Joggers hit by CAR settle for $50M FROM CITY

it's true that the city attorney would be concerned about the potential for a jury awarding the true cost of lifetime medical care - perhaps double or triple the $50 million settlement - and that would be a strong incentive to settle. you're also correct

nevertheless, i don't think you are conceiving of the proximate cause requirement in tort law properly. there can be more than one tortfeasor with legal liability and there can be more than one proximate cause. proximate cause is a bit of a soft, difficult-to-define line. based on the limited facts that we have, and my somewhat fuzzy memory of black letter torts law, i think there is proximate cause here to hold the city liable. the most important facts, to me, involve the city having previous notice of the danger of the bike lane.

i'm not about to spend time researching torts case law in california to make an argument here, so my take could be inaccurate, but i'll bet that a city attorney knows enough to avoid settling for $50 million if the case wouldn't get beyond summary judgment. and i'll bet that the typical state judge in california is competent enough to know whether california case law would allow a finding of proximate cause (as well as but-for cause, duty and other requirements for an actionable tort).

James D wrote:

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.

Hmm, I always thought christians were called to serve and wash people's feet rather than build empires and start wars.

Laurelwood wrote:

... It was the result of a driver being intoxicated and failing to maintain proper control of his vehicle.

wait, what? who was drunk? where did that come from?

My bad. Got confused. Felony hit & run. DUI came out of nowhere. Sorry.

Nothing in the article however indicates that the driver was confused about the bike lane. So I am still wondering how this became the the arugable basis to support this award. Sure there are prior fatalities, but were they in fact due to confusion as to the bike lane? It is a solid white line which in most jurisdiction means you cannot move from the lane of travel until the marking becomes broken.

Bottom line - who controls the vehicle which kills a pedestrian or runner? The driver of the vehicle. Is this bike lane, other than being outside of the specifications noted earlier, dangerous? Obviously someone feels it is. I'm sure a challenge to dismiss on SJ would had been denied since there was a question of fact in this case, but that does not mean that settlement was proper.

Proximate cause of a faulty design of the bike lane is not as good as the vehicle. The vehicle striking the runner is the primary cause of the injury and the design of the bike lane is not an intervening cause. However, the earlier posting that the design could be a proximate cause is noted, I just disagree with it.

As I said earlier, deep pockets is the reason for this settlement more than a faulty design to the bike lane. A driver maintaining proper lookout would be in a position to avoid the collision.

I would pose this question - if there was in fact no bike lane and no sidewalk and the runner was forced to run in the street since there was nowhere else to run, would the city still be liable? Does the city have a duty to provide a safe place for pedestrians to walk? What about municipalities which in lieu of a sidewalk instead put a walking/bike lane next to traffic? In the absence of some safety barrier is the city liable?

My take on this is that is is California and leave it at that. This is not some further erosion of the principal of tort law in the US which will give rise to a number of new and what most would call baseless claims for damages.

"I would pose this question - if there was in fact no bike lane and no sidewalk and the runner was forced to run in the street since there was nowhere else to run, would the city still be liable? Does the city have a duty to provide a safe place for pedestrians to walk? What about municipalities which in lieu of a sidewalk instead put a walking/bike lane next to traffic? In the absence of some safety barrier is the city liable?"

No, the city does not have a duty to create safe ways for pedestrians in most circumstances BUT when the city creates a bike lane it is creating the duty to provide reasonable care to the users of that bike lane. I agree the victim went for the deep pockets and relied on a pretty loose proximate cause argument to pull get the city involved. Justice was served but the amount is disputable.

Also, isn't CA a comparative negligence jurisdiction? The city new it was screwed and was going to pay somehow in the end.

To all tort-haters (who will no doubt love tort law when their medical bills rely on it), why do you so easily let the city off the hook? Get pissed at the city if you're going to get angry with anyone. Have a sharp eye when you read about huge judgments in favor of plaintiffs on your newspaper's front page because 5 months later, back on the 11th page, is the story covering the appeal that brings the figure down to a more understandable figure.

Good points all around, enjoyable thread.

Laurelwood wrote:

The proximate cause of this accident was not the failure of the city to construct a proper bike lane. It was the result of a driver being intoxicated and failing to maintain proper control of his vehicle. The city did not cause the accident, the driver did.

As you noted earlier, the driver was convicted of felony hit & run. The driver, a homeless man, abandoned his car after the accident and was arrested a few days later. While he had three prior DUI convictions, there was no indication of drugs or alcohol found with the vehicle. While I'm sure we will all speculate that he was drunk, based upon teh curicumstances of abandoning his vehicle as well as his prior convictions, there was no proof.

As for failing to maintain proper control, that was never established. In the case against the defendent, he had argued that he was attempting to pass a slower moving vehicle by going into what he thought was the right lane. This opened up the door for the victims to take action against the city, as I had posted previoulsy, the width of the bike lane was approximately the same size as a standard driving lane, and with the lack of "bike lane" being painted on teh ground, the City Attorney knew he was going to fight a losing battle should the case go to trial.

The attorney for the plaintiffs, Daniel Callahan, is making a nice living off this little stretch of highway...

Methinks you're right. Without opening my P&K hornbook, whether there was but-for cause and proximate cause seem like issues for the trier of fact (meaning no summary judgment likely for the city). So if damages are that high, I suppose settling is the conservative thing to do.

But for $50 million???? Sheesh. Juries in that venue must really like to stick it to the man (i.e., themselves, the taxpayers).

Basic rules of the road--run facing traffic. Unless she was blind, she would have seen the car coming toward her and could have moved. Unless she was wearing iPods and rocking to the music so much that she was oblvious to the world. I wished the city would have given her $1 or nothing at all. She doesn't deserve money for her own stupidity. Runners have to take responsibility for their own mistakes.

From the article:

Their attorney argued that the bike lane they were running in was poorly marked and far too wide, leading motorists to believe it was another driving lane.

The driver of the car, William Todd Bradshaw, pleaded guilty to felony hit-and-run causing permanent injury, and is serving four years in prison.

I don't have too much sympathy for the driver but too bad he didn't have an attorney who wanted to use the same argument in his criminal case as the plaintiff's attorney used against the city. Seems like if the city was negligent in one case, they'd be negligent (or whatever it's called in a criminal case) in the other and the guy might have gotten off.

By the way, does anyone know how much of a take is usual for attorneys in this sort of case? And are the plaintiffs taxed on settlements?

hello

AHHHHHHHH wrote:

Only Fox, or maybe some nut job televangelist would open a story with this drivel.

Hmm...except this...it was an AP story.

cassio598 wrote:

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.

Right, and people always do what they should do when behind the wheel.

See and hear them better? Well, if you're running in the proper place on the side of the road, it shouldn't matter if you can see or hear the cars moving in the direction you are. The only issue is with cars entering and exiting traffic. (For example, this lawsuit would not have held up if it was proven that the victim was running in the middle of the road because that would've been her fault).

You sound like you've never driven a car before, so I'll let you know, a lot of drivers, when they see a person coming toward them (ie they see that the person can see their car) on foot (running, walking, biking) assume that because the person does not want to be hit by a car (ouch) the person will move out of the way. If, however, the person is not facing the car, the driver assumes it is his own duty to avoid the person. Little subconscious things like these play big roles in everyday life.

WDC Runner wrote:

Seems like if the city was negligent in one case, they'd be negligent (or whatever it's called in a criminal case) in the other and the guy might have gotten off.

By the way, does anyone know how much of a take is usual for attorneys in this sort of case? And are the plaintiffs taxed on settlements?

on the first, without going into detail, that argument would never fly. could have a role in punishment but not guilt. the charge was felony hit and run. no doubt that he committed that crime, regardless of whether poor lane design contributed to the accident.

on the second, 1/3 is typical for lawyers if it was a contingent fee arrangement. while that can result in windfalls, as would be likely here, plaintiff-side trial lawyers need to have a number like that to make up for cases that go to a jury and lose. sometimes the settlement will specifically address attorneys fees and sometimes a plaintiff with a particularly good case, or a lawyer who needs the business, will lead to a reduction in the 1/3 figure.

as for taxes, the taxation of legal settlements and awards is not straightforward. it depends on what the money is awarded for. lost income, for example, is often taxed. medical expenses likely would not be. when a jury awards the money, the jury's breakdown is generally trusted by the IRS. when it is a settlement, there is incentive to play games with the categories to reduce taxes. i believe a so-called qualified settlement agreement, blessed by a judge, is required to clarify tax treatment, otherwise the IRS can step in and re-allocate.

getting slower and fatter wrote:

After the accident the city put up a barrier so runners and bikers would be protected from cars.

I am pretty sure you are legally supposed to run with the direction of the traffic in a bike lane.

The city should put up a sign that runners are to run in the opposite direction, of any trucks and cars that are driving through the bike lane regardless of which direction they are driving.

shoot man I think i might actully go play in traffic like my high school math teacher always told me to do..[quote]wayward lassie wrote: