General Cycling Discussion - Biker Sues for 2.9 Million

Life is dangerous.
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hc-bicyclist-jury-award-mdc.artmay10,0,6140008.story

Ran into a gate? Ha, I almost did that once. Luckily I was spared embarrassment by my quick reflexes and the fact that no one saw.....oh wait.

how the hell? this is everything that is wrong with our culture, where suing one for an insane amount of money over an incident where some personal responsibility could've avoided the entire situation actually works.

What lousy journalism.

The short article left out all of the important facts like the extent of the plantiff's disability (if any) and the nature of the gate. On the surface that sounds like an excessive amount of money, but without the facts, who knows?

What's usually left out of these half-researched articles is that the injured person is often simply cooperating with a lawsuit filed by their health insurance company to cover the cost of medical care.

If you have health insurance, you probably have a contract that requires you to cooperate with the insurance company if they try to recover the cost of care they've paid for.

4 broken vertebrae can easily mean massive ER and ICU expenses, long-term medical care, and significant long-term disability. $2.9 million doesn't seem out of line for that level of injury when you look at the cost of medical care these days.

how the hell? this is everything that is wrong with our culture, where suing one for an insane amount of money over an incident where some personal responsibility could've avoided the entire situation actually works.

See below.


What lousy journalism.

The short article left out all of the important facts like the extent of the plantiff's disability (if any) and the nature of the gate. On the surface that sounds like an excessive amount of money, but without the facts, who knows?

Exactly. The article didn't tell us anything about the circumstances except that there was a gate. The assumption that the rider could have easily avoided the hazard may or may not be accurate. Apparently the jury that sat and actually heard the evidence didn't think so. Presumably the defendant had a competent lawyer to present their side. At to "personal responsibility," why not focus on the responsibility of the defendant which created the hazard found to be unreasonably dangerous.

Regarding the "insane" amount of money, we don't know the extent of the plaintiff's injuries. Will she be in a wheelchair the rest of her life? Will she be able to work again? Will she be in constant pain? How much are the medical bills? Again, a jury that heard the evidence concluded that this was an appropriate amount of compensation. And the Judge could reduce it if the amount wasn't supported by the evidence.

Disclaimer: Yes, I'm a lawyer and I do handle this type of litigation, but more often on the side of the defendant than the plaintiff. At least in this neck of the woods, juries are quite conservative and don't give out big damages without reason.

How I handle myself in the control traveling be walking, running, biking or driving an automobile is the speed at which I am traveling with respect to the required braking to stop is influenced by the visual amount of information that is presented directly in front of me.

This for the most part has prevented me from walking into closed doors. Hitting parked cars or driving through a gate. I view life is subject to change where as a stop sign maybe added to a road way and any other items may appear in path commonly traveled.

Let's say for the sake of argument that previously at the site of the accident there was no gate whatsoever, closed or otherwise. Maybe there wasn't even an open section of fence at this point on the trail/road. How would we fare headed down a hill on what we had every reason to believe was a public thoroughfare if someone had place a closed gate around a blind curve. Consider a dark shaded spot, a rusted or dark gate, etc. Yes, we're responsible for our own actions, but a prudent constructor of said gate on a known mountain biking road might have erected a sign 100 yards before the gate.

Suppose the "gate" consisted of a steel cable strung across the trail.

Suppose the "gate" consisted of a steel cable strung across the trail.

Not impossible, but something like a single bar, perhaps 1-1 1/2 feet above the ground so a bike can be lifted over it (while a car can not) is more likely (and perfect to go head first over). Seems a 'smart' solution, until one realizes under the right conditions such can be difficult to see.

Things like this are pretty common on the entryways to many of the bike paths that parallel store drains here in Los Angeles. But with once crucial difference to this case (it seems). The barriers are at points where a bike would be stoping anyway. The ones I remember are mainly at the top of ramps going up to street level.

The biker was awarded 2.9 million by a jury, she was willing to settle for less according to the article, but they refused, and got burned big time. I do like how they mention she was found partially responsible as well. 8 years in court? Jesus.

8 years in court? Jesus.

Can't imagine that was cheap either

How I handle myself in the control traveling be walking, running, biking or driving an automobile is the speed at which I am traveling with respect to the required braking to stop is influenced by the visual amount of information that is presented directly in front of me.

This for the most part has prevented me from walking into closed doors. Hitting parked cars or driving through a gate. I view life is subject to change where as a stop sign maybe added to a road way and any other items may appear in path commonly traveled.

Are you saying it's impossible for you to be involved in an accident that's not entirely your own fault and, at least to some extent, the fault of some other party?

Are you saying it's impossible for you to be involved in an accident that's not entirely your own fault and, at least to some extent, the fault of some other party?
No... that's why I stated for the most part. But I was taught and teach my kids to be aware of your surroundings and don't assume to may things while taking responsibility for your actions.

No... that's why I stated for the most part.

Not to get into a pissing match, but in that case I'm not sure what the point of your original post was as it seemed to imply that the lawsuit was frivolous by it's very nature.


But I was taught and teach my kids to be aware of your surroundings and don't assume to may things while taking responsibility for your actions.

I have no problem with that, but that doesn't mean others should not be held accountable for their actions when they create unreasonable risks resulting in injuries to third parties.

Note this:
Stratton said Blonski had offered to settle the case for less than the amount awarded by the jury, but MDC refused.


Juries are funny that way sometimes.

Biker Sues for 2.9 Million

Did she die?.

Not to get into a pissing match, but in that case I'm not sure what the point of your original post was as it seemed to imply that the lawsuit was frivolous by it's very nature.



I have no problem with that, but that doesn't mean others should not be held accountable for their actions when they create unreasonable risks resulting in injuries to third parties.

If you or I or for that matter our families are injured as example by a drunk driver or let say pined by a non maintained or poorly designed elevator door, than there should be a pursuit.

I do not believe that a given area of land who in this case is a reservoir with the staff who run the place main job is to supply water. And just because it has an attribute that by nature the areas terrain that can suit bikers.hikes,etc is responsible.

If I paid for admission for such an area who focus was hiking, biking etc with designed trails that would be a different story.

I do not believe that a given area of land who in this case is a reservoir with the staff who run the place main job is to supply water. And just because it has an attribute that by nature the areas terrain that can suit bikers.hikes,etc is responsible.

If I paid for admission for such an area who focus was hiking, biking etc with designed trails that would be a different story.

Well, the area was a recreation area, not just a reservoir. And we don't know from the article whether any admission fee was paid. But regardless, if the entity running the area knows it is used for biking and constructed the gate in such a way that it created an unnecessary & unreasonable risk (which is assume, since that's what the jury which heard all the evidence apparently found), I think it should be held accountable.

Assuming, as the jury also found, that the plaintiff was partially responsible, that should not let the defendant off the hook. Since the jury made that finding, I assume the damage award was reduced proportionately to her percentage of fault. At least, that's the way it would normally work. To me, that seems like a fair way to resolve the issue when both sides have some fault (in many states, a plaintiff would recover nothing if he/she was found to be more than 50% at fault, even if the defendant was also found to be at fault).

One more comment and then I'll shut up. As a lawyer, the uninformed, knee jerk reaction of many upon hearing of a big verdict that the lawsuit was frivolous, that the jury was nuts, that the jury system is a lottery, that personal responsibility is the answer, etc., etc. is one of my pet peeves (along with advocating 220-age for MHR, but that's another thread. :rolleyes: Mod: is that enough connection to biking?)

The poster child of the frivolous lawsuit-tort reform is the answer gang is the McDonalds coffee case. I'm sure you are all familiar with it. But how many are really familiar with the facts of the case? If you are intellectually honest and curious enough to have an open mind on the subject read this (http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/V11N1/Coffee.pdf). Keep this in mind the next time you hear about an "insane" jury verdict.

