AHHHHHHHH wrote:
"Stacy Neria used to run six miles a day, six days a week _ but she never trained on Sundays out of deference to her husband and to God."
Only Fox, or maybe some nut job televangelist would open a story with this drivel.
Keep on mocking Christians, my son. They inherit the earth and rule it forever and ever. And, there isn't a thing you can do to prevent it.
No, only the meek inherit the Earth, and the meek are not limited to Christians.
Or even people.
9 wrote:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs22thru25.htmDoesnt really say what direction you have to go but if it's equating use of bike lanes as a substitute for sidewalks, I'm guessing they can't mandate what direction you are heading in the bike lanes.
See page 79, illustration on page 78:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl600.pdfIf there is no sidewalk, walk facing the oncoming traffic (see the picture). Don’t walk or jog on any freeway where signs tell you that pedestrians are not allowed.
*Joggers must obey pedestrian rules.
Alright, guys, here's the skinny on this case:
Dana Point was notified a number of years prior that the bike lane was not in compliance. The city had faced an earlier claim from a cyclist who was killed, and at that time they were notified that the lane was too wide. The lane was 12 feet wide, about the same size as a regular traffic lane. It was not the normal 4-5 feet for a bike lane. Second, the city failed to post the required sign notifying drivers of the presence of a bike lane, nor did they paint the required "bike lane" inside of the lane itself.
The city has paid out a couple of claims for deceased cyclists, but since they are dead, and don't require a lifetime of medical attention, their settlements have been significantly lower. Also, their are a few more cases pending, and the city has already voted to place a concrete barrier between the traffic lane and the bike lane. But they haven't done it yet.
I agree that the taxpayers of Dana Point should not have to be burdened because of the actions of a hit and run driver with three prior DUI convictions. However, Dana Point did have the opportunity a few years back to remedy the situation and release themselves from future liabilities. Guess what? They didn't. I'm no lawyer, so someone else can chime in regarding a parties responsibility when they do not rectify a dangerous situations after notification. This is exactly the same approach that the McDonald's hot coffee lady took. McDonald's knew the danger of serving their coffee at temperatures deemed too hot, but failed to make corrections, opting to play the numbers game with their customers.
Pamela Andersons Left Nipple wrote:
This is exactly the same approach that the McDonald's hot coffee lady took. McDonald's knew the danger of serving their coffee at temperatures deemed too hot, but failed to make corrections, opting to play the numbers game with their customers.
Yep... McD's had received hundreds of complaints. They used to serve their coffee at temps that caused 3rd degree burns in just a few seconds.
One of their execs deemed the number of complaints something along the lines of "statiscally insignificant." And that was one of the main reasons the jury smacked them with punitive damages roughly equal to 2 days' coffee sales nation-wide; a couple million $$.
Everytime a jury awards a plaintiff a large award some ignorant yahoo drags up the McDonalds coffee case.
McDonalds got what they deserved. they knew their coffee was super heated, they were warned numerous times that is was burning people, the did nothing because fixing the problem was too expensive. Case closed.
o rly? wrote:
No, only the meek inherit the Earth...
...I mean, umm, if that's okay with everybody...
I love tort.
I prefer to have use of my arms and legs and have $25 or even $50 million.
Thanks for giving a link to the laws and specifically pg 78.
Pg 78 states:
The law states that drivers must
take care for the safety of any
pedestrian—but if the driver can’t
stop in time to avoid hitting you,
the law won’t help you.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl600.pdf
I am not sure if the illustration applies to this case. There is a bike path on the highway.
I ran on this road 2 years ago after the Dana Point Turkey Trot. I did run facing traffic but bikers weren't happy that I went against their flow.
POD
present wrote:
...I mean, umm, if that's okay with everybody...
Don’t walk or jog on any freeway where signs tell you that pedestrians are not allowed.
Does the city have signs that say do not jog or walk on the freeway on this section?
>I am not sure if the illustration applies to this case.
That is in reference to the two cases above stating that you have to give right of way to a car if you are jaywalking or crossing at an intersection where a crosswalk is not clearly defined.
>Dont you agree though that the city had a lazy defense if they didn't drag out the common knoweldge of running against and not with traffic?
Why does it matter? Are you more visible from the front? Is it their fault if they see you but don't dodge the car fast enough?
I was told by a friend who was more familiar with the McDonald's case that one of the reasons they were hammered is that they apparently made a conscious decision to keep the coffee quite hot because people got fewer refills and it increased their profit. Does that sound familiar to anybody?
Anyway, the net upshot of this case is that cities could potentially decide not to put in bike lanes at all.
Who the hell is saying you shouldn't run with traffic? You think should run against traffic? That's good, then when a car is coming out of a driveway or merging onto the road they will hit you because they are looking the other way.
ALWAYS RUN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE TRAFFIC.
Buddy wrote:
Who the hell is saying you shouldn't run with traffic? You think should run against traffic? That's good, then when a car is coming out of a driveway or merging onto the road they will hit you because they are looking the other way.
ALWAYS RUN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE TRAFFIC.
What the crap, dude? You're supposed to run, and walk, against traffic because you can see and hear them better; drivers can see you just as well from the front or the back. Also, last time I checked, when you pull out into traffic, you're supposed to look both ways first.
I'M READING THIS AND DRINKING AND MAKING A TORTS OUTLINE ALL AT THE SAME TIME. MY TORTS OUTLINE IS VERY BAD. DOES ANYONE WANT SO SHARE?? OKAY, I UNDERSTAND.
Pamela Andersons Left Nipple wrote:
Alright, guys, here's the skinny on this case:
Dana Point was notified a number of years prior that the bike lane was not in compliance. The city had faced an earlier claim from a cyclist who was killed, and at that time they were notified that the lane was too wide. The lane was 12 feet wide, about the same size as a regular traffic lane. It was not the normal 4-5 feet for a bike lane. Second, the city failed to post the required sign notifying drivers of the presence of a bike lane, nor did they paint the required "bike lane" inside of the lane itself.
The city has paid out a couple of claims for deceased cyclists, but since they are dead, and don't require a lifetime of medical attention, their settlements have been significantly lower. Also, their are a few more cases pending, and the city has already voted to place a concrete barrier between the traffic lane and the bike lane. But they haven't done it yet.
I agree that the taxpayers of Dana Point should not have to be burdened because of the actions of a hit and run driver with three prior DUI convictions. However, Dana Point did have the opportunity a few years back to remedy the situation and release themselves from future liabilities. Guess what? They didn't. I'm no lawyer, so someone else can chime in regarding a parties responsibility when they do not rectify a dangerous situations after notification. This is exactly the same approach that the McDonald's hot coffee lady took. McDonald's knew the danger of serving their coffee at temperatures deemed too hot, but failed to make corrections, opting to play the numbers game with their customers.
thank you for this excellent post.
after reading the article, i'm a little surprised they only received $50 million. i would imagine their actual damages are higher than that. i believe 4 people were hit, 2 were paralyzed from the neck down and need constant care and much physical therapy. if we assume a breakdown of $20 million, $20 million, $5 million and $5 million, with the two paralyzed women receiving $20 million each, it would appear to me that they will run out of money within their expected lifetimes.
if PALN's post is accurate, seems like a no brainer case. city was clearly liable with that much warning.
and for those posting that the driver should be the one paying the answer is certainly yes, the driver should be the first one sued. but the fact that one person is actionably negligent does not prevent a second party from also being actionably negligent. a common example would be an employee and his employer. it sounds like the city had plenty of advance knowledge that this bike lane was a danger to cyclists and pedestrians and they bet that it would cost more to fix than to pay out a few judgments. looks like they were wrong.
finally, a brief thanks to those who have posted the actual facts of the coffee case. it's so tiresome that people insist on bringing that case up constantly as an example of an abusive tort case.
Shut up Hillary!