asmac

The jogger was injured when he ran into the girl's rear wheel when she and her friends were riding three-abreast against traffic.


Kamloops man sues 10-year-old girl after jogging into her bike | CBC News

ReclusiveOne

This is why you communicate with those ahead of you. Runners don't generally carry a bell like many cyclists but a friendly "on your left/right" can be just as easily given by a runner and gives the person ahead the ability to act appropriately.

Hoopdriver

Really? What does any reasonably thinking adult imagine the predictability of pre-teens to be? I wonder what he would have done if they were riding toward him on the correct side of the road. Probably would have charged through the group.

79pmooney

I think we should be celebrating what's right in this picture - a a citizen of North America behaving as any good American should. Filing a lawsuit. For injuries sustained when someone got in his way.

Ben

Maelochs

Yet another post leaving me longing for a "Like" button.

Daniel4

One would think a mature adult would have the foresight to think ahead and try to avoid mishaps like kids and dogs or whatever. But if this jogger were representative of any typical adult in a car, I'm not surprised that a collision occurred.

Cyclist0108

That alone warrants his premature demise.

mr_bill

“The lawsuit was dismissed with costs.”

That means the plaintiff paid at least court costs. Someone in Canada can clarify if he had to pay the defendents’ legal costs as well.

-mr. bill

I-Like-To-Bike

I'm not surprised that you fail to recognize that the jogger was neither a motorist, nor representative of typical adult motorists, except in your own nightmarish fantasy.

mcours2006

I believe you are correct. It's something that deters frivolous lawsuits--that if you lose you pay for the winner's court costs.

On the topic of the incident, she's ten years old. He's an adult. They are on a quiet residential street. There are a number of things he could have done to avoid the cyclist. He's also running faster than she's riding. At worst it's an accident, much like me stepping on an acorn on the sidewalk of one of my neighbours and spraining my ankle which required me to take a week off of running. In hindsight maybe I should have sued my neighbour for negligence and failure to keep the sidewalk in front of his house free of hazards.

CB HI

If the immature adult had only obeyed the 3 foot passing guideline, he would not have harmed himself and shown himself to be a stupid jerk.

Maelochs

Easy now. Half the posts on this part of the forum are about those people .... and the other half are by them.

KraneXL

Two things: First, if your kids are not capable of making basic safety decisions then they should not be out unsupervised. When they make a mistake, the parents need to be held responsible to make it right. Society is not responsible for the errors/damage your kids cause. I wish this awareness was more prominent these days.

Second, I believe she moved over as he was attempting to pass. But its not completely clear whether he was passing on the road or on the sidewalk. Had this occurred on the sidewalk, the assumed guilt is on the cyclist. Once you see the jogger you need to give them the clearance to pass.

Maelochs

Wow ... what a wholly ignorant rant.

ignorant as in "uninformed," as in 'You were too lazy to even read the article and just came here to vent."

What is the perfect definition of "Not knowing what you are talking about"? This.

You wish parents would be punished for their kids? I wish adults who acted as badly as this in public could be punished. So there we are.

Since actually clicking on the link and reading a few hundred words was less important to you than condemning a bunch of people for infractions committed only in your imagination ... I will post the relevant content:

According to the judgment, the girl was cycling alongside two friends on Robson Street when the accident occurred.

Her friends were on the sidewalk and she was on the road. All three were riding against traffic, on the only side of the road with a sidewalk.

Perilli was jogging behind the trio when he caught up with them and tried to pass the girl on the right. The girl testified that she had moved closer to the sidewalk after she looked back and saw Perilli about to pass.

The girl also testified that when she looked back again, the jogger had fallen behind. No longer expecting him to overtake them, she moved back into her spot farther from the sidewalk.

That's when Perilli struck her back wheel, causing him to fall and injure his shoulder severely enough that he later required surgery.

It is Completely clear that both were on the road ... as in, It Says So. "The judge also pointed out that she hadn't been riding on the sidewalk — her friends had." I guess that wasn't ... clear ... for some reason.

This guy, with a whole road to jog on, ran into the back of a ten-year-old on a bike. She was what, 18 inches wide? The road was what, 14 Feet wide?

"Failure to use car and caution in passing," is what it is called when you drive into the back of someone. And ... he was overtaking On The Right. Faster traffic is supposed to overtake ... "On your left." (You might have heard that phrase?)

It is like the "three-foot rule." You give a cyclist three feet so if the cyclist has to swerve, there will be no collision while the faster vehicle overtakes.

here that faster vehicle (the adult jogger) did Not give three feet. In fact, he ran right into a little girl.