Did she die?.

No, but she was seriously hurt. Read jputnam's explanation above.

It doesn't necessarily imply she'll keep all that money.

Well, the area was a recreation area, not just a reservoir. And we don't know from the article whether any admission fee was paid. But regardless, if the entity running the area knows it is used for biking and constructed the gate in such a way that it created an unnecessary & unreasonable risk (which is assume, since that's what the jury which heard all the evidence apparently found), I think it should be held accountable.

Assuming, as the jury also found, that the plaintiff was partially responsible, that should not let the defendant off the hook. Since the jury made that finding, I assume the damage award was reduced proportionately to her percentage of fault. At least, that's the way it would normally work. To me, that seems like a fair way to resolve the issue when both sides have some fault (in many states, a plaintiff would recover nothing if he/she was found to be more than 50% at fault, even if the defendant was also found to be at fault).

I should have stated that I am familiar and have been expose to the area on and off since about the mid 70s. It was a place where teenagers would ride to, burn up a summer day while doing nothing but hanging out. No swimming or anything like that. There is no admission and not a lot has change from the era of riding a French bike in my youth there expect the use on MTB on dirt paths and looks to be 911 safety restrictions in the filtering area also more gray hair folks than I remember growing up . It’s a place with some paved and dirt paths that date back many years. I maybe mistaken but I think they stopped cars from going through the paved area in the early 70s and I think that’s when the gates came into play. One just walks or rides around them.

That article truly sucked.

I'd like to know:

1. How badly was she injured?
2. What sort of 'gate' was it? Visibly marked, or stealth-grey steel?
3. Any prior notice in any form of the media that there was something going on there, like construction?
4. Was she wearing a helmet? (LOL!!!!)

I think they teach you to relate stuff like that in journalism school... I know they USED to.

Found a little better description of the accident (at the Eastern Bloc Cycling Club forum):

Racking my brain trying to figure out where she could have possibly run into a closed fence, I stumbled across an earlier decision related to the suit. And, within the decision, the court summarizes the fact that she was on "red road" (which I think is the color of the main road that circles the reservoir). Possibility #1: If you are at the old main parking lot, and head west a 1/4 mile down the road, before you start up the paved hill, there use to be, and may still be, a gate, which they open/close ever so often. She may have been speeding down the hill (counter-clockwise), and ran into that gate at the bottom of the hill (??). Anyway, here is the part of the decision that supplies more of the facts . . .

(Oct. 17, 2008)
The plaintiff alleges that she was at the West Hartford Reservoir/Talcott Mountain State Park for the purpose of mountain biking on one of the trails which permitted mountain biking at this reservoir. She alleges that while riding the mountain bike on Red Road she saw a closed gate and she was caused to hit her head on the gate due to the unsafe and dangerous condition of the bike trail. She alleges that said bike trail was in an unsafe and dangerous condition due to the gate being closed with no sign posting that it was closed on that date. The plaintiff alleges that her injuries were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant MDC or the negligence of its agents, servants and employees. She alleges that the gate which was usually open was closed at the time of the incident with no signs regarding the closed gate and that MDC failed to protect the patrons who were mountain biking to keep away from the closed gate and that it failed to erect tape guards and/or barriers to protect patrons from the closed gate, in that it failed to post signs stating that the gate was closed on May 16, 2002, therefore, making it difficult to become knowledgeable that said gate was closed and making it an unsafe and dangerous condition. She further alleges that as a result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant MDC, its agents, servants or employees she was badly injured.


Sounds like the gate was normally open, but was closed on this occasion. If, as the writer surmises, it was at the bottom of a hill, I think that is a problem. Still don't know how steep the hill was or how visible the gate would have been or how far in advance it would have been visible.

I to question how a gate was unseen, from my point of view the gates are in plan sight. I am guessing here but the roads were built way back when so trucks with limited turning radius could gain access. The size of the gate span is an oversize one car road way.

She was at a speed during the time of impact that created an inability for her to stop in time for a large item as this gate what if it had been something smaller like a group of kids. Speed is an item a rider should have control of as we share the road

I to question how a gate was unseen, from my point of view the gates are in plan sight.

Are you basing that on your knowledge of the area? From the info I've seen, I don't think there is enough information one way or the other to determine if it was in plain sight. Even if it was visible, there could be other aspects to the gate, such as, as suggested, it was normally open and at the base of a hill, which would make a an unreasonable danger.

While I would agree with the abstract proposition that a rider should have control over his/her speed, in practice I think there are many situations where any rider would be unable to stop in time to avoid an obstacle unexpectedly and suddenly appearing in front of them. A reasonably prudent landowner would/should not knowingly create such obstacles.

I to question how a gate was unseen, from my point of view the gates are in plan sight. I am guessing here but the roads were built way back when so trucks with limited turning radius could gain access. The size of the gate span is an oversize one car road way.
Why let the absence of facts hinder your "point of view"?

I'd "guess" that both sides of the case where presented to the jury, who then made their decision based on that. But I'm just speculating.

While I would agree with the abstract proposition that a rider should have control over his/her speed, in practice I think there are many situations where any rider would be unable to stop in time to avoid an obstacle unexpectedly and suddenly appearing in front of them. A reasonably prudent landowner would/should not knowingly create such obstacles.
It seems somewhat odd that anybody would put a barrier on a trail where mountain biking was a permitted and known activity.

It seems somewhat odd that anybody would put a barrier on a trail where mountain biking was a permitted and known activity.

The barriers are to keep cars out there is clearance on the sides to pass through. It is common in the area Case Mountain in Manchester CT has this arrangement also.

The biker was awarded 2.9 million by a jury, she was willing to settle for less according to the article, but they refused, and got burned big time. I do like how they mention she was found partially responsible as well. 8 years in court? Jesus.

Of course. The only reason anybody ever goes to court is because the two opposing attorneys both think they can win. As to the 8 years, I'm thinking the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

Of course. The only reason anybody ever goes to court is because the two opposing attorneys both think they can win.

Or the Defendant's insurer has a philosophy of not paying any claims, no matter how meritorious.


As to the 8 years, I'm thinking the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

Could be. I gather from the article that a lot of the delay was due to arguing about the governmental immunity issue. Even so, 8 years is a long time.

Follow up story http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-green-0528-20100528-16,0,6931770,full.column

how the hell? this is everything that is wrong with our culture, where suing one for an insane amount of money over an incident where some personal responsibility could've avoided the entire situation actually works.

I'm almost sorry to say I agree. I feel sorry for the cyclist, of course, but how smart do you have to be not to ride into a gate? I'd like to know a little more about the circumstances before I made up my mind, but it sounds like she had some experience and should have been alert for hazards.
Full disclosure: I've done equally stupid things, and in at least one case (I have it on video), it's blind luck i wasn't badly hurt. But it was MY decision to ride, and my fault I got over my head. It never occurred to me to sue the city that maintained the trail.

Follow up story http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-green-0528-20100528-16,0,6931770,full.column

Info in this link seems contrary to other information especially in regard to whether the gate was normally open or closed. I don't think sufficient information has been provided in any of the articles to really assess the basis of the jury's decision. Without having all the facts, I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the reasonableness of the jury which actually saw & heard all the evidence. Again, I assume both sides had competent lawyers.

No doubt there are unreasonable juries and unjustifiable verdicts, but the system has plenty of safeguards built in to prevent cases without any merit from even getting to a jury and to correct verdicts without at least some evidentiary support. In my experience juries more often reject meritorious claims than reward the non-meritorious ones. This does raise questions about the somewhat crapshoot nature of the jury system: you can try the same case 10 times to 10 different juries and you will get 10 different results. Who is to say which is "correct." I haven't heard anyone propose a better system tho. I rather put my fate in the hands of a jury than some government panel which would inevitably be made up of industry insiders and political hacks. As has been said in other contexts, the jury system is the worst possible way to resolve legal conflicts, except for all other methods in existence.

Well, now we are in danger of losing this area for mountain biking and other forms of recreation.

Please check this website for more information: http://www.savethemdctrails.org/

There is link to an online petition and information regarding a public hearing (7/20 at 5:30 PM - West Hartford Town Hall) on the site. Additonally, there is a link to a recent TV report so you can see for yourself what the gate looks like.

Thanks!

This is bikeforums; sometimes the people who hate all cyclists come over from A&S to harass the rest of us. Best not to engage.

The only reason anybody ever goes to court is because the two opposing attorneys both think they can win.

...no. That's really not true; the case can be part of an overall strategy, or it may be a better idea for someone's career to roll the dice than accept a known loss.

Dude, I live in West Hartford and have been riding the reservoirs since I was a kid. The gates are all very visible and all right by the road. They've been there as long as I have. They are there to keep road traffic off the trails. If there had been no gate, this chick would've blown out into the road and been killed by passing traffic. Now the town wants to close the reservoirs to the public because of this. Way to ruin it for everyone.

Follow up story http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-green-0528-20100528-16,0,6931770,full.column


Dude, I live in West Hartford and have been riding the reservoirs since I was a kid. The gates are all very visible and all right by the road. They've been there as long as I have. They are there to keep road traffic off the trails. If there had been no gate, this chick would've blown out into the road and been killed by passing traffic. Now the town wants to close the reservoirs to the public because of this. Way to ruin it for everyone.

After reading these 2 comments, I am feeling a lot less charitable towards the cyclist in question.

As to the best way to decide the case, and the suitability of jury trial, I have to say I have rarely seen anyone counter-sued for a frivolous lawsuit, in the US at least.

Dude, I live in West Hartford and have been riding the reservoirs since I was a kid. The gates are all very visible and all right by the road. They've been there as long as I have. They are there to keep road traffic off the trails. If there had been no gate, this chick would've blown out into the road and been killed by passing traffic. Now the town wants to close the reservoirs to the public because of this. Way to ruin it for everyone.

Actually, it's the MDC (water company) that wants to close it. There is strong support among the town government to keep the facility open.

Please sign the petition and come to the meeting on July 20!

After reading these 2 comments, I am feeling a lot less charitable towards the cyclist in question.

Still seems to me that there must be some missing information.


As to the best way to decide the case, and the suitability of jury trial, I have to say I have rarely seen anyone counter-sued for a frivolous lawsuit, in the US at least.

While the general rule is that each side bears their own legal expenses, various states do have rules that can shift some of the cost to the losing party. For example, here in Michigan, there is a process called case evaluation. 3 attorneys who have no connection to the case receive the evidence in summary form and come up with what they consider a fair settlement to the case. It's not binding, but if you reject their decision and don't do better by going to trial, you have to pay the other side's actual costs and fees from the date of the evaluation through trial. Works pretty well and settles a lot of cases.

Of course, in this situation it's hard to call the plaintiff's case frivolous since she won. The cost of the legal process is the best guard against "frivolous" lawsuits. Most attorneys won't take obviously meritless cases on a % basis, since they won't get paid and usually have to eat the out of pocket expenses. Sometimes it's hard to tell whether a case has merit or not till you get pretty deep into it. One problem is that many meritorious cases also get weeded out if the expense of bringing them is going to be high and the possible recovery is relatively small (for example, if the injuries aren't that bad and the person makes a good physical recovery).

That is the way it is in this crazy country. Juries tend to think of insurance companies as a free ride for all. What we need is a law that forbids law suits on a contingency basis. No BS about you don't pay unless we get money for you. Also you lose and you pay all legal fees yours and the party that is being sued by you.

