Advocacy & Safety - Interesting court case about cycling/road repairs/group rides

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202431019419&pos=ataglance

Yeah I like the dismissal of the "leisure activity" aspect of the situation and the comparison to a "sightseeing drive."

Interesting.

As this was a club ride, it would certainly either be a sporting or leisure purpose. If the injured party had been some Fred like me commuting to a job, or coming back from the market with a loaf of bread, would that change the case?

Kevin

As this was a club ride, it would certainly either be a sporting or leisure purpose. If the injured party had been some Fred like me commuting to a job, or coming back from the market with a loaf of bread, would that change the case?

Kevin

But wouldn't that kind of ride fit under "commerce"? Aren't roads built for commercial activities? If they are not safe for such, are not the contractors liable to some degree?

Pat, I think a utility biker would have an even stronger case, given the argument in the article. But when I clicked through to the Court's decision ...

@ http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_04020.htm

...I saw that several precedents were cited distinguishing riding for just about any purpose on a paved public way, and specifically sporting activity carrying assumed risk, such as off-road mt. biking.

Oh, wouldn't it be swell if municipalities and counties hurried out to upgrade the rightmost edges of their streets and roads, lest they be sued to death by injured wheelmen!

Kevin

As this was a club ride, it would certainly either be a sporting or leisure purpose. If the injured party had been some Fred like me commuting to a job, or coming back from the market with a loaf of bread, would that change the case?You aren't "assuming the risk" of injury just because you're on the road, any more than a driver assumes the risk of injury by being on the road. If that was the case, every time you walked out your door, you'd be "assuming the risk" that some other person might injure you. Nobody would ever be held liable for their negligence.

Sporting activity is treated differently, as a matter of public policy, under the theory that vigorous participation in sports would be deterred by the threat of lawsuits. Even then, the only risks assumed are those that are considered inherent to the sport.

The court created an interesting distinction her between a sporting activity and a leisure activity-- just being out for a leisurely ride isn't considered sport, and thus, whether road conditions were an inherent risk of the sport of cycling are not at issue in this case.

Hmmmmm, I would have approached this more from the viewpoint that cyclists are legal & considered users of the road and that the municipality has the duty to maintain the road in a safe condition for all users.

The arguments & rulings in this case seem to me to reinforce the idea of the bike as a toy & not a vehicle.

Hmmmmm, I would have approached this more from the viewpoint that cyclists are legal & considered users of the road and that the municipality has the duty to maintain the road in a safe condition for all users.

The arguments & rulings in this case seem to me to reinforce the idea of the bike as a toy & not a vehicle.

That was my first impression, but I think the decision protects cycling as a form of transportation. If a group ride is not considered a sporting activity, then commuting surely wouldn't be either.

I wish it would have been argued from a "legal road user" POV as well though. It's like in math class when you got the right answer even though you botched the formula.

From the article: "All of the defendants argued that Cotty's voluntary participation in biking and assumption of the risk inherent in that activity relieved them of any duty to her."

This idea is prevalent when a cyclist gets into an accident regardless of fault. The first wrong is committed the second the bike gets on the road so any consequence is deserved. At least this ruling says 'no' to that line of thinking.

Hmmmmm, I would have approached this more from the viewpoint that cyclists are legal & considered users of the road and that the municipality has the duty to maintain the road in a safe condition for all users.

The arguments & rulings in this case seem to me to reinforce the idea of the bike as a toy & not a vehicle.
That was my first impression, but I think the decision protects cycling as a form of transportation. If a group ride is not considered a sporting activity, then commuting surely wouldn't be either.

I wish it would have been argued from a "legal road user" POV as well though. It's like in math class when you got the right answer even though you botched the formula.

From the article: "All of the defendants argued that Cotty's voluntary participation in biking and assumption of the risk inherent in that activity relieved them of any duty to her."

This idea is prevalent when a cyclist gets into an accident regardless of fault. The first wrong is committed the second the bike gets on the road so any consequence is deserved. At least this ruling says 'no' to that line of thinking.The defense has a right to make whatever arguments they think best, and the court has to address those arguments.

"Legal road user" doesn't necessarily get you the case law you want, anyway. In Illinois, the Supreme Court held that the municipality gets to decide whether cyclists are "intended" users of the road- and thus, whether the municipality owes a duty of care to the cyclist.

But wouldn't that kind of ride fit under "commerce"? Aren't roads built for commercial activities? If they are not safe for such, are not the contractors liable to some degree?


If it would fall under commerce then would'nt the use of our motor vehicles fall under the same catagory when we are driving to and from work even though they are not registered as commercial vehicles?

This is the second lawsuit I have ever heard of by a cycllist against a municipality for a road condition problem. I hope the cyclists in that are are prepared to the governing municipality working to ban cyclists from the roadways. This is what happened in Iowa after a cyclists died, due to negligence on the county's part in 2004 and the family sued. It took almost 5 years for the bans to come and go. Yes, some counties banned cyclists from Iowa roadways within the county, but eventually repealed it. Talk about a 5 year **** storm.

Ironically in Iowa and possibly in New York, at least once a month there is a lawsuit filed by motorists against municipality or the governing body of the roadways for accidents caused by bad roadways. Yet no one raises hell about it and tries to ban motor vehicles.

The defense has a right to make whatever arguments they think best, and the court has to address those arguments.

"Legal road user" doesn't necessarily get you the case law you want, anyway. In Illinois, the Supreme Court held that the municipality gets to decide whether cyclists are "intended" users of the road- and thus, whether the municipality owes a duty of care to the cyclist.

Is it differant in certain municipalities? Where cyclists are considered intended users of the roadways? Also lets say a town or city says a cyclist is an intended user, is it possible the county in which the town or city is in decided when a cyclist is on a county road they are not intended users? Meaning in town the cyclist is an intended user, but once the cyclist enters a county roadway outside of town he or she is not.

The defense has a right to make whatever arguments they think best, and the court has to address those arguments.

"Legal road user" doesn't necessarily get you the case law you want, anyway. In Illinois, the Supreme Court held that the municipality gets to decide whether cyclists are "intended" users of the road- and thus, whether the municipality owes a duty of care to the cyclist.

I get it. I actually edited that part out of my reply about the defense's right to frame the argument around anything they want. I should have left it in. Plaintiffs aren't the only ones who get to frame the argument.

The defense's argument sounds like the knee jerk reaction of your average citizen. I guess in that regard, they succeeded in representing the will of the people :p

Is it differant in certain municipalities? Where cyclists are considered intended users of the roadways? Also lets say a town or city says a cyclist is an intended user, is it possible the county in which the town or city is in decided when a cyclist is on a county road they are not intended users? Meaning in town the cyclist is an intended user, but once the cyclist enters a county roadway outside of town he or she is not.The case is Boub v. Township of Wayne (http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/1998/October/Opinions/HTML/84246.htm), perhaps worth a read-- and note that this case is a classic example of the Court getting the law wrong:


We do not believe that section 11-1502 of the Vehicle Code supports the conclusion that bicycle riders are, like drivers of vehicles, intended and permitted users of Illinois streets and highways. The provision seems designed to ensure that bicyclists, for their own safety and the safety of others, obey traffic laws while they are on public streets and highways. In fact, the legislature gave that section the title, "Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles." The provision cited by the plaintiff is entirely consistent with the conclusion that bicyclists are permitted, but not intended, users of the roads, in the absence of specific markings, signage, or further manifestation of the local entity's intent that would speak otherwise.To see why this is wrong, note what Section 11-1502 really says:


Sec. 11‑1502. Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles. Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this Code, except as to special regulations in this Article XV and except as to those provisions of this Code which by their nature can have no application.

Now, to answer your question, S&C, a local entity, such as a municipality or a county, would have to indicate through signs or markings that cyclists are "intended" users of the road. Otherwise, they're considered "permitted" users of the road, and the local entity owes them no ordinary duty of care.

I get it. I actually edited that part out of my reply about the defense's right to frame the argument around anything they want. I should have left it in. Plaintiffs aren't the only ones who get to frame the argument.

The defense's argument sounds like the knee jerk reaction of your average citizen. I guess in that regard, they succeeded in representing the will of the people :pWell, in this case, the defense wasn't just making up some frivolous argument. "Assumption of risk" is a defense against injuries sustained in sports activities, and it was a plausible argument that a group ride is a sports activity.

