a track crossing, claims he fixed the danger within 24 hours but a photo is taken likely well after that, and claims to have offered a settlement that no one else knows about.
Sounds like the cyclist and railroad guy deserve each other. |
I just hope the cyclist recovered from their injuries.
|
Personal responsibility -- unless in the middle of a crowd of cyclists, it's the rider's JOB to miss cracks like that one. In a crowd, it could go unseen, but otherwise, no.
Sure glad *I* don't have (or need) a custom bike that costs $4K to REPAIR!! |
As law suits go these days, IMHO not being a lawyer, it seems to me she had a valid claim. I hope she wins.
|
What are the laws in Portland regarding cyclists on the sidewalk? I'd say that SHOULD have a major impact on the outcome.
|
That is one incompetent cyclist. She shouldn't have been on the sidewalk and once on it, she needs to look out where she is riding. This is a bad gap in the sidewalk but you cannot prevent people from doing really stupid things like riding a bike into a hole in the ground.
|
2 Attachment(s)
Look's good compared to our track crossings:
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=316923 http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=316924 |
Honestly, anyone who crashes on railroad tracks is probably an idiot. Those things are wheel snatchers and you should EXPECT trouble and watch out for it. I cross a few tracks on my route and I'm at the peak of awareness when crossing them, carefully picking the route over them to cross as perpendicular to the tracks as possible and avoiding problem spots which inevitably occur when you disrupt the road surface like that.
|
Well, it’s not like suing McD’s for 3 megabucks over spilled coffee* I suspect this woman was not a chronic sidewalk cruiser. I am not either, but sometimes sidewalks are necessary transitions from bike trails. Also, looking at the photo, that was a legitimate maintenance issue at that crossing. Should the woman have been paying better attention? Sure, but her case will have the benefit of (hopefully) having that thing fixed so that some drunk on a Wally doesn’t hit it and cost society more when his uninsured carcass is hauled to the emergency room. This is the purpose of the litigation system, when it works. (BTW McD's coffee is now served at the proper temperature, and in cups that have lids that fit very well)
*(I looked up the whole McD thing, and it turns out that the woman had not sued for three megabucks initially, but rather sued for medical expenses only, and that only after the crew at that particular outlet refused to supply her with ice water that would have lessened the damage. The jury increased the damages in response to McD’s attempt to vilify the woman. After all was said and done, and after an unpublicized and successful appeal by McD, the woman wound up with having her medical expenses paid plus a small pittance out of the punitive damages. The lawyers (hers and McD’s) got the rest, and McD got the kind of free publicity, where they were portrayed as the victim, that was worth far more than the case cost them) |
Reactions like Jacobs' make him sorry he agreed to allow right-of-way along the Springwater Corridor, he said. |
Originally Posted by B. Carfree
(Post 15626886)
Oh great. A cyclist doesn't know how to ride, manages to crash herself and then tries to collect from the railroad company, effectively undoing dozens of years of work by cycling advocates who have been working with the railroads to improve access for cyclists. If she is so blind that she can't see the joint, many of which are wide enough to grab a road wheel, then however does she manage to ride on the road?
|
The story states " went on the sidewalk to avoid a lineup of traffic from Oaks Amusement Park. She was wearing a helmet and no one was walking at the time on the sidewalk, he said." So this was avoidable by the cyclist by staying on the road. Most likely germane, but who knows with suits.
|
Originally Posted by squirtdad
(Post 15628492)
Most likely germane, but who knows with suits.
|
Originally Posted by B. Carfree
(Post 15626886)
Oh great. A cyclist doesn't know how to ride, manages to crash herself and then tries to collect from the railroad company, effectively undoing dozens of years of work by cycling advocates who have been working with the railroads to improve access for cyclists. If she is so blind that she can't see the joint, many of which are wide enough to grab a road wheel, then however does she manage to ride on the road?
|
Leaving aside the liability issue, how can you cause $4000 worth of damage to your bike just by crashing on the sidewalk (yet have only $110 in medical bills)?
|
Originally Posted by alhedges
(Post 15628789)
Leaving aside the liability issue, how can you cause $4000 worth of damage to your bike just by crashing on the sidewalk (yet have only $110 in medical bills)?
|
Originally Posted by CB HI
(Post 15626897)
So the railroad guy thinks he can refuse access for a track crossing, claims he fixed the danger within 24 hours but a photo is taken likely well after that, and claims to have offered a settlement that no one else knows about.