. What we need is a law that forbids law suits on a contingency basis.

Has a certain appeal. But consider that such a law would effectively lock the courthouse door to all but the rich and powerful. A bare bones auto accident case costs a minimum of $20,000 in legal time and costs to take from start through trial. A medical malpractice case can cost in the hundreds of thousands. Do we really want to make it so that most people can't have recourse to the courts no matter how much merit their case has?

I'm not saying the current system is perfect, far from it. But the system is very complicated and things that might sound good at first blush can have unintended results. I find it ironic that those who want to jump on the "personal responsibility" bandwagon want to junk the system that holds people (and corporations) responsible for their own actions. Not perfectly and I'm not saying improvements can't be made, but I think any changes have to be made very slowly and carefully.

For anyone at all interested in these issues, I highly recommend "The Appeal" by John Grisham. Very entertaining and thought provoking. For the mods' benefit, I think there may be a bike in it.:)

Strange. I had the following e-mail today, but the post referenced doesn't seem to be here:

iforgotmename has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Biker Sues for 2.9 Million - in the General Cycling Discussion forum of Bike Forums.

This thread is located at:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?643971-Biker-Sues-for-2.9-Million&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Here is a beteer article http://www.strattonfaxon.com/news/2010-news/cyclist-brokenneck5.2010.pdf
***************

In any event, the article referenced does shed some light on the accident. Here are some relevant facts:

"Some of the gates were reopened in the
1980s but were again closed for security purposes
after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11,
2001. Stratton said even though the agency
closed the gates, it did not provide any signs
warning bikers. In some instances, he said,
the agency left the white paint markings for
the bike lanes, which lead right up to the
closed gates.
Blonski and a friend were following such
a bike path at the reservoir. As she accelerated
down a steep hill at between 20 and 30
mph, she noticed the gate and apparently
realized it was too late to stop."

If the path is clearly designated as a bike path, but the gate is at the bottom of a steep hill with no warning, I do think that is a problem. Skid marks indicate she started to try to brake about 75' from the gate. Inexplicably (to me), the defendant didn't offer any expert witnesses in it's defense. The jury did find the plaintiff 30% at fault, so I assume the verdict was reduced by this percent. I can't tell if the 2.9 million is before or after this reduction.

2 things are going to happen here. Water rates are going to go up. The land will be closed as is the right of the owner

2 things are going to happen here. Water rates are going to go up. The land will be closed as is the right of the owner

Well, we're not going down without a fight. Please see the website ( http://www.savethemdctrails.org/ (http://www.savethemdctrails.org/) ) for more information.

Our main goal is to modify the liability laws of the state so that the MDC (water company) is not held to a different standard than others that grant the public the use of their land.

This thread raises a lot of complex and important issues regarding societal choices. I totally understand the desire to preserve public access to this and similar areas. I also recognize the utility to society in doing so.

Much of the feeling expressed here seems to flow from the perceived injustice of the verdict and the assumed fault of the rider. But to be a contraian, assume a situation where the negligence and fault of the facility is much clearer: for example, for whatever reason workers dig a 4 ft deep trench across a marked bike trail, the trench is not visible until one is virtually right on top of it, and absolutely no warning of the trench is given. Assume that a rider hits the trench and suffers severe, life-changing injuries.

Is it a fair trade-off that the injured person receives no compensation in order to preserve the public access to the facility? I’m not saying there are easy answers here. But I think the knee jerk reaction of “lets bar all these lawsuits” doesn’t adequately address the consequences of such a solution.

I have to assume that the jury considered all of the above factors in their judgement.

I always assume when reading these things that all 12 of the people on the jury didn't hear anything I didn't read in the 2-paragraph summary. I also that they not only didn't take the issue seriously, but are also oompa-loompas with no understanding of American culture or, in fact, English.