kaitainen wrote:
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.
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. This is more about deep pockets than about who was really at fault. The amount of money needed to care for these two women for the rest of their lives could not be obtained from the driver of the vehicle was was either uninsured or had limits which were woefully inadequate.
My guess is the city attorney felt that if he put this case in front of a jury they would find against the city just to make sure the women were compensated. That does not justify a settlement of this amount, but obviously there was a belief that an award of this amount could be given and to avoid such exposure they settled.