Advocacy & Safety - Family files $5M suit in fatal Baltimore bike accident

Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.




The Human Car
03-04-10, 07:54 AM
By Brendan Kearney
Daily Record Legal Affairs Writer

The family of a Baltimore man who was killed last summer when his bicycle collided with a large truck filed a $5 million suit Wednesday against the alleged hit-and-run driver and contractor Potts & Callahan Inc.

John R. Yates, a 67-year-old retired youth counselor, was cycling south on Maryland Avenue just north of I-83 when Michael D. Chandler turned his Potts & Callahan fuel tanker right onto Lafayette Avenue, according to the suit filed by his wife and two children in Baltimore City Circuit Court.

Yates’ bike became entangled in the back wheels of the green and silver truck, according to the suit, and Yates was run over and pronounced dead at the scene, just blocks south of his row house.

Chandler, a 61-year-old Severn resident, did not stop, and police only determined days later, from watching video of the accident captured by a nearby security camera, that the truck belonged to Potts & Callahan, which has an office and yard nearby, according to police reports.

Although police concluded Yates illegally passed the truck and therefore did not press charges against Chandler, the Yates family lawyer said he is “very comfortable” with the facts of the case.

“The driver of the truck is negligent, there’s no question about that,” said Steven D. Silverman, adding that the only remaining question is whether Mr. Yates was contributorily negligent, which would negate his family’s claim. “And based on several attorneys’ reading of the statute, [Yates] wasn’t.”


Silverman, who became involved in the case within 48 hours of the Aug. 4 morning incident and has spoken to the two witnesses, said “it’s crystal clear on the video” that the offending truck did not signal before turning.

“It’s a huge deal,” Silverman, a partner at Silverman Thompson Slutkin & White, said of the footage captured by the Project PLASE camera. “Without it, it would be very difficult to prove our case.”

Marc Klitenic, a lawyer for Potts & Callahan, said it was not a Potts & Callahan truck that hit Yates. Potts & Callahan does excavation, demolition and equipment rental and has worked on such projects as Oriole Park at Camden Yards, according to its Web site.

“We believe there is ample evidence that it was neither Michael Dale Chandler nor Potts & Callahan that caused this accident,” said Klitenic, a partner at Kandel, Klitenic, Kotz & Betten LLP in Towson. (Klitenic will not litigate the case; Craig Roswell of Niles, Barton & Wilmer will defend the suit on behalf of Potts & Callahan’s insurer, Klitenic said.)

Klitenic said police tests of the blood and hair stuck to the bottom of the Potts & Callahan truck came back “inconclusive,” that Chandler said in the course of the company’s internal investigation that he did not strike anyone or anything, and that contemporaneous descriptions of the truck as a white box truck do not match the contractor’s fleet.

A police spokesman countered that investigation had concluded a Potts & Callahan truck hit Yates, but also found the driver was not at fault, and did not realize he had struck anyone.

“It was determined that the victim was driving in a parked vehicle lane and attempted to make an illegal pass on the right of the truck, and as the truck turned the corner, the victim ran into the truck,” spokesman Donny Moses said Wednesday. “Sad. Very sad. But it is what it is.”

Silverman doesn’t believe an alert truck driver could have neither felt nor heard the impact with Yates.

“The witnesses heard it across the street. I don’t know how you can not hear it. He wasn’t going very fast,” Silverman said. “I don’t know how the property damage or the blood would go unnoticed.”

Legislation that would require that vehicles like trucks pass bikes, scooters and other similar devices from more than three feet away has passed the Maryland Senate and is working its way through the House of Delegates.

http://mddailyrecord.com/2010/03/03/family-files-5m-suit-in-fatal-baltimore-bike-accident/

Google Street View has the chalk marks from the crash scene: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Baltimore,+Maryland&ll=39.309805,-76.617837&spn=0,359.990355&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.309898,-76.617837&panoid=8e8KGqmwd-TZgXopQ_Pf5g&cbp=12,216.07,,2,18.36


Doohickie
03-04-10, 11:04 AM
Interesting. I'm not sure how I would go if I were on the jury, based on what was presented.

cudak888
03-04-10, 01:13 PM
By Brendan Kearney

....The family of a Baltimore man who was killed last summer when his bicycle collided with a large truck filed a $5 million suit Wednesday against the alleged hit-and-run driver and contractor Potts & Callahan Inc.

More media bias. Try "a large truck collided with his bicycle."

-Kurt


genec
03-04-10, 01:16 PM
More media bias. Try "a large truck collided with his bicycle."

-Kurt

Wasn't the truck there first, with Yates trying to pass on the right?

The Human Car
03-04-10, 02:29 PM
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Baltimore,+Maryland&layer=c&cbll=39.309898,-76.617837&panoid=8e8KGqmwd-TZgXopQ_Pf5g&cbp=12,173.67,,1,16.01&ll=39.309805,-76.617837&spn=0,359.990355&z=17
From this view of the far side of the intersection, truck made a right hand turn from the center lane and the cyclists was riding in the right hand lane. Spin the image around and you'll see a wide combo parking/travel lane on the right side. So trucks lane position is more or less correct but where is there a law prohibiting cyclists from using a right most lane that has just become available? Or stated differently where is the law saying you can't pass on the right in a separate lane?

genec
03-04-10, 03:42 PM
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Baltimore,+Maryland&layer=c&cbll=39.309898,-76.617837&panoid=8e8KGqmwd-TZgXopQ_Pf5g&cbp=12,173.67,,1,16.01&ll=39.309805,-76.617837&spn=0,359.990355&z=17
From this view of the far side of the intersection, truck made a right hand turn from the center lane and the cyclists was riding in the right hand lane. Spin the image around and you'll see a wide combo parking/travel lane on the right side. So trucks lane position is more or less correct but where is there a law prohibiting cyclists from using a right most lane that has just become available? Or stated differently where is the law saying you can't pass on the right in a separate lane?

There is no such law, and motorists can and will do this. It was my understanding that the truck turned from the rightmost lane... if that is not the case, then the truck driver is clearly fully responsible.

The Human Car
03-04-10, 04:38 PM
This is not a cut and dried case, the right most lane is a combo parking lane/traffic lane with the last ~20' (at least) being free of parking. A car should clearly use this space to turn right but a truck? But the police say the cyclists was at fault for using this lane.

genec
03-04-10, 05:05 PM
This is not a cut and dried case, the right most lane is a combo parking lane/traffic lane with the last ~20' (at least) being free of parking. A car should clearly use this space to turn right but a truck? But the police say the cyclists was at fault for using this lane.

If it was legal for a motorist to use the lane, then it was legal for a cyclist to use it too... or a motorcyclist... the truck was making the unusual turn... and the driver is responsible for the movement of the truck.

This may not be wonderfully cut and dried, but the cyclist was NOT at fault for using the lane... but may be at fault for not heeding a turn signal or noticing the movement of the truck. I can't see the video... only the cops can... and if the intent of the movement of the truck was not conveyed to all road users, that truck driver is guilty.

CB HI
03-04-10, 06:35 PM
One of the lawyers said that the truck did not use a turn signal. If true, the truck driver is fully at fault.

If the cops do not believe it was legal for the cyclist to pass on the right, what cyclist outreach are they doing to educate cyclist and themselves. After all, cops are often the ones telling cyclist to stay right.

The Human Car
03-05-10, 04:26 AM
I get stopped a few times a year on streets not too far from this crash for "not riding in the parking lane" there is such a double standard when it comes to bikes.

Joeybsmooth
03-05-10, 04:40 AM
For me that hit and run part of this out weights everything else. I mean him stopping COULD have saved the guys life.

UnsafeAlpine
03-05-10, 06:21 AM
For me that hit and run part of this out weights everything else. I mean him stopping COULD have saved the guys life.
It didn't say, but it's possible the driver never knew he was there.

The Human Car
03-05-10, 07:00 AM
Previous reports indicate that it is likely the driver never knew he hit a cyclist. I am not clear about what aspect of law that essentially lets people shoot a bullet up in the air and as long as they are unaware it came down and hurt someone they are off the hook of any charges.

invisiblehand
03-05-10, 08:46 AM
Maryland is a contributory negligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_negligence)state. If the defense can show that the cyclist was partially at fault, they will not get any damages. Givent the police findings, I think that the family's lawyers have a difficult job.

genec
03-05-10, 09:16 AM
Maryland is a contributory negligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_negligence)state. If the defense can show that the cyclist was partially at fault, they will not get any damages. Givent the police findings, I think that the family's lawyers have a difficult job.

"Partially at fault" for using a marked lane and cycling down it while a truck that doesn't show a turn signal suddenly makes a right turn in front of the cyclist... That's rich. (providing that these are indeed the facts)

joejack951
03-05-10, 09:24 AM
"Partially at fault" for using a marked lane and cycling down it while a truck that doesn't show a turn signal suddenly makes a right turn in front of the cyclist... That's rich. (providing that these are indeed the facts)

Has anyone verified the presence of a law regarding on street parking that takes up an otherwise usable lane on the roadway?

Digital_Cowboy
03-06-10, 02:01 PM
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Baltimore,+Maryland&layer=c&cbll=39.309898,-76.617837&panoid=8e8KGqmwd-TZgXopQ_Pf5g&cbp=12,173.67,,1,16.01&ll=39.309805,-76.617837&spn=0,359.990355&z=17
From this view of the far side of the intersection, truck made a right hand turn from the center lane and the cyclists was riding in the right hand lane. Spin the image around and you'll see a wide combo parking/travel lane on the right side. So trucks lane position is more or less correct but where is there a law prohibiting cyclists from using a right most lane that has just become available? Or stated differently where is the law saying you can't pass on the right in a separate lane?

That's what I was thinking. What if the cyclist had been in a bike lane would it still have been "illegal" for him to have passed the truck on the right side?

Also considering that most state laws require us to stay as Far Right As Practicable, aren't we going to be passing vehicles on the right in our normal legal riding style?

The Human Car
03-06-10, 08:58 PM
That's what I was thinking. What if the cyclist had been in a bike lane would it still have been "illegal" for him to have passed the truck on the right side?

Also considering that most state laws require us to stay as Far Right As Practicable, aren't we going to be passing vehicles on the right in our normal legal riding style?

Also Maryland law has a glitch compared to the UVC in that you are only permitted to leave the far right as practicable in the presence of a right turn only lane (UVC: where right turns are authorized) the right most lane here is not a right hand turn only lane. So at the intersection the cyclist was right were the law required him to be.

John E
03-07-10, 10:31 AM
Also Maryland law has a glitch compared to the UVC in that you are only permitted to leave the far right as practicable in the presence of a right turn only lane (UVC: where right turns are authorized) the right most lane here is not a right hand turn only lane. So at the intersection the cyclist was right were the law required him to be.
That is a big glitch. Perhaps the UVC should prevail over states' rights.

I-Like-To-Bike
03-07-10, 10:46 AM
Perhaps the UVC should prevail over states' rights.
Good luck with that! :roflmao2: