hmm $800k for getting doored in Chicago [Archive]

MattTuck

03-21-2013, 09:21 AM

As a driver of a car, I wouldn't drive so close to a line of parked cars that I'd risk contact with an opened door. I'm not sure why I would do so on a bike.

In any event, operating any vehicle requires vigilance and care, check those mirrors and be aware.

I also believe that other drivers are crazy, so almost always check my 6 before opening the door.

// just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you ;)

br995

03-21-2013, 09:21 AM

As someone who doesn't own a car and rides my bike everywhere, the few times I do drive or am in a car I am nearly overwhelmed with how difficult it is to pay attention to everything around you, and am reminded of just how horribly vulnerable I am on my bike - even around drivers (like myself) who are hyper-aware of cyclists.

svelocity

03-21-2013, 09:24 AM

http://lincolnpark.patch.com/articles/doored-southport-biker-gets-800k-payout

as a driver, even i still have a hard time remembering to look in the rear view before i open my door.

I grew up in Chicago and as regular bike commuter I'm surprised I didn't get doored. There's a lot of hustle and bustle in the Windy City with most people concentrating on what they are doing not what's going on around them.

Anyhow, there are many claims that painted bike lanes next to parked cars are an invitation for this kind of dooring. I would have to agree.

BumbleBeeDave

03-21-2013, 09:27 AM

MattTuck

03-21-2013, 09:34 AM

in the event you are in a bad crash with nerve damage, eat some blue m&m's (http://www.gizmag.com/blue-food-dye-spinal-injury-trauma-bbm/12474/)

christian

03-21-2013, 09:34 AM

She suffered a broken arm and permanent nerve damage. How much do you value the use of your arm? I think $800,000 is reasonable. This is the very reason drivers pay for liability insurance after all.

br995

03-21-2013, 09:39 AM

But $800k? That goes immediately into frivolous "McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit" territory to me and just gets me mad at cyclists.

Did you read the article, and have you read anything about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit?

From the article linked:
"Mullen suffered from a broken bone and permanent nerve damage to her left arm, according to court documents. Despite treatment and care from a team of doctors, she continues to experience pain in her elbow, limitations in arm movement, and decreased strength in her hand."

She has permanent, lifestyle-limiting injuries. How much is a fair amount for 40+ years of mobility impairment caused by someone else's negligence? It's certainly more than $10k.

(As for McDonald's - I encourage you to read a little bit more about that case (specifically how the original suit sought only $20k to cover past and anticipated future medical costs and actual lost wages, but how McD's countered with an offer of $800). It's not quite as cut-and-dry as popular retelling has made it out to be.)

norcalbiker

03-21-2013, 09:40 AM

As a driver of a car, I wouldn't drive so close to a line of parked cars that I'd risk contact with an opened door. I'm not sure why I would do so on a bike.

I think she has 800,000 reasons to do so. :rolleyes:

christian

03-21-2013, 09:43 AM

But $800k? That goes immediately into frivolous "McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit" territory to me and just gets me mad at cyclists.

If you read the facts of Liebeck vs. McDonald, I think you'll find the particulars of that case don't match the story repeated by proponents of tort reform, i.e. "Foolish old woman spills coffee, sues." I think the eventual settlement of $600,000 wasn't unreasonable there, either.

cmbicycles

03-21-2013, 09:45 AM

. . . being a dedicated cyclist. But this much seems excessive for this situation unless there's something serious about the context that's been omitted from this story.

You would think that publicity in order to stimulate deterrence would be desired with something like this. But when the award is this high I think it kind of negates the benefit. If I'm a driver and see this story and the award was $10k or $20k I can comprehend that based on the described circumstances and says to myself, "Man ,that's a lot of money. I better be careful."

But $800k? That goes immediately into frivolous "McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit" territory to me and just gets me mad at cyclists.

BBD

+1. This does seem a little like the McD lawsuit. The article is written in a totally biker biasedwy. I would say that both parties are equally at fault, one for not looking prior to opening thir door, and the other for riding that close to parked cars and not paying attention. Sad to hear that she has some "permanent" damage, the payout seems excessive even to cover more life long therapies, though it gives no details. I try to alwaysbe aware whenever I see someone sitting in sparked car that I am riding near,though luckily most ofmy riding is more out in the sticks so parked cars are less a problem. People today are less and less aware of everything going on around them, drivers and cyclists alike. Of course I am only talking about the other guy, certainly I would never have that problem of being distracted:rolleyes:

BumbleBeeDave

03-21-2013, 09:51 AM

. . and I was using the McDonald's lawsuit as an example of public perception, NOT as a reference to the actual outcome of that suit.

I have no idea how much those injuries might end up handicapping this particular individual for the rest of her life or if that will lead to $800k worth of actual lost wages or pain and suffering. "Pain and suffering" awards are notoriously variable and can depend on who is deciding what they are worth. I also try to keep in mind that lawyers frequently make injuries and lasting handicaps sound as bad as possible to maximize possible awards for their clients. The "permanent" handicap mentioned in this story may turn out to be anythning but that. It will take years to find out.

My impressions are based only on the story I just read. Of course the McDonald's case is not as cut and dried as urban legend has made it sound. My point was that IMHO many readers who are drivers are going to skim THIS story over their morning coffee and are likely to feel that much of an award is excessive. They're gonna read "broken arm" and "$800k" and react to that.

BBD

Did you read the article, and have you read anything about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit?

From the article linked:
"Mullen suffered from a broken bone and permanent nerve damage to her left arm, according to court documents. Despite treatment and care from a team of doctors, she continues to experience pain in her elbow, limitations in arm movement, and decreased strength in her hand."

She has permanent, lifestyle-limiting injuries. How much is a fair amount for 40+ years of mobility impairment caused by someone else's negligence? It's certainly more than $10k.

(As for McDonald's - I encourage you to read a little bit more about that case (specifically how the original suit sought only $20k to cover past and anticipated future medical costs and actual lost wages, but how McD's countered with an offer of $800). It's not quite as cut-and-dry as popular retelling has made it out to be.)

christian

03-21-2013, 09:58 AM

I would say that both parties are equally at fault, one for not looking prior to opening thir door, and the other for riding that close to parked cars and not paying attention.You'd be 100% wrong, based on the vehicle code in every state.

The relevant Illinois statute (my bolding):

(625 ILCS 5/11-1407) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1407)
Sec. 11-1407. Opening and closing vehicle doors. No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so, and can be done without interfering with the movement of other traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open on the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.
(Source: P.A. 79-1069.)

eddief

03-21-2013, 10:02 AM

as a cyclist, i'd like to see a ton of billboards or whatever to remind city drivers, me included, about carefully opening their doors. you know, like those useless buckle up signs out on the highways. but maybe dooring reminders would actually be helpful.

as a driver...and a cyclist, i think the world should come down on those who don't/won't use their phucking turn signals. so simple, so helpful, so safe. i always wonder what percentage of freeway accidents happen due to one car changing lanes into another cause one or both did not signal the lane change.

torquer

03-21-2013, 10:04 AM

My first reaction to the story was "show me the money!" The $800K was the award; what was the driver's insurance coverage, maybe $100K tops; then what's the driver's net worth?

The injured cyclist will get some payout (let's hope). Will it be fair? Is even the full (and I think unlikely) $800K payout excessive? I suffered an accident and went through this process; I can't compare my injuries to this cyclists, and my eventual payout was a lot less than the headline amount, but I know I wouldn't choose to go through what I went through (eight hours in the ER, plastic surgery, six months of PT and dental work) for multiples of what I was paid.

On the other hand, in some parts of the word folks will sell a kidney for one tenth of what I got, and consider themselves fortunate. Context is everything, I guess.

FlashUNC

03-21-2013, 10:15 AM

Given I've had some friends in Chicago who have gotten doored, I'd hope this kind of settlement gives folks at least pause. Its not hard. Check a mirror before you open the door in the street side. It ain't rocket science.

Its also awesome how quickly folks are patronizing what is a life-changing injury.

My elbow damage was completely self-inflicted, and its healed extremely well all things considered. But a year out, my ulnar nerve still persistently tingles like pins and needles, along with some range of motion issues for the joint. I'll be dealing with it for the rest of my life, and the doc cannot give me a solid answer on when or if the nerve will ever calm down again.

It sucks and I wouldn't wish this on anyone. So yeah, good for her on the payout.

chwupper

03-21-2013, 10:21 AM

+1. This does seem a little like the McD lawsuit. The article is written in a totally biker biasedwy. I would say that both parties are equally at fault, one for not looking prior to opening thir door, and the other for riding that close to parked cars and not paying attention. Sad to hear that she has some "permanent" damage, the payout seems excessive even to cover more life long therapies, though it gives no details. I try to alwaysbe aware whenever I see someone sitting in sparked car that I am riding near,though luckily most ofmy riding is more out in the sticks so parked cars are less a problem. People today are less and less aware of everything going on around them, drivers and cyclists alike. Of course I am only talking about the other guy, certainly I would never have that problem of being distracted:rolleyes:

As someone who rides the streets mentioned in this article on nearly a daily basis, I think it's a bit naive to claim equal fault in doorings like these. Of course, the streets are wayyyy too narrow to accommodate the buses, all the cars, parking, and bike lanes. Then factor in the quality of the streets themselves. On Clark, I constantly have to do pothole dodging just to stay upright. All that being said -- motorists around here simply don't pay enough attention. And bicyclists are keenly aware of this fact. Often there is nothing cyclists can do to avoid a door that opens right in their path. You don't even have to be going fast to get doored. Veer into traffic to avoid a door, God help you. People get run over around here all the time.

You think $800K was a lot, I wonder what will come of this case if the driver is actually caught:

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/03/20/breakthrough-in-search-for-hit-and-run-driver-no-thanks-to-police/

merlincustom1

03-21-2013, 10:22 AM

No one whose only knowledge of the case derives from the newspaper article can sit here and say the award was excessive. 12 jurors, people like you and me, heard the case and put number on it.

martl

03-21-2013, 10:32 AM

fiamme red

03-21-2013, 10:35 AM

If you hit a cardoor, you were riding too close to the parked cars. simple as that.I was once doored by someone exiting a car that was stopped in heavy traffic, not parked. The driver was distraught not because I was hurt, but because I got blood all over the door fabric. :rolleyes:

br995

03-21-2013, 10:36 AM

If you hit a cardoor, the person opening the door absolutely failed to ensure they could do so safely. simple as that.
FTFY

Obviously we need to be aware of doors and do our best to stay away from them, but I'm amazed that people on a cycling forum are placing all of - or even most of - the blame on the cyclist in this situation. :no:

jr59

03-21-2013, 10:37 AM

I hope that a judge or jury sees things the same way for me.

I was hit by a semi on July 3, broken shoulder blade 13 times broke.

I still have a lot of trouble doing simple things, like putting on a jacket or shirt.
I too will have nerve damage to my hand. So much that it is hard for me to do watch repair work these days. I still don't sleep thru the night because of the shoulder.

So here is the question, what's fair? I'm not trying to get rich. Just asking, what would you think is fair?

martl

03-21-2013, 10:38 AM

FTFY

Obviously we need to be aware of doors and do our best to stay away from them, but I'm amazed that people on a cycling forum are placing all of - or even most of - the blame squarely on the cyclist in this situation. :no:
Not trying to. Just my experience from being an urban cyclist for 40 years. There are strategies to avoid dangerou situations. Every door i stay out of reach off is a door that can't hit me.
I know it sounds arrogant but i don't have a better way to put it.

Still i get a creepy feeling when i see people hugging the side of the street, as if they didn't want to be in the way of the "real traffic". This is kind of asking to be overtaken without enough room and it is just a matter of time before you meet a car door.

gavingould

03-21-2013, 10:50 AM

as a cyclist and driver in Chicago, there's a lot to think about here.

when i'm riding, i witness a lot of poor driving, unawareness, carelessness.
when i'm driving, you better believe i see a lot of ignorant, downright dangerous (to themselves and others) riders.

both sides are often at fault -
cyclists seem to think they have carte blanche, that they're untouchable.
drivers seem to think that cyclists are insignificant and exist merely to be in their way.

in recent years there have been quite a few cyclist deaths due to collisions with vehicles here. the press terms each as an accident, even when there is willful negligence on the part of the driver, the general public acts as though nothing could have been done. when there is proof of illegal turn/lane change/no signal/red light/uninsured driver/unlicensed/drunk/etc, it's the same story. "that cyclist was in the wrong place at the wrong time"

now... the converse of that is that some of the cyclists around here (and i use that term loosely) ride as though they are exempt from any road law or common sense, and some of them get killed too. but at no fault of the driver, who has to live with that trauma and guilt...

"protected" bike lanes (http://www.chicagobikes.org/public/pbl.php) have been slowly appearing around the popular bike commuting routes, though much more pedestrian/driver education is needed before these become very effective - they're seen as another good place to stop and park for a bit, or a good place to hop over and lean out into traffic to see if the bus is coming. i've also seen them used as motorcycle 'car traffic bypass' lanes in rush hour, and some cars are small enough that the driver thinks it's ok for them to use too.

i've started to hate riding in this city, and driving is right up there too. i want to move.

slidey

03-21-2013, 11:05 AM

Two things I can't grasp -
1. Why is it difficult to check your mirrors, before you drive away from a standstill, or before you open your doors? I just don't understand any reason why it is hard - its plain common sense, and for me it is a force of habit. Billboards to educate drivers to look at their mirrors??? Really??? That's like billboards to remind people to use deodorant 'cause BO in an elevator kills! :cool:

2. I certainly can't put a price on someone's life being altered by a retarded driver's lapse of attention. Would you be able to put a price on it, if it were you with the permanent nerve damage? The settlement amount won't take her pain away, but it'll at least take away the worry of not being able to get treatment for it at apt intervals due to lack of money.

slidey

03-21-2013, 11:07 AM

No amount is fair, but >=$800K is a start.

Sorry to hear about your hand!

So here is the question, what's fair? I'm not trying to get rich. Just asking, what would you think is fair?

svelocity

03-21-2013, 11:09 AM

...but there are more negatives to them than the positives.

First, it puts the rider right in the door zone.
Second, it gives the rider a false sense of security while riding in the "protected" lane.
Third, it gives automobile drivers a false sense of security...meaning drivers believe cyclists will stay with inside of the lane. This leads to less awareness to the cyclist and likely increased speeds while passing.

Would have the same accident occurred if no bike lane was present, perhaps; however, the lane forced the situation.

It would be real interesting if she sued the city next.

DukeHorn

03-21-2013, 11:09 AM

So according to Marti's logic, every cyclist in SF in the designated bike lanes is doing the wrong thing :eek:

Cyclists can't win in this situation. Either you take the bike lanes and risk getting doored or you have to ride in front of the cars during rush hours (let's say on Harrison and Mission). Can't win either way then....

fiamme red

03-21-2013, 11:09 AM

"protected" bike lanes (http://www.chicagobikes.org/public/pbl.php) have been slowly appearing around the popular bike commuting routes, though much more pedestrian/driver education is needed before these become very effective - they're seen as another good place to stop and park for a bit, or a good place to hop over and lean out into traffic to see if the bus is coming. i've also seen them used as motorcycle 'car traffic bypass' lanes in rush hour, and some cars are small enough that the driver thinks it's ok for them to use too.The dooring that I described in post #20 above happened in a street in Manhattan with a "protected" bike lane (i.e., bike lane next to curb on right, then parking lane, car traffic lane, and another parking lane). The "protected" bike lane was completely impassable, being blocked by construction for two blocks. The traffic lane was much narrower than before the bike lane had been installed, so when the door was flung open in front of me, I couldn't swerve around it, and had nowhere to go but right into it.

torquer

03-21-2013, 11:21 AM

You think $800K was a lot, I wonder what will come of this case if the driver is actually caught:

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/03/20/breakthrough-in-search-for-hit-and-run-driver-no-thanks-to-police/
Good to know that it's not just NYC's finest who don't seem to give f**k when you're assaulted with a 2 1/2 ton weapon:
http://gothamist.com/2013/03/19/driver_hits_cyclist_in_bike_lane_an.php

The takeaway from both these stories should be that if the cops don't care, our only recourse is to sic a pit-bull litigator on the driver. Especially since, unlike vast parts of our country, we can't resort to a "stand your ground" defense.

