JoeyBike

I agree.

howsteepisit

I disagree, but the validity of the claim will be decided by a Court in New York, (or negotiation) not by internet certified legal beagles.

Brennan

Agree with this. When I read the description, I was all ready to dismiss it as a frivolous lawsuit. My opinion changed when I saw the photo. A neutral colored wheelstop surrounded by neutral colored paint and pavement is fairly camouflaged unless you are looking right at it, and since a rider is about to enter heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic at that point, that is where most of their attention is likely to be focused, so any sort of low lying obstruction should be easy to spot. It saddens me, because I have been rooting for the bikeshare program since day one. As for the lawsuit sum, it is ridiculously high, but I think they always start high so there is room to negotiate downwards and end up with the amount they are really trying to get.

rydabent

How about personal responsibility and situational awareness? This is just another example of someone being irresponsible and hoping to get rich quick at taxpayer expense. It should be thrown out of court.

Essex

On a similar note - I was watching local TV where they said the program is not doing well financially. They may (in the future) have to raise rates. Lawsuits, increasing usage fees and nearly nil use during the winter months is a tough bit to overcome. Crossing my fingers a Daddy Warbucks, or Feds come along to pump in more money.

rydabent

This is a classic example how one irresponsible greedy fool may ruining the whole project for those that use and like it.

FBinNY 

If the program is economically viable, this won't have any impact. If the program fails because of fundamental economic problems, this will be a handy scapegoat.

IMO, the program is actually lucky because of this suit. It forced them to address an issue (unintended booby traps). As it is, the loss of taste in a 73 year old, isn't a $15M case and will be settled at a reasonable number. Imagine if the same were to happen to a young and promising med school graduate, who ended up with permanent hand tremors or, god forbid serious permanent brain damage or paralysis.

The normal defense in this kind of suit lies in necessity and lack of alternatives. In this case neither option is available to the defense. It was a dumb arrangement leaving them vulnerable to suits resulting from the consequences regardless of how greedy anybody thinks plaintiff lawyers are. I agree that they are, which is why I say the plan is dumb.

jputnam

When designing a public pedestrian and bicycle shared-use facility, one should not assume all users can see at all, let alone look where they are going.

There's a good reason obstructions should be marked with high-contrast truncated dome tactile pavement.

009jim

My sympathies to the injured man, but for me it looks like a good reason to ride slower.

CB HI

Someone who could not see at all (blind person) would not have plowed into the tire block.

What happens when the entire world gets painted high viz to protect all the careless people?

CB HI

He was in an area that was not even intended for riding.

rydabent

fb

The program is probably economically feasible. BUT is wont be if it has to pay out big bucks to an irresponsible greedy fool who is looking for a way to get rich quick. That guy remindes me of the saying-----------Life is tuff and it is even worse if you are stupid!!!!!

rydabent

It occured to me after my last post about accident cyclist have been involved in. In some cases when a cyclist was hit by a car and got hurt, the cyclist was declared responsibe because he was not wearing a helmet.

Does anyone know if in this case the irresponsible jerk was wearing a helmet? If not the city should tell him tuff bounce, have a nice day, enjoy your cardboard, and look on the bright side you cant smell really bad farts!!!!

Icecyclist.com

I have seen this a lot especially with large companies. This individual is clearly looking for an out of court settlement or as some would say quick cash. Citibank will probably anti up some cash to make this go away. Sad.

Interesting to test the claim during the deposition. First, how do we know he had the sense of taste prior. Second, give him a red hot pepper.

I-Like-To-Bike

When any specific case "occurs" to you, please post a reference.

FBinNY 

You need to keep it straight, Citibank, and Citibike are separate entities.

FBinNY 

Now you're just making stuff up. Your bias against folks who dare to ride without helmets is obvious, based on all your other posts.

The issue is very clear and simple, having nothing to do with bicycles or helmets. This entire case turns on whether the placement of the curb stops was reasonable or not.

For those who say the cyclist should have been watching where he was going, you're right, but consider:

You leave a roller skate at the top of a flight of stairs. Someone trips and falls over it and takes a tumble down the staircase and is injured. Later in court, your attorney explains to the jury that this wouldn't have happened if the victim had only been watching where he was going. How far do you think that argument would carry?

3alarmer 

...yet, for purposes of this thread, this point will not matter.

As stated by the Magic-8-Ball this morning, when I asked: ● Outlook not so good

rydabent

FB

As I have posted on the helmet thread many times one of the many reasons to wear a helmet is how the courts look at accidents and their bias against cyclist. Many times in these bike forums, I have read where even if a cyclist is run down on a side walk by a drunk, the cyclist was held to be liable since he wasnt wearing a helmet. It gets really stupid, even if the cyclist was hit by a drunk driver doing 80 mph, its the cyclist fault because he wasnt wearing a helmet. Like them or not, this is just another reason to wear a helmet.

FBinNY 

You keep bringing this up, and now say you've read it multiple times. With respect I say it's BS and ask for a single citation where a cyclist was judged responsible for injuries in an MV accident because he wasn't wearing a helmet. I doubt you'll find one outside of the urban legend world.

As a practical matter. Imagine someone being tried for shooting and killing a store clerk or bank guard, and using as a defense, "well, he woudn't have doed if he were wearing a bullet proof vest".

In any case, I can almost guaranty that the defense will not raise the helmet issue because it would work against them, since they provided the bicycle without making a helmet available.

So while youtalk about police and court bias, I suspect that the only biased person here is you. I wonder how you would respond to a non helmet rider's claims of head injury resulting from an MV accident if you were a juror.

B. Carfree

One can lose the ability to smell and still have nerves that respond to capsaicin. In fact, most epithelial tissue has such nerves. Capsaicin is known to induce the release of substance P; the P stands for pain.

I think you'll have to modify your proposal to something more along the lines of rydabent's smelly fart thing.

CB HI

Might carry quite a ways if it is pointed out that the person walked by the, in plain view, roller skate on the way to the pay kiosk and then blindly road a bicycle through an area meant only to walk a bicycle proceeding right over the roller skate that any reasonable person would have previously seen when walking by.

Additionally, the tire block has a reasonable purpose for it's placement, please state the reasonable purpose for the placement of the roller skate.

3alarmer 

...........................● Better not tell you now

FBinNY 

As I said, it turns on the reasonableness of the tire block placement. In considering that, one has to consider the alternatives, and if it should have had fair warning signs of some kind.

I don't know enough about the particulars, but I expect that the tire block will fail on a reasonableness argument. There are good alternatives, and the lack of signage will work against the defendant.

There are successful trip and fall lawsuits in NY with far less causality, so I expect the plaintiff to prevail at least as far as getting some kind of settlement offer. However, as I said before this isn't a $15M case.

CB HI

Most of those successful trip and fall lawsuits required prior notification of the hazard. I doubt anyone gave prior notification of this claimed hazard.