And without reading the article, you decided to blame the victim, instead of the adult who ran over a child.

The judge ruled that there was no unsafe behavior on the part of the child. But you, without bothering to examine, the evidence ... knew better.

Your post is flawless in its folly ...

gregf83 

The 10 yr old was riding on the road and behaved appropriately for a 10 yr old. Judge found the kid was not negligent and pointed out the standard of care on a 10 yr old is different to that attributed to an adult. In other words society expects kids will make mistakes and doesn’t expect them, or their parents, to pay every time they make a ‘mistake’. An adult should assume a 10 yr old is not perfect yet.

KraneXL

Wrong. I read the poorly written biased article. Apparently it is you who's not reading. The children were not injured, the adult was the one that needed surgery.In fact, the plaintiff lost the case because he had a weak case and because of a judgement (the judge's opinion) since there was no de facto law in this instance to govern his decision. My point is that kids make mistakes, and that if they're riding unsupervised they should know the rules of the riding:

1) Yield to pedestrians
2) Don't ride against traffic.

These are two infractions that were made clear in the article but left unresolved. This was the opportunity for the adults and authority to teach them better but was completely omitted in the article. This is what's wrong with America.Remember that the next time you have to bear the cost of someone else's kids mistakes. Which is why adult are here to teach them better. What lesson do you think they learned from this experience?

mcours2006

You expect a ten-year old girl riding with her friends to know when a runner, who's probably quite silent, is coming up from behind her, and then to move over? A ten year old. I've run up from behind many grownups, and groups of grownups on MUP's who had no idea I was behind them until I was even with them. And these are grownups, on an MUP where there are no cars, just people on bikes and runners. Your statement above is ludicrous.

1. The pedestrian, in this case a runner, was on the road, you know, where cars and bicycles are. The runner was an adult. He was running faster than the cyclist. He was overtaking the cyclist and failed to do so safely, and got injured. How about the adult taking some responsibility for his own actions? He made a mistake and was looking for someone else to blame, or at least pay for his medical expenses.

2. Not sure why this is relevant to the article. There was no traffic to speak of other than the girl and the runner. @Maelochs was right; you really should go back to re-read the article before responding.

KraneXL

What 10 year old have you come in contact with lately.? This isn't rocket science. A ten year old is absolutely old enough to be able to discern these basic fundamentals. I was taught better and held responsible when I was even younger than that.

Which is why he made an attempt to get around the group. Those kids that were blocking the sidewalk. I suppose you've completely ignored the fact they they were blocking the whole sidewalk and the edge of the road. Two on the sidewalk, one on the road. Do you consider this to be acceptable social behavior?

No, he and you are just missing the point. I'm not arguing the judgement. But the fact that you so vehemently support poor parenting underscores the environment we live in. That is my point.

mcours2006

Lol. I actually teach nine and ten year-olds, many of them. So in answer to your question, a few hundred, and two days ago! When was the last time you came in contact with a ten-year old?

Complete irrelevant to the trial. The two on the sidewalk, and as minors, it is legal for them to ride on the sidewalk were not named in the lawsuit. Yes, when children ride their bikes on the sidewalk they usually block the whole sidewalk. For that matter, when they walk or do anything else on the sidewalk they completely block the sidewalk. I have three of them myself, so I speak from experience. And yes, this is completely acceptable for children. Absolutely!

The more you write the more you are revealing about yourself, and it's not flattering. And equating letting your children ride on their bikes on the sidewalk to bad parenting is just plain stupid.

But if you want to continue on this silly line of reasoning, keep writing. Let's see what else you can reveal about yourself.

Daniel4

Oh, but I did.

Hoopdriver

Wrap up: Kids are usually unpredictable and adults often don't exercise good judgement. When these qualities converge to an adverse outcome it's a good "no call". The judge got it right.

dh024

Well said!

gregf83 

Absolutely not. Who do these kids think they are? Once they get to be adults they can walk side by side on the sidewalk and block it but until then they should be taught a lesson. I suggest 20 lashes with a wet noodle would be appropriate.

You're hilarious and provided some comic relief this morning. How's the shoulder healing?

rydabent

This should be a learning experience for everyone. Stay away from children at play they are unpredictable.

But-------------jogging into the back of a bike is just plain nuts.

bluetape

Also consider that this took years. Maybe it didn't consume the family's life or anything, but it was at least part of the dinner table discussion, for a tiny accident involving a ten-year old child. Suing a ten-year old over a bike accident is absolutely insane no matter which way you spin it. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.