If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Iowa City Press-Citizen)   Woman wins $1.2 million after riding bicycle through puddle   (press-citizen.com) divider line 112
    More: Stupid, bicycle accident, Coralville, drainage systems, Johnson County, traumatic event, Boy Scouts  
•       •       •

14000 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Mar 2013 at 2:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-16 03:30:08 PM

worlddan: thenumber5: worlddan: basemetal: Meh, I'll never be on  jury.  A bike trail at the bottom of a hill is muddy after rain?  You don't say.

Think this is a tough case. On one hand the government entities were clearly negligent. On the other hand I tend to agree that outdoor sports activities are inherently risky. So where does the burden lie here?

The truth, though, is that either way the state would pay for it because with those injuries she would be on disability anyway.

if it was built and mantianed properly, the burden would lie of the injured party

but it wasn't

Part of the inherent risk of outdoor activity is that things might not be built and maintained properly.


That may be true if you are on a mountain trail but not a trail on a university campus, that happens to be outdoors.
 
2013-03-16 03:30:15 PM

BumpInTheNight: worlddan: Part of the inherent risk of outdoor activity is that things might not be built and maintained properly.

You keep your bike helmet on all the time, don't you.


No, I don't go bike riding at all. I stay inside and play video games in my mom's basement. Much safer.
 
2013-03-16 03:30:22 PM

worlddan: thenumber5: worlddan: basemetal: Meh, I'll never be on  jury.  A bike trail at the bottom of a hill is muddy after rain?  You don't say.

Think this is a tough case. On one hand the government entities were clearly negligent. On the other hand I tend to agree that outdoor sports activities are inherently risky. So where does the burden lie here?

The truth, though, is that either way the state would pay for it because with those injuries she would be on disability anyway.

if it was built and mantianed properly, the burden would lie of the injured party

but it wasn't

Part of the inherent risk of outdoor activity is that things might not be built and maintained properly.


there is a big difference between "due to be exposed to the elements, safety can not always be guaranteed" and "We need to save some money, so we are going to skip the part about grading and drainage channels"
 
2013-03-16 03:31:03 PM

worlddan: BumpInTheNight: worlddan: Part of the inherent risk of outdoor activity is that things might not be built and maintained properly.

You keep your bike helmet on all the time, don't you.

No, I don't go bike riding at all. I stay inside and play video games in my mom's basement. Much safer.


Who said you even own a bike :P
 
2013-03-16 03:31:33 PM

worlddan: Part of the inherent risk of outdoor activity is that things might not be built and maintained properly.


If something is inherently dangerous that's one thing, but if it's made more dangerous by negligence that's another.   It's like saying that driving on bridges is inherently risky so you shouldn't have any right to sue if a poorly maintained bridge collapses while you drive on it.
 
2013-03-16 03:32:00 PM
Things go unmaintained all the time. Watch out for yourself, although that's apparently an unpopular view in this thread.
 
2013-03-16 03:33:40 PM
Of course no responsibility on the part of the poor "victim" who was obviously riding at unsafe speeds.
 
2013-03-16 03:33:52 PM
In a perfect world they would build mud pits on purpose just to cull the herd.
 
2013-03-16 03:35:16 PM
No way, it all makes sense now.  My employer used to be located not far from that area of Coralville and I used to occasionally jog out on that trail with my boss.  Well one day a couple years ago we were out on a jog and this younger woman dressed in work clothes with a clipboard stopped us and started asking questions about whether or not we feel safe on the trail and if we had ever slipped and fallen.  I knew right from the start b/c of her questions that she was a blood-sucking lawyer (or wanna-be intern) so I steered clear, but my boss stayed and answered her questions (probably b/c she was kinda cute).  I always wondered what the Fark that was all about, and now I know...Farking lawyers...
 
2013-03-16 03:35:29 PM

Glendale: Things go unmaintained all the time. Watch out for yourself, although that's apparently an unpopular view in this thread.

 That's the stupidest comment ever.  No one said you shouldn't watch out for yourself.  In fact, I think most are saying you should also watch out for your financial interests by properly maintaining public areas of your property.
 
2013-03-16 03:37:29 PM

ReverendJynxed: Of course no responsibility on the part of the poor "victim" who was obviously riding at unsafe speeds.


What was the posted speed limit on that part of the trail?
 
2013-03-16 03:41:15 PM
fta: "Ruden's attorneys argued that the trail was built lower than designed and with almost no cross-slope despite an original design calling for a 5 percent slope in that section to allow for drainage. They also found that a plan to include a drainage system and tiles to handle erosion and runoff were removed during construction. "

Is it idiotic that somebody falling off a bike could win 12 million for their stupidity?  yes.  is it also a reason why you don't value engineer the shiat out of every farking design project?  yes.  everybody's an asshole in this one.
 
2013-03-16 03:43:56 PM

kxs401: Bob_Laublaw: the trail was built lower than designed and with almost no cross-slope despite an original design calling for a 5 percent slope in that section to allow for drainage. They also found that a plan to include a drainage system and tiles to handle erosion and runoff were removed during construction.