Likes2ridefar

03-21-2013, 11:21 AM

I was once doored by someone exiting a car that was stopped in heavy traffic, not parked. The driver was distraught not because I was hurt, but because I got blood all over the door fabric. :rolleyes:

I had nearly the exact same thing happen to me a few years ago. Double parked with no lights flashing on a relatively busy manhattan street sitting right below a just changed green light. I assumed they were getting ready to move...nope.

But they got mad at me for hitting their door and damaging the hinges due to the force of impact from my front wheel. The blood stayed inside my shirt, unbeknownst to me until I got home, and realized I had a puncture wound from the corner of their door down to my ribs on my right pec...

I didn't get any money, but I didn't report it. Went to the ER for stitches but left without them due to the very sad state of ER room at columbia presby.

BumbleBeeDave

03-21-2013, 11:22 AM

No one whose only knowledge of the case derives from the newspaper article can sit here and say the award was excessive. 12 jurors, people like you and me, heard the case and put number on it.

. . . you're talking about me in part, here's what I wrote . . .

"But this much seems excessive for this situation unless there's something serious about the context that's been omitted from this story.

Perhaps you missed those parts? I meant what I said. It may NOT be excessive. It just seems so from the little info I've seen so far.

Lotsa knee-jerk reactions going on in this thread from both sides.

BBD

br995

03-21-2013, 11:41 AM

But they got mad at me for hitting their door and damaging the hinges due to the force of impact from my front wheel.
The only time I was 'doored' it was by the driver of a Mercedez who FLEW past my girlfriend and I only to pull over and double park 100 yards ahead. I figured he might be getting out so as we passed (on a narrow city street that was not designed for double parking) I put my hand out to my side as a buffer in case he opened.

Which of course he did.

He then jumped out of his car and started chasing me screaming "DON'T YOU ****ING TOUCH MY CAR!"

Dude was clearly off his hinges so I wasn't about to try to explain the finer points of how opening your door into someone else does not constitute them willfully touching your car.

Vientomas

03-21-2013, 11:46 AM

I read the article to say "court settlement". I don't know exactly what that means but it sounds as through this was not an award given by a judge or jury - but a settlement agreed to by the Parties. If the insurance co. agrees to pay, ya can't blame the lawyers or the judicial system!

jr59

03-21-2013, 12:48 PM

dbh

03-21-2013, 01:07 PM

If you hit a cardoor, you were riding too close to the parked cars. simple as that.

Not if she was riding in a bike lane, which often are squarely in the "door zone." In some jurisdictions you can be ticketed for not riding in a bike lane.

Likes2ridefar

03-21-2013, 01:09 PM

Not if she was riding in a bike lane, which often are squarely in the "door zone." In some jurisdictions you can be ticketed for not riding in a bike lane.

Add to that pretty much every street in NYC. Either you get doored, run over a jay-walking pedestrian, or you get run over by a moving car if you opt to not ride along the side of the street...tough choice.

O, and I received a ticket on 8th avenue last summer for not riding in the bike lane. I argued it was safer to ride with traffic but was not successful.

br995

03-21-2013, 01:11 PM

, and I received a ticket on 8th avenue last summer for not riding in the bike lane. I argued it was safer to ride with traffic but was not successful.

That sucks. In Boston I believe you are legally allowed to use the lane when it is 'unsafe' to use the dedicated bicycle path/lane.

Likes2ridefar

03-21-2013, 01:13 PM

That sucks. In Boston I believe you are legally allowed to use the lane when it is 'unsafe' to use the dedicated bicycle path/lane.

The funny thing was, the cop handing out the tickets to every cyclist he saw had his car parked in the middle of the bike lane.

he nabbed 2 others while I was there getting written up. He told me wow, you have an impressive driving record, or lack there of, but it's probably because you ride a bike everywhere.

BumbleBeeDave

03-21-2013, 01:32 PM

So what is fair? How do you put a price on having to learn a new trade? or not being able to sleep in a bed for any time over 3-4 hours before you turn and pain wakes you up?

