Jury awards $9.1 million to man left brain-damaged after bicycle crash on PCH

[RC.]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...920-story.html

Excerpt:

A jury Thursday ordered Caltrans and the city of Los Angeles to pay $9.1 million to a man who suffered brain damage after he swerved to avoid debris and lost control of his bicycle on Pacific Coast Highway in Pacific Palisades.

[JEFFTHEROBOT]

Dont make the mistake I did and go down the rabbit hole of comments down below. WOW!?!?!

[MattTuck]

Yikes.

Not really sure how I feel about this one. Tragic for sure. did the driver the truck share any responsibility?

I'm all for sending a message to the city, but man, this whole thing might have been avoided if the cyclist had slowed down or taken slightly different actions.

Note, not victim blaming here, clearly I was not in the guy's shoes -- and maybe I'd have done the same thing and had the same result happen. All we can do is try to learn from these terrible events, and let it inform the decisions we make when riding ourselves, in hopes of avoiding an outcome like this.

[ptourkin]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

Yikes.

Not really sure how I feel about this one. Tragic for sure. did the driver the truck share any responsibility?

I'm all for sending a message to the city, but man, this whole thing might have been avoided if the cyclist had slowed down or taken slightly different actions.

Note, not victim blaming here, clearly I was not in the guy's shoes -- and maybe I'd have done the same thing and had the same result happen. All we can do is try to learn from these terrible events, and let it inform the decisions we make when riding ourselves, in hopes of avoiding an outcome like this.

California is no longer a contributory negligence state, however the jury (or judge) still considers comparative fault which can impact damages.

Regardless, I'm not sure of your point - if he hadn't been riding his bike at all, he wouldn't have been hurt. Because of the city and Caltrans' negligence he had to make a split second decision to swerve, which put him outside the area the signage told him to ride. Topanga is hilly. Do you know how much time he had to make that decision?

[MattTuck]

Originally Posted by ptourkin

California is no longer a contributory negligence state, however the jury (or judge) still considers comparative fault which can impact damages.

Regardless, I'm not sure of your point - if he hadn't been riding his bike at all, he wouldn't have been hurt. Because of the city and Caltrans' negligence he had to make a split second decision to swerve, which put him outside the area the signage told him to ride. Topanga is hilly. Do you know how much time he had to make that decision?

I don't know anything about that roadway, or the particulars. All I know is that he was an experienced cyclist and often rode to work.

That said, it doesn't sound like the conditions he encountered were wildly unusual.

Sand and debris frequently roll down the cliff and onto the pavement in the area known as the Tramonto slide. State and local officials had been aware for years that the debris could create a dangerous condition along a route that is popular with bicyclists, Treyzon said.

Caltrans, which owns the highway, had hired Los Angeles to sweep the pavement at least once a month and keep it free of debris, but jury testimony and records left it unclear how often the work was performed, Treyzon said.

During the trial, he said, two city street sweepers testified that at the Tramonto slide, “they would simply swing around … and ignore it,” rather than remove the sand, gravel and rocks from the roadway.

It doesn't sound like a rock came off the cliff while he was riding, and made him swerve. It sounds like this section of road was well known to have these conditions (which he may not have been aware of). I'm glad they were found at fault for not maintaining the road (which is their duty).

My point is, I'd rather have gone a little slower and been able to stop before the debris, than be brain damaged and have ~9 million dollars. The guy's life is ruined, for what... to go 30mph instead of 20?

Like I said, I don't have all the details of the incident, but it sounds like a reminder to be aware of your surroundings and keep yourself safe. Optimal road conditions are not guaranteed. Even if some agency is supposed to be maintaining the road, you are the one who will suffer from their laziness/negligence -- so protect yourself and assume there is a rock around the next corner.

I'd rather see a $9M finding against a driver that hit a cyclist.

[bicycletricycle]

What if he was riding down a canyon road in that area and went off the side because the turn was tight. Shouldn’t the cyclist have just slowed down and ridden the road safely?

Why is the debris in the road different? The road cannot be 100% free of all types of obstacles. Why isn’t the cyclist responsible for riding unsafely?

Note: sort of devils advocate here, I’m not sure how I feel about this.

Originally Posted by ptourkin

California is no longer a contributory negligence state, however the jury (or judge) still considers comparative fault which can impact damages.

Regardless, I'm not sure of your point - if he hadn't been riding his bike at all, he wouldn't have been hurt. Because of the city and Caltrans' negligence he had to make a split second decision to swerve, which put him outside the area the signage told him to ride. Topanga is hilly. Do you know how much time he had to make that decision?

[ptourkin]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

What if he was riding down a canyon road in that area and went off the side because the turn was tight. Shouldn’t the cyclist have just slowed down and ridden the road safely?

Why is the debris in the road different? The road cannot be 100% free of all types of obstacles. Why isn’t the cyclist responsible for riding unsafely?

Note: sort of devils advocate here, I’m not sure how I feel about this.

Sorry man, all I can see is your sig.

[redir]

Not being on the jury I an't say but all I know is I see sht in the road all the time. If this sets a precedent then it will set the stage for cities to stop supporting cycling all together.

[ptourkin]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

I don't know anything about that roadway, or the particulars. All I know is that he was an experienced cyclist and often rode to work.

That said, it doesn't sound like the conditions he encountered were wildly unusual.



It doesn't sound like a rock came off the cliff while he was riding, and made him swerve. It sounds like this section of road was well known to have these conditions (which he may not have been aware of). I'm glad they were found at fault for not maintaining the road (which is their duty).

My point is, I'd rather have gone a little slower and been able to stop before the debris, than be brain damaged and have ~9 million dollars. The guy's life is ruined, for what... to go 30mph instead of 20?

Like I said, I don't have all the details of the incident, but it sounds like a reminder to be aware of your surroundings and keep yourself safe. Optimal road conditions are not guaranteed. Even if some agency is supposed to be maintaining the road, you are the one who will suffer from their laziness/negligence -- so protect yourself and assume there is a rock around the next corner.

I'd rather see a $9M finding against a driver that hit a cyclist.

The point is that the city was aware of it and even though there was a posted sign notifying cyclists where to be, they ignored the hazard as evidenced by the testimony of the people responsible for clearing it.

Generally, a municipality is responsible for hazards such as broken sidewalks if they have been notified of the hazard. This is not a groundbreaking case.

[MattTuck]

Originally Posted by ptourkin

The point is that the city was aware of it and even though there was a posted sign notifying cyclists where to be, they ignored the hazard as evidenced by the testimony of the people responsible for clearing it.

Generally, a municipality is responsible for hazards such as broken sidewalks if they have been notified of the hazard. This is not a groundbreaking case.

So, what do you take away from this case?

That there won't be any more debris on any road in LA because the city and CALTRANS are going to now take their responsibility more seriously? They'll probably create a rapid response team of debris removers to keep these canyon shoulders pristine. So, start bombing these hilly canyon roads and have faith that the path will be clear?

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by ptourkin

Sorry man, all I can see is your sig.

Fair enough

[ptourkin]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

So, what do you take away from this case?

That there won't be any more debris on any road in LA because the city and CALTRANS are going to now take their responsibility more seriously? They'll probably create a rapid response team of debris removers to keep these canyon shoulders pristine. So, start bombing these hilly canyon roads and have faith that the path will be clear?

The purpose of damages in a tort case are to make the plaintiff whole.

[MattTuck]

Originally Posted by ptourkin

The purpose of damages in a tort case are to make the plaintiff whole.

precisely.

[weisan]

There are simply too many details or pertinent information left out in the report to really appreciate what really happened.

[sailorboy]

Maybe if essential healthcare wasn't so egregiously expensive in the USA and attorneys didn't have free reign to seek future damages in the context of our costly health 'landscape' now and projected into the future at whatever factor the judge or jury was compelled to consider here, perhaps this wouldn't seem so ridiculous.

Edit: after reading the article was surprised to see that the plaintiff was actually willing to settle for much less, which is probably typical in cases like this. shocking that the city declined and decided to take it to trial which seems like a colossal mistake to this un-trained legal mind.