Sounds like the cyclist and railroad guy deserve each other. It looks like it was filled on August 2011. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=South...78.84,,0,10.69 What are the laws about riding on sidewalks there? |
Originally Posted by ItsJustMe
(Post 15627846)
Honestly, anyone who crashes on railroad tracks is probably an idiot. Those things are wheel snatchers and you should EXPECT trouble and watch out for it. I cross a few tracks on my route and I'm at the peak of awareness when crossing them, carefully picking the route over them to cross as perpendicular to the tracks as possible and avoiding problem spots which inevitably occur when you disrupt the road surface like that.
My wife crashed on a rr crossing a few years ago. Inexperienced? Yes, but she did know that rr tracks are tricky and has crossed a few. This particular track, because of extremely poor care and maintenance was, essentially, a bike trap. The tracks themselves stood proud of the road surface by at least 1/2+ inch. This caused the crash. My wife broke her arm. We never gave one moment of thought to a lawsuit. The RR was contacted though about the unsafe condition of their tracks. They didn't admit any fault, but interestingly, the crossing was repaired within 2 weeks so that the asphalt and the track were essentially at the same level. So it's not accurate to make that idiot statement. Don't call anyone who is not as experienced as you an idiot - call them inexperienced and warn them. |
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 15628954)
What are the laws about riding on sidewalks there?
|
Originally Posted by Camilo
(Post 15628972)
So it's not accurate to make that idiot statement. Don't call anyone who is not as experienced as you an idiot - call them inexperienced and warn them.
|
If I was on the jury , I would say are you kidding me? It's a F'ing railroad crossing... You should expect "difficult" terrain, even on/at a paved road.... :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by ItsJustMe
(Post 15630208)
I admit that's true, but I would guess that someone who had a bike that could have > $4000 in damage is probably not inexperienced.
|
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 15628954)
You are guessing here.
It looks like it was filled on August 2011. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=South...78.84,,0,10.69 What are the laws about riding on sidewalks there? PS - google map image dates cannot be relied upon. Here, I can show you one by just playing with the angle and zoom that implies the gap was filled Sep 2009, which we know is not true. http://goo.gl/maps/xiUR5 |
Originally Posted by CB HI
(Post 15631033)
You are guessing that I am guessing.
Originally Posted by CB HI
(Post 15631033)
PS - google map image dates cannot be relied upon. Here, I can show you one by just playing with the angle and zoom that implies the gap was filled Sep 2009, which we know is not true.
http://goo.gl/maps/xiUR5 You have no evidence indicating that the dates can't be relied on (it's possible but your guessing doesn't make it true). |
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 15631544)
:rolleyes: Your statement is unsupported. If you have support for it and don't let people see that, it's unsupported.
??? There's grass growing in the gap. It wasn't filled when that picture was taken. You have no evidence indicating that the dates can't be relied on (it's possible but your guessing doesn't make it true). |
Originally Posted by CB HI
(Post 15633318)
Feel free to keep your blinders on.
Yup, you are just guessing and have no support for the stuff you are saying. :rolleyes: |
Since that crossing leads to and integrates with a MUP, having those perpendicular gaps is a bad design. The cyclist surely shares blame in her failure to be observant and avoid the gap, but I think her suit has some merit. She'll have to prove actual damages, though, and I expect her inflated figure will be drastically reduced.
I encounter all kinds of similar road hazards every day and feel that I have to really pay attention. Most of the fixed hazards have already been mapped in my head, but there are many temporary hazards, like tree branches, bricks, etc, that just show up. I kinda think that I would assume ownership for any incident caused by them simply because the lapse in awareness was mine. Perhaps I would change my mind if I had a lot of thinking time after being laid up by a crash, though. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:42 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.