The cyclist could still lose her case at trial, or perhaps have her award reduced, based on her own alleged negligence, but now the case can proceed to trial. However, because the defense lost on their motion, they have more incentive to settle with her now, because they run the risk of losing at trial.

Well, in this case, the defense wasn't just making up some frivolous argument. "Assumption of risk" is a defense against injuries sustained in sports activities, and it was a plausible argument that a group ride is a sports activity.

I agree with that. I'm shooting from the hip here and speaking with a fairly loose tongue. It's just my bias as I'm cynical about the nature of the argument.

As I stated in my first post, this ruling is actually pretty sweet for cyclists as a whole. If a group ride isn't considered a sporting activity, then our Illinois commuters can feel pretty certain their riding won't be treated as such either if they are in an accident.

The case is Boub v. Township of Wayne (http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/1998/October/Opinions/HTML/84246.htm), perhaps worth a read-- and note that this case is a classic example of the Court getting the law wrong:

To see why this is wrong, note what Section 11-1502 really says:



Now, to answer your question, S&C, a local entity, such as a municipality or a county, would have to indicate through signs or markings that cyclists are "intended" users of the road. Otherwise, they're considered "permitted" users of the road, and the local entity owes them no ordinary duty of care.

So based on what you're saying is in the past when I did a bike ride on a section of the Grand Illinois Trail, from Hollowayville to Lock 14 in LaSalle, part of which went through Spring Valley, I was merely an intended roadway user, not an intended user because there are no signs posted stating bicycles are intended users of the roadways?

I never had a problem with traffic passing too close, buzzing, yelling at me etc., even when pasing by Saint Beads School on the busy highway between Peru and Spring Valley.

I have also ridden in the area of the Spring Bay around the Illinois River Valley. A beautiful and scenic area. I love the starved Rock area as well.

When we are there in June I am going to ride the section from Lock 14 to Ottowa on the I&M Canal Path and might do a little riding on the Hennipin Trail as well. Depends on time.

I agree with that. I'm shooting from the hip here and speaking with a fairly loose tongue. It's just my bias as I'm cynical about the nature of the argument.

As I stated in my first post, this ruling is actually pretty sweet for cyclists as a whole. If a group ride isn't considered a sporting activity, then our Illinois commuters can feel pretty certain their riding won't be treated as such either if they are in an accident.I agree-- I think the NY court reached the right decision, and in an interesting way, by distinguishing between sports activity and leisure activity. But then, I'm probably biased too.

But as far as Illinois goes, see my previous comments regarding the Boub case in illinois. The defendants in the NY case included a local municipality, and in Illinois, the municipality would have immunity unless it indicated (through signs and markings) that cyclists are intended users of the road.

So based on what you're saying is in the past when I did a bike ride on a section of the Grand Illinois Trail, from Hollowayville to Lock 14 in LaSalle, part of which went through Spring Valley, I was merely an intended roadway user, not an intended user because there are no signs posted stating bicycles are intended users of the roadways?According to the Boub decision, you were a permitted, rather than intended user of the road (unless there was a marked bike lane or path or something like that). All that means is that local municipalities are immune to tort liability for road surface hazards; it shouldn't mean that you have no rights*


* The Boub decision could be cited for authority, however, for the proposition that cyclists have the responsibility to obey the laws, but have no rights. It's a dangerous decision, and Illinois cyclists should do everything they can to get the legislature to clarify that (a) bicycles are vehicles, (b) cyclists do have rights, and not just responsibilities, and (c) the state declares that cyclists are intended users of the road.

It's an interesting decision, but I would caution against reading much into it outside of New York. Negligence law varies significantly between states, and doctrines like assumption of risk get applied very differently by different courts in different states.

One important point, though, is the legal effect of riding in a group. It's all well and good so long as no one falls - when they do, whether through their own negligence or the result of a road defect, an auto driver's negligence, or an act of God, the people behind are largely on their own. The whole "following too closely" bit applies to a cyclist just like an auto.

A "group" or "club" ride need not be a sporting, but can be a social activity. A sanctioned race would be a sporting activity. I think this decision is a good one. A one inch lip in the road could be enough to throw off a car when they go over it. Without a chamfer it could be a major problem for all vehicles, not just bicycles.