Connecticut Jury Awards $2.9M to Bicyclist for Collision

May 11, 2010

  • May 11, 2010 at 8:43 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    ok, so who was riding the bicycle? was not the gate which was down. the gate does not have eyes, but i bet the cyclists does. so, i have a problem, who was actually in the wrong? i think the jury has got this wrong and she just wanted someone else to pay for her medical bills because she did not have money. i am sorry for her pain, but like any other vehicle, you are supposed to keep your eyes on the road. you possibly weren’t distracted while riding the bike, for example, texting?

  • May 11, 2010 at 9:14 am
    Darwin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So, if I’m in Connecticut, and I’m on a treadmill, and I hit the “stone wall”, during my exercise, I can sue the treadmill and win?
    Sure beats trying the win Powerball, I’m moving back to Connecticut.

  • May 11, 2010 at 11:33 am
    S. Hart says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What were the specific facts of this case? Does anyone know?

  • May 11, 2010 at 12:18 pm
    DEE C says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    CT juries are insane!!

  • May 11, 2010 at 12:25 pm
    CJ says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m sure, based on the award, the gate must have jumped out and hit her. Surely, CT jurors aren’t that stupid, are they?

  • May 11, 2010 at 12:25 pm
    Duh says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You can’t text while you are riding a bicycle, knucklehead! Maybe the cyclist had ridden this trail every day and then one day, there is a gate where there was there wasn’t one previously. Maybe the gate was at a blind curve or at the bottom of a hill. Maybe the trail is paved, enabling the cyclist to get going pretty fast. This article gave no details on the placement or history of this trail or the gate yet everyone knows the right answer without know one real fact.

  • May 11, 2010 at 12:34 pm
    Christie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    While I very much enjoy IJ’s online articles, I often find myself scratching my head wondering about key facts that are missing from the story. In this story I wonder: why didshe run into the gate? What made her case compelling enough to win? Now I have to go to someother news source to find out.

  • May 11, 2010 at 12:38 pm
    M. White says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Duh, you are correct – the theme of many posts (always anonymous) is that everyone else is an idiot, and that the poster alone is capable of great wisdom and insight. It’s getting quite irritating and tiresome.

  • May 11, 2010 at 12:41 pm
    back at you says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Facts? Who needs facts…this is an injury. You live in America. You ride a bike into a gate (or any other object)you can sue the owner of the object and retire. Now she can write a book about her adventure, I would suggest BIKERGATE, appear on Oprah to talk about the dangers of mountain biking for women since the helmets are not properly designed to accommodate today’s hairstyles.

  • May 11, 2010 at 12:47 pm
    Chistie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    apparently the gate may have been at the bottom of a popular, paved biking path that led down a steep hill. In the past, the gate had generally been kept open and there were no signs warning that it had been closed that day.

    Sorry for the complaint, IJ, I just realized this was a AP story.

    source: http://www.easternbloc.net/forms/post.asp?method=ReplyQuote&REPLY_ID=21000&TOPIC_ID=4778&FORUM_ID=7

  • May 11, 2010 at 12:47 pm
    "back at you" the clairvoiant says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “Who needs facts?” That’s a lame statement. But, it says enough about the knee jerk mentality of a lot of the posters who know nothing of the facts of a case like this or what will happen next (Bikergate).

  • May 11, 2010 at 12:49 pm
    David says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Given those facts, I might bring a suit too.

  • May 11, 2010 at 12:57 pm
    MaryAnne says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Here is an excerpt from the “mission statement” of the NEMBA (New England Mountain Bike Association)of which this woman is a member:

    ” …. Educate the mountain bike community on how to ride in a sensitive and responsible fashion.”

    Since most of those who post comments here are professional insurance folk, many of whom are claims professionals, it is proper to offer perspective on the obvious issues of liability even if the article doesn’t present a comprehensive recap. Here you have a woman who was an avid and supposedly experienced rider. She struck a “STEEL GATE”, a fixed object, with sufficient force to throw her off her bike and damage her cervical spine. She obviously did not have control of her bike and was unable to avoid the collision. I think the verdict was flawed in terms of assessing liability and damages. Why was it that she, an experienced rider, was the only one who slammed into this gate? Excessive speed? Failure to look out? Not paying attention? I doubt anyone had a duty to alert bike riders of the gate. It was open and obvious and near the resevoir where vehicles also traveled. This is a prime example of why we need professional jurors who are educated, understand legal principles, and can render an objective verdict.

  • May 11, 2010 at 12:59 pm
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    well, i find that even w/the facts… it was known to have a gate and not neccessarily left down at all times… but that does not leave the fact that if she had been riding it for a long time, she knew it existed… she should have been prepared for that gate to be down at all times… this would be like me driving my car and the car in front of me stopping… by law i have to attempt a stop if not, then i am at-fault for the accident… just because most cars keep moving, i just keep going and state oh! you stopped therefore it is your fault… where’s the personal responsibility of keeping your eyes open?! if i had a car driving down a hill, and the gate was shut, i’d be at-fault for hitting the gate and i’d have to pay for my car’s damages… so what is the difference here?

