Garden Hoses Not an Inherent Danger to Bicyclists in Manhattan

[bikebuddha]

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1147165534260

Taxis. Manholes. Pedestrians. Perhaps even horses and carriages.

These are all seemingly inherent dangers for bicyclists in Manhattan.

But what about garden hoses?

A Manhattan judge has ruled that question too close to call and allowed a biker's personal injury suit to go forward, denying the defense's motion for summary judgment.

"The defendants ask the court to determine that a garden hose across a pathway is inherent to bicycle riding in New York City," Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Sherry Klein-Heitler wrote in Eagle v. Chelsea Piers, 109877/03. "Curbs and sewer grates are frequently encountered by New York bicycle riders. However, at this juncture it is not clear that a garden hose in New York City is so common as to eliminate any duty of care in its placement."

[WhiteRabbit]

I'm trying to figure out how a viscious, evil garden hose is going to attack me on my bike. Mostly they just seem to lay there.

[ignominious]

I'm trying to figure out how a viscious, evil garden hose is going to attack me on my bike. Mostly they just seem to lay there.

They're just waiting for you to grow complacent.

[LittleBigMan]

If the hose was placed across a known bike route, those who put it there could be partially responsible for the cyclist's broken hip.

[recursive]

If it was wet and the hose was diagonal across the path, it could easily cause a cyclist to fall. It could be worse than wet rail tracks.

[WhiteRabbit]

Really? hmmm... I've never had much of a problem with them.

[N_C]

The fact that the cyclist saw it 25' away, which gave plenty of time to take other action other then trying to ride over it, tells me the cyclist should accept most of the responsibility for the injuries. If the hose was across a known bike path or route with no signs posted about the possible danger then I could see where the responsible party for the hose might be held responsible for the persons injuries.

I do not see the need for this law suit & it should be thrown out.

[sbhikes]

I've had trouble with garden hoses left in my driveway and riding over them on my Vespa. Nearly crashed in my own driveway. Garden hoses are actually one of the more difficult things to cross on a two-wheeled vehicle. At least when there's water in them.

[ignominious]

The fact that the cyclist saw it 25' away, which gave plenty of time to take other action other then trying to ride over it, tells me the cyclist should accept most of the responsibility for the injuries. If the hose was across a known bike path or route with no signs posted about the possible danger then I could see where the responsible party for the hose might be held responsible for the persons injuries.

I do not see the need for this law suit & it should be thrown out.

Agreed. This is yet another ridiculous one-sided, narrow visioned attempt at safety. I hope that people begin to realise that coddling is a vicious circle and we need to just accept that outside of a nice padded room the world has an inherent threat level that is most mitigated by paying some attention and not trying to get someone to do it for you.

No one would actually try to walk down a guaranteed empty and very wide path with their eyes closed and ears plugged, we need to stop trying to make it so that we can do so.

[recursive]

Really? hmmm... I've never had much of a problem with them.
Neither have I. That doesn't mean they do not present any hazard.

[N_C]

Agreed. This is yet another ridiculous one-sided, narrow visioned attempt at safety. I hope that people begin to realise that coddling is a vicious circle and we need to just accept that outside of a nice padded room the world has an inherent threat level that is most mitigated by paying some attention and not trying to get someone to do it for you.

No one would actually try to walk down a guaranteed empty and very wide path with their eyes closed and ears plugged, we need to stop trying to make it so that we can do so.

Don't get me wrong there are legitimate reasons for law suits & a need for them. But the courts & people in general ought to use some discretion at determining what is & is not a good reason. Unfortunatly that does not happen.

[ignominious]

Don't get me wrong there are legitimate reasons for law suits & a need for them. But the courts & people in general ought to use some discretion at determining what is & is not a good reason. Unfortunatly that does not happen.

I really am genuinely agreeing with you. I'm an ardent anti-coddler.

[Roody]

We don't know the details of the accident. It may have been night time, the hose may have been the same color as the pavement, or it may have been placed where it was difficult to see.

Any time you obstruct the public roadway or footpath, you run the risk of harming someone. The roads and sidewalks are owned by the public, they are not part of the adjacent landholder's property. It would be a good idea to post a sign, or even have a worker present to warn cyclists and pedestrians of the danger. This is what construction companies do when they dig a hole or lay concrete. The other day I came to a hose being used by utility workers. The worker asked me to please walk across, or wait until they moved the hose.

[banerjek]

Especially in the dark, I've been felled by gravel, branches, and various kinds of junk (including a bedspring that I didn't see).

All this time, I thought I was either riding too fast for conditions or failing to respond adequately to obvious threats. Now that I know that all this stuff is someone else's fault, I'll be able to retire early.

If it was wet and the hose was diagonal across the path, it could easily cause a cyclist to fall. It could be worse than wet rail tracks.

What type of bonehead rides across a wet diagonal hose? He may as well ride into a gravel patch at 25 mph. If the threat is comparable to railroad tracks (which are privately owned), it seems like you could also sue if you crashed while crossing tracks.

[Keith99]

If someone actually reads the article it becomes clear that the legal definition of inherent risk is not met. Dismissing a case for inherrent risk is a very strict standard. It is things like getting trying to sue in Ice Hockey for a clean hard hit. This does not even come close to meeting that criteria. So the fact go to trial.

Before reading the article my one big question was just what kind of path was the cyclist riding? Any reasonable person expects an occasional hose if using the sidewalk. Home of property owners either hosing something down, washing a car or wattering a plant. A dedicated bike path is a different story. I've never seen a hose across a bike path.

Of course if the rider saw the hose had more than adequate time to stop (saw is clear, adequate time to decide and stop is not) then one could argue that he assumed the risk, but there are points of fact to determine before that decision can be made.

[Roody]

Especially in the dark, I've been felled by gravel, branches, and various kinds of junk (including a bedspring that I didn't see).

All this time, I thought I was either riding too fast for conditions or failing to respond adequately to obvious threats. Now that I know that all this stuff is someone else's fault, I'll be able to retire early.



What type of bonehead rides across a wet diagonal hose? He may as well ride into a gravel patch at 25 mph. If the threat is comparable to railroad tracks (which are privately owned), it seems like you could also sue if you crashed while crossing tracks.
No. This is a poor analogy. RR tracks are an expected and permanent hazard. They are also well marked. People who leave garden tools or kid's toys in a sidewalk are frequently sued if somebody trips over them. This type of lawsuit has been used for hundreds of years, all over the world, so it is not part of any modern (and imaginary) trend toward "frivolous lawsuits."

If somebody is too irresponsible or too lazy to pick up stuff they leave lying in a public path or road, they deserve to lose their shirts in court.

What type of bonehead leaves a hose lying across a public path or road?

[recursive]

What type of bonehead rides across a wet diagonal hose? He may as well ride into a gravel patch at 25 mph. If the threat is comparable to railroad tracks (which are privately owned), it seems like you could also sue if you crashed while crossing tracks.

Don't get the wrong idea. I'm not defending anyone. If I fell on a wet diagonal hose, I wouldn't blame anyone but myself. I was just disagreeing with the idea that hoses could not pose hazards.

[webist]

He saw the hose and ran over it. It apparently knocked him down. He got hurt while riding a bike. No question about it, the cyclist needs to find someone to sue right away!

[banerjek]

Don't get the wrong idea. I'm not defending anyone. If I fell on a wet diagonal hose, I wouldn't blame anyone but myself. I was just disagreeing with the idea that hoses could not pose hazards.
I'm reasonably sympathetic to arguments that people shouldn't screw up public paths and should be held to task if they do.

I'm enough of a yahoo that I've had the city, DOT, or other appropriate authority contact property owners for debris or other situations that I felt reduced the utility of a public path, especially if it posed a safety issue. I would complain if a hose were on my path for more than a week or so. My experience is that reporting safety hazards in writing usually gets them resolved pretty quickly.

All I'm saying that even if someone lays a hose that presents a safety problem, people still need to look out for themselves. It's important to ride defensively unless you want to get hurt. Among other things, riding defensively requires you to do the smart thing when others don't do what they should.

[WhiteRabbit]

Ok, now all of this garden hose talk make me want to set one up and try it myself.

[cc_rider]

The fact that the cyclist saw it 25' away, which gave plenty of time to take other action other then trying to ride over it, tells me the cyclist should accept most of the responsibility for the injuries. If the hose was across a known bike path or route with no signs posted about the possible danger then I could see where the responsible party for the hose might be held responsible for the persons injuries.

I do not see the need for this law suit & it should be thrown out.
Riding at 15 mph you cover 25 feet in 1.1 seconds. Hardly "plenty of time."
And is doesn't sound like a typical 5/8" garden hose. Nobody uses a "garden hose" to fill a cruise ship. It was probably more like a 2" or 3" fire hose. If you've ever hit one of those, it's like hitting a concrete wheel stop.

I wouldn't normally expect to find a fire hose across a bike trail. If the people running the hose didn't put up warning signs or barriers or any kind of protection, then I agree with the judge. Let the trial sort it out.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Riding at 15 mph you cover 25 feet in 1.1 seconds. Hardly "plenty of time."
And is doesn't sound like a typical 5/8" garden hose. Nobody uses a "garden hose" to fill a cruise ship. It was probably more like a 2" or 3" fire hose.
Nobody was filling up a cruise ship with anything. I didn't see anything about filling up a cruise ship with a fire hose, did you?

The cited URL says "standard-green hose". The judge used the term "garden hose." Why doesn't that sound like "garden hose" to you?

[Golf XRay Tango]

The article says that the hose was being used to provision the ship "Majestic Star".

A quick Google search shows that it is a pretty big vessel, with capacity for over 400 guests.