I see a lot of excessive, but if it happened to you, or yours, what is fair?

. . . and that's why I said it SEEMS excessive to me. There are lots of details that weren't made clear in this story.

That's usually the way it is with all of these media stories we end up debating. What is this person's profession or career and how would this injury truly affect their abilitiy to earn a living? What's the general long-term prognosis with nerve damage like this? What kind of physical therapy is the person receiving? How much of this $800k will the laywers get? What's the plaintiff's attitude during the incident and during this trial? What about defendant's attitude? Repentant or defiant?

So many aspects that a jury might have been privvy to that we are not. Again, that's why I said it SEEMED excessive. But I would want to kmnow a lot more before really making up my mind.

BBD

DukeHorn

03-21-2013, 01:36 PM

Let's see, over 2 years (nearly 3 years in fact--35 months) to get to this settlement? I think there's probably some track record in that time period to figure out what part of the victim's nerve damage will recover and how this will impact her future earning and enjoyment of life. Any frankly, the lawyer's cut doesn't matter at all. Courts don't look at the hourly fees/contingency aspect (or they shouldn't) of the plaintiff.

It's not like this was a knee-jerk settlement a few months after, especially since the driver admitted she didn't look at all.

Vientomas

03-21-2013, 01:45 PM

. . . and that's why I said it SEEMS excessive to me. There are lots of details that weren't made clear in this story.

That's usually the way it is with all of these media stories we end up debating. What is this person's profession or career and how would this injury truly affect their abilitiy to earn a living? What's the general long-term prognosis with nerve damage like this? What kind of physical therapy is the person receiving? How much of this $800k will the laywers get? What's the plaintiff's attitude during the incident and during this trial? What about defendant's attitude? Repentant or defiant?

So many aspects that a jury might have been privvy to that we are not. Again, that's why I said it SEEMED excessive. But I would want to kmnow a lot more before really making up my mind.

BBD

I think you are missing the point, there was no trial. There was an agreement entered into to settle the claims. Is it your position that two parties should not be able to settle their claims on their own terms and that you, or anyone else, should have the right to deem their agreement to be seemingly excessive? If the parties are OK with it, why shouldn't you?

BumbleBeeDave

03-21-2013, 01:52 PM

I think you are missing the point, there was no trial. There was an agreement entered into to settle the claims. Is it your position that two parties should not be able to settle their claims on their own terms and that you, or anyone else, should have the right to deem their agreement to be seemingly excessive? If the parties are OK with it, why shouldn't you?

So I'm not allowed to have an opinion about a story I read in the newspaper? :rolleyes: Interesting . . .

I don't think I'm missing any point. The OP posted this link and voiced his opinion. Several others voiced theirs. Then I voiced mine. Then others voice theirs. Some people disagreed. Others speculated. Good conversation. It's what we do here. We're allowed to disagree. :)

BBD

CunegoFan

03-21-2013, 01:58 PM

If you read the facts of Liebeck vs. McDonald, I think you'll find the particulars of that case don't match the story repeated by proponents of tort reform, i.e. "Foolish old woman spills coffee, sues." I think the eventual settlement of $600,000 wasn't unreasonable there, either.

Actually if you read the details you'll find that it is worse than the story repeated by the proponents of tort reform. She did not simply spill coffee on herself. The lid did not accidently pop off. She put a cup of hot coffee between her legs, pried the lid off, and, as anyone with an IQ above 80 could predict, without the support of the lid, her thighs pushed the sides of the cup together and the coffee overflowed the cup. She did this while seatbelted in, so she could not get out of the way. The coffee was not notably hotter than coffee served in many surrounding drive-through restaurants.