  • May 11, 2010 at 12:59 pm
    back at you says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “back at you” the clairvoiant…
    Can you say “satire”

  • May 11, 2010 at 1:00 am
    Bill Morris says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well, MaryAnne, your professional “read” on the merits of this case would have been completely wrong. So what’s your point?

  • May 11, 2010 at 1:01 am
    Bicyclist says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am an avid bicyclist riding over 3,000 miles annually.

    I’m sorry Chissie, but even with these “facts”, I can’t go along with blaming the owner of the fence.

    When you ride a bicycle, especially when going downhill, it is your responsibility to maintain a speed such that you can stop in case there is something unexpected down the road. I cannot conceive of a valid reason for any bicyclist to not see a gate in front of them. Being on a popular path does not provide an excuse for not paying attention and riding safely.

    This bicyclist must have ridden irresponsibly thus making them at least 50% at fault for the accident, As such, it makes no sense for them to win the suit.

  • May 11, 2010 at 1:03 am
    Hmmm says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    No one even asked if the gate was OK !

  • May 11, 2010 at 1:09 am
    wildplaces says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I will have to dig up some facts here…almost any public recreational use statute absolves the property owner of responsibility where they don’t charge a fee to access the property, except in cases of gross negligence, which this must fall under [no pun intended.] All trail associations will now be watching this case in terms of public recreational use statute application and assumption of risk by the recreational users.

    Personally, I have done my share of bicycling and am on my town’s bicycle-pedestrian advisory committee. I have represented the League of American Bicyclists years ago as a district legislative representative. I can understand how this gate could act as a dangerouis trap if it is suddenly closed and not easily visible at the end of a long downhill run; however, what will this say about traps designed to keep bicycles and ATVs off hiking/walking trails, etc? This is an interesting case in this regard.

  • May 11, 2010 at 1:17 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    i hope the appeal goes through… because it was her fault 100%

  • May 11, 2010 at 1:31 am
    Joker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’ve mountain biked that trail hundreds of times and never once crashed into any gates. I did hit a deer one time and ended up going over the handlebars and into a pricker bush. Damn thing came outta nowhere! (true story)

    I should have sued the deer.

    This pinhead hits a gate and gets paid. Interesting employment history she has too.

  • May 11, 2010 at 1:41 am
    J. Schwinn says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Good thing she wasn’t drinking a cup of hot coffee at the time! Maybe if there had been a sign on the gate “Caution: Riding a bicycle into a fence may cause injury”!

  • May 11, 2010 at 1:48 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    ok, sounds like we need a top ten!

    10 – my brakes failed for the gate!

    9 – the sun was in my eyes

    8 – i was following that deer when he jumped over the gate

    7 – i was trying to break the downhill record after my freefall.

    6 – was i supposed to play limbo?

    5 – i was texting the president about the local resevoir.

    4 – my girlfriend just called had to answer the phone.

    3 – my lawyer wanted me to get more cash!

    2 – i did not want to work anymore and blame someone else, who has big pockets.

    1 – the gate asked if he could just play dead!

  • May 11, 2010 at 1:56 am
    MaryAnne says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    All rise for “judge mental”. My assessment is wrong? You didn’t even have the stones to offer one of your own, only critize others. Are you a claims professional with sufficient claims handling and liability experience to comment? Or are you an agent, broker, or underwriter? Seems the majority of posts support NO LIABILITY on the city.

  • May 11, 2010 at 1:59 am
    Back at you says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Reply to MaryAnn,

    Yep !

  • May 11, 2010 at 2:04 am
    CTMTbiker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    My property backs to that piece of MDC land. Anyone who uses this recreation area knows that there are gates across the trails and roads that are opened and closed so that only MDC trucks vehicles can gain access to this area. I’m sorry the biker got injured however this seems like the work of a misinformed jury.

  • May 11, 2010 at 2:07 am
    Wally says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Joker–that destroyed me.

  • May 11, 2010 at 2:15 am
    Joker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Looking back, its a pretty funny story to tell. At the time….trying to remove myself from a giant pricker bush….not so funny. I think it hurts more getting out of them, then crashing into them.

    Glad I could provide a little comedic relief. We could all use it with this soft market.

  • May 11, 2010 at 2:29 am
    Franklin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What if you were walking down the hall in your office, preoccupied with other things, and tripped over a chair / garbage can / stack of paperwork that a maintenance worker had placed in the middle of the hall. Would you all still be singing the same tune, that it was completely the fault of the walker?

    Don’t get me wrong. As an avid road & mountain biker, I can say this biker was a dumba$$ for not paying attention. But does the fault lie totally with her?

  • May 11, 2010 at 2:51 am
    Interested Observer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    How does contributory negligence enter the picture if at all? I’m not sure about the State Law in Connicut.It could be a comparative negligence state.

  • May 11, 2010 at 3:01 am
    DBC says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    And people wonder why insurance rates are so high?

  • May 11, 2010 at 3:29 am
    Bill Morris says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yes – your assessment is dead wrong. You would have defended it and lost. Your company would be out $2.9m. Seems pretty clear to me. It’s not about being “right” in theory. It’s about anticipating the reality of the situation.

  • May 11, 2010 at 3:36 am
    N.B. esq. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well said Bill.

  • May 11, 2010 at 4:46 am
    Alex says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Ditto.
    1.) would person(s) installing the subject gate have constructive knowledge that cyclists frequented the trail?
    2.) would a reasonable person conclude that a gate at the bottom of a grade required signage uphill of the gate advising it’s presence and recommending slowing in anticipation of it’s being down?
    3.) Was the absence of such signage contributive to the likelihood of an uninformed cyclist colliding with the gate.
    ————
    there MAY have been a sympathy element to the quantum of the award, but the facts leading to the granting of the award verdict may easily have been solid findings.

  • May 11, 2010 at 6:07 am
    Fudoshin, LLC says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sometimes, as in this case, large institutions are at fault when bicycle accidents occur. As a Los Angeles bicycle accident attorney, I am familiar with this process. Read more about this process at my practice area web page: http://losangelesconsumerattorney.com/practice-areas/bicycle-accidents/

  • May 11, 2010 at 6:08 am
    Fudoshin, LLC says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Pardon me, the link should be listed as: LosAngelesConsumerAttorney.com

  • May 12, 2010 at 12:52 pm
    damned if you do says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What if the gate was not up and an unauthorized vehicle came through that entrance? If the vehicle hit or otherwise came in contact a mtb rider – the vehicle owner, driver and the district would be at fault. Or if the vehicle somehow found its way into the reservoir that too would have been found to be the fault of the district.
    We cant have it both ways in this society. the district put up the gate as a protective measure for her safety and the safety of other users of the area. CLearly they should have padded the gate to protect soft-heads like her.

  • May 13, 2010 at 2:52 am
    Former co-worker of MB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I happen to know Mary Beth (MB) personally, and couldn’t be happier about her winning her case. If any of you knew her and knew the pain she suffered for MONTHS you’d agree. She is one of the nicest, funniest, TALENTED people I have ever met. Good for you, MB–I’m sure you will pay it forward because that is your nature.

  • May 13, 2010 at 3:28 am
    Just me says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    being a nice person, and suffering alot of pain doesn’t mean this was the fault of the property owner. An unfortunate accident, should never have been in court -people need to LOOK and take responsibility for their own screwups

  • May 13, 2010 at 3:46 am
    Alex says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    For purposes of discussion, none of us in this forum know all the *pertinent* facts. MB’s lovely persona and immense suffering are not pertinent to the assignment of liability for her injury.
    For example, if we were to learn that the gate had, for aesthetic purposes, been painted forest green, and been closed against a background of forest green leaves, surely no one would object to a finding of contributory negligence by the landowner for camouflaging the gate. Obviously this examples that an accurate review of the case simply IS NOT POSSIBLE without knowing ALL the facts in evidence as presented to the jury.

  • May 14, 2010 at 1:49 am
    Yay!! says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The fence was closed that day, when every single other time MB biked there, it was open. No signs, no warnings that it was closed. Not sure of the color of the gate, but I’d venture to say that if they were negligent enough to not post warning signs that the gate was closed, they’d be negligent enough to paint it green.

  • May 17, 2010 at 12:58 pm
    Reality Check says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    She couldn’t stop in time for a gate so would she not have hit a child if the gate was open and a child was standing in the opening. She would have been on trial for riding out of control and hitting the child.

  • May 17, 2010 at 1:00 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    no! i think she wanted a sign to tell her pedestrian crossing — oooh, they get right of way anyways… so what was she thinking of… this needs to be appealed!

  • May 20, 2010 at 1:22 am
    WH red biker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The gate is bright yellow with a big stop sign on it…

    I couldn’t believe it when someone pointed out to me this was the gate she hit.

    There is no reason the MDC should be paying for this.

    Now every time i go by that gate i shout out to my riding buddies “Watch out for that GATE!” Like they are going to be stupid enough to run into it….who knows, maybe if they do they can go all sue happy too and maybe ruin this awesome biking place for everyone else.

  • May 30, 2010 at 8:16 am
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I can see if the gate mysteriously swung out and hit her, I just don’t understand the basis of the law suit since she hit the gate, what about a bicyclist running into a building, or hitting a parked car will they sue Trump or Ford. I understand she was an advocate for bike trails and such, but could she properly ride, being able to balance on a bike does not constitute correct and safe riding.

  • May 31, 2010 at 5:02 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    i agree wholeheartedly and like an early statement, what if there was a kid there? would she have swerved and missed the kid and then sue the child or parents because they were in the middle of the bike path? here’s the other thing, normally from i understand this gate is normally up, which means at times, this gate can come down. so you have to be weary of that no matter what. it’s not 100% of the time going to be in the up position.

    in reality, it goes back to the original statement, where is her responsibility? she is a bike rider and she should know and be aware of the every changing situation. the weather could change and it rain causing mud slides or a tremor could knock a boulder loose. she gets into an accident because of this who she going to sue then? mother nature?

    APPEAL and WIN!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*