What would have been fair is for her to pay for her own stupidity. The tort industry is so embarrassed by this case that they have spent years putting out propaganda trying to excuse what is clearly a frivolous case. The number of legal organizations and law firms that have web pages about it is truly amazing. It is like every shyster or .trade association of shysters feels the need to have a webpage explaining why hot coffee should not be hot. If you listen to these chiselers they would have you believe coffee should be served at 140 degrees. Uh-huh. Does anyone want to drink the last third of a cup of coffee that starts out at tepid 140 degrees, especially if they had to drive a few miles to their office after getting the cup?

redir

03-21-2013, 01:58 PM

in the event you are in a bad crash with nerve damage, eat some blue m&m's (http://www.gizmag.com/blue-food-dye-spinal-injury-trauma-bbm/12474/)

Wow, interesting.

martl

03-21-2013, 02:07 PM

Not if she was riding in a bike lane, which often are squarely in the "door zone." In some jurisdictions you can be ticketed for not riding in a bike lane.

I know, i live in one of those. That's why we (cycling activists) in my country fight mandatory bike lines like the plague - they ammount for the majority of bike-related accidents. Mostly on intersections.

Vientomas

03-21-2013, 02:30 PM

So I'm not allowed to have an opinion about a story I read in the newspaper? :rolleyes: Interesting . . .

I don't think I'm missing any point. The OP posted this link and voiced his opinion. Several others voiced theirs. Then I voiced mine. Then others voice theirs. Some people disagreed. Others speculated. Good conversation. It's what we do here. We're allowed to disagree. :)

BBD

The point is your discussion premise was flawed. You assumed the $800k was the result of a trial. It was not. That is the point you missed. Far too many people bash the judicial system for awards they perceive to be excessive. This was intimated in your post where in questioned the demeanor of the litigants in trial as a means to explain the $800k.

I encourage you to discuss the settlement in the context of the facts - a settlement, not a trial. A discussion which would not include speculation of what happened at trial.

Do you still feel the $800k is excessive when the sum was voluntarily paid by the Insurance Co. and was not the result of a jury verdict?

If so, upon what facts to do base your opinion? I hope these questions make for good conversation. :)

soupless

03-21-2013, 02:40 PM

merlincustom1

03-21-2013, 02:44 PM

. . . you're talking about me in part, here's what I wrote . . .

"But this much seems excessive for this situation unless there's something serious about the context that's been omitted from this story.

Perhaps you missed those parts? I meant what I said. It may NOT be excessive. It just seems so from the little info I've seen so far.

Lotsa knee-jerk reactions going on in this thread from both sides.

BBD

I wasn't singling you out, but the point is the same. I didn't miss those parts. You really can't have an opinion that the 800k is excessive, or even that it seems excessive, as you put it, if all you know about the severity of the injury comes from the limited info in the story. There are many components to a damages award, including past and future lost wages, past and future pain and suffering, past and future medical expense, disfigurement from surgical scarring, etc., which makes having an opinion on excessiveness meaningless without the context. Your original post also leapt from the 800k to the McDonald's coffee case in a nanosecond. This case is nothing at all like the McDonald's case. You also mentioned 10 or 20k, I think, as being reasonable in this case. Again, you really have no info which forms a basis for such a valuation. It now looks like this was not a verdict, but a settlement reached with the carrier. Believe me, if the carrier paid 800k, they thought it was worth at least that much. It you ever have the misfortune to be seriously injured in an accident caused by someone's negligence, you have a right to be compensated as fully as the law allows.

merlincustom1

03-21-2013, 02:46 PM

OTB

03-21-2013, 03:38 PM

I live right off that street and ride it daily.

Cycling advocacy is as strong as it has ever been in last 20 years in Chicago. And there are more cyclists, and heightened awareness of cyclists overall, but civility is still variable with both parties contributing.

I am keenly aware that my safety is still probably mostly in my hands - meaning riding as defensively as possible, stopping and putting my foot down at stop signs (as the other cyclists run the stop signs and get yelled at by motorists), and watching for doors. But there will always be elements out of my control.

More cars and bikes side by side raises the statistical probability of accidents, no matter how careful we all are.

Short of re-engineering our streets so that cars and bikes are completely separated, there will always be risk.

Is $800k too much? This cyclist, who was avoiding a door on a street with well marked bike lane last October, would probably say "no,"... If he was able to today:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-06/news/ct-met-semi-hits-bicyclist-20121006_1_bike-lanes-bike-share-program-bicycle-lane

1/2 Wheeler

03-21-2013, 03:44 PM

...
Do you still feel the $800k is excessive when the sum was voluntarily paid by the Insurance Co. and was not the result of a jury verdict?

Yes

...

If so, upon what facts to do base your opinion?

The same "facts" that someone else would use to sat it is reasonable.

merlincustom1

03-21-2013, 05:08 PM

Yes

The same "facts" that someone else would use to sat it is reasonable.

Why is the 800k excessive?

djg21

03-21-2013, 06:25 PM

Don't you also have to assume that the lawyer took the case on contingency, so their frim takes about 1/3 and then I'm assuming Uncle Sam will take his cut (maybe 1/3 or so) which brings us to about $265K.

If Ms. Mullen was uninsured it's entirely feasible she spent thousands upon thousands on emergency care and therapy afterwards.

Also, Southport Corridor drivers are notoriously inattentive and callously insensitive towards peds/cyclists in general.

Lawyer takes contingency, but amount paid in settlement of personal injury claim should not be taxable. It isn't income, but rather restitution for permanent injury and pain & suffering. Only lost wages are taxable, so this is taken into account when structuring the settlement.

If the cyclist suffered significant and permanent injury, as stated in the article, the settlement would seem reasonable, especially if the cyclist is permanently disabled as a result.

scooter

03-21-2013, 06:49 PM

I saw a woman get doored on Pennsylvania Ave in Foggy Bottom (Wash, D.C.). She was hemmed in by steady car traffic to her left and a person opened the driver-side door in the middle of a line of parked cars. She smashed into the door and somersaulted over the door and then slammed into the hood. Driver inattention is the operative word these days.

School crossing guard Adrian Dantley claims the majority of drivers he sees are on their phones or blackberries. Yeah, that Adrian Dantley (Detroit Piston NBA Hall of Famer). Here's his comments from the Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/wp/2013/03/20/adrian-dantley-former-nba-star-says-crossing-guard-job-is-meaningful-way-to-fill-his-days/

Grumbs

03-22-2013, 09:26 AM

I personally don't see how $800K could ever be considered excessive in this case. How much would any of us accept in return for a permanently, slightly-ruined part of our body? There's no trading in your arm...ever. And since its attached to you, there's no way to ever get away from it -- if there's chronic pain involved, until the day you die, there's no amount of money that would make that worth it to me. For temporary "pain and suffering" it could be excessive, because we can eventually fully recover from most psychological trauma we experience as adults. This woman's life will never be the same, and there's no way she'll ever be able to fully put it in the past. Someone paying $800k for a stupid mistake, on the other hand, at least has plenty of opportunity to recover from the financial injury.

soulspinner

03-22-2013, 09:41 AM

You'd be 100% wrong, based on the vehicle code in every state.

The relevant Illinois statute (my bolding):

(625 ILCS 5/11-1407) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1407)
Sec. 11-1407. Opening and closing vehicle doors. No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so, and can be done without interfering with the movement of other traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open on the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.
(Source: P.A. 79-1069.)

Once got a ticket for opening the door on my car and a speeding vehicle on the one way street got damaged. My fault according to ny mv law.

christian

03-22-2013, 09:43 AM

Once got a ticket for opening the door on my car and a speeding vehicle on the one way street got damaged. My fault according to ny mv law.

Yes, that aligns with what I quoted. You can't open a door unless it's safe to do so. Glad you weren't hurt!

1/2 Wheeler

03-22-2013, 09:46 AM

Why is the 800k excessive?

Becuase it is too much money.

merlincustom1

03-22-2013, 10:47 AM

Becuase it is too much money.

Does circular reasoning work for you in all aspects of life, or just here?

DukeHorn

03-22-2013, 11:08 AM

Yes

The same "facts" that someone else would use to sat it is reasonable.

You seem to mistake logical inferences from the settlement for "facts". I guess that dry wit is your defense mechanism for your use of "facts" to "argue" that 800k is too much. Based on your set of "facts", (a) insurance companies are in the business of giving money away, (b) 3 years is not a long enough time to determine nerve damage recovery, (c) you obviously know the woman's life situation/job earnings/current physical capacity. Glad to know that you're such a savant.....