The agreement to build the trail said that a future deal would spell out who was responsible for "major maintenance," but that never happened.

Stupid tag is right subby, if you're referring to the parties who built and maintained the trail. A comatose GED in law could have won this case.

You cut corners on standard safety practices and you deserve to get sued when someone gets hurt.


Except the contractors and City officials who cut corners don't pay the money, the very taxpayers who paid them to do it correctly pay.
 
2013-03-16 03:44:37 PM
Yet my dad is fighting to get barely more than 50k from an insurance company that almost killed him. His insurance company removed coverage for his blood pressure medication with no warning and before he could get an appointment to get a new medication that the company did cover he had a nearly fatal aneurysm that killed off the entire right half of his brain. He was working full time prior but now he literally cant do any kind of work anymore, he is completely fried up top. We had to re-teach him how to talk, count, the days of the week, months of the year, ect...

/don't ever stop taking blood pressure medication abruptly.
//this cool story brought to you by Bro inc.
///slashies come in three's
 
2013-03-16 03:47:54 PM

Spirit Hammer: Maybe a better lesson would be to install proper drainage, and observe standard practices when designing public paths.


Why bother? Why open yourself to millions of dollars of liability when you don't have to? It's a university!
We aren't talking about the walking paths between building here, we are talking about a bike trail that someone somewhere thought it would be nice to have. Now it's been shown to be a major liability. Decision time! Either they can sink a bunch of money into it to bring it up to code or just put up a bunch of signs saying it's unsafe and they are not responsible for your accidents.

If I was the university I know how I would play it.
 
2013-03-16 03:48:28 PM

Spirit Hammer: The Stealth Hippopotamus: ThisIsntMe: scottydoesntknow: Bridgid Ruden of Coralville was wearing a helmet when she lost control of her bike May 24, 2008, on the North Ridge Trail after riding through a mud patch at the bottom of a hill, slamming her head on the pavement. The crash put her in a coma, required several surgeries during an extended hospital stay and left her disabled with traumatic brain injury and epilepsy.


Kinda surprised they didn't sue the helmet company too. But yea, a lot of negligence on side of the construction company/city.

Moral is Don't build hipster Bike paths or walks.

That will be the lesson learned from this and/or a few thousand spent on signs stating ride at your own risk.

Maybe a better lesson would be to install proper drainage, and observe standard practices when designing public paths.


Or just don't waste your time and my money building it in the first place. They want to ride bikes on a path, let them build the path.
 
2013-03-16 03:49:34 PM
If the damagwes had been $130,000, or $13,000, or hell, $13, there would still be cranky old Social Security recipients shaking their bony fists, spitting out impotent rage about frivolous lawsuits bankrupting our system.
 
2013-03-16 03:50:36 PM

vabeard: She's a real Catch U Next Tuesday.


That was really clever, because it makes so much sense on its own even BEFORE you realize what it spells out !
 
2013-03-16 03:52:14 PM

Kibbler: If the damagwes had been $130,000, or $13,000, or hell, $13, there would still be cranky old Social Security recipients shaking their bony fists, spitting out impotent rage about frivolous lawsuits bankrupting our system.


If they sued for 13 bucks it would be frivolous.....
 
2013-03-16 03:53:32 PM

ReverendJynxed: Of course no responsibility on the part of the poor "victim" who was obviously riding at unsafe speeds.


The person who crashed has a brain injury, can no longer work, and will be a great burden to her family for the rest of her existence. I fail to see how just because she got a settlement (which, as pointed out, probably won't even cover all of her medical expenses after lawyers, taxes, etc.), she hasn't suffered. I get "personal responsibility", but she's suffering and feeling the effects moreso than anyone else here. The city deserves to also be held responsible for their role in building a bike trail that wasn't up to snuff and failing to maintain it.
 
2013-03-16 03:55:10 PM
This is not how natural selection is supposed to work.
 
2013-03-16 03:57:20 PM
money "won" in court is tax free.
 
2013-03-16 03:58:21 PM
Morons of the world:  avoid Colorado.  Our trails - and surfaces in general, really - reflect our strong belief in natural selection.  We don't just HAVE puddles on our trails, we farking love 'em.
 
2013-03-16 03:58:42 PM
Close the trail, problem solved. They certainly won't have the money to make it safe for anyone NOW.
 
2013-03-16 04:00:40 PM

ThisIsntMe: They want to ride bikes on a path, let them build the path.


You want to drive your car on a road? Build it.
 
2013-03-16 04:02:21 PM

crotchgrabber: If she didn't have her helmet on the chances of winning this case would be a lot slimmer.


It also highlights the ineffectiveness (and hypocrisy) of the bike helmet mantra.

Current US standards regulate a bike helmet to reducing the g-load to the head to below 300G in a 2 meter fall.
Basically, standing still and falling over.

Yet some people tout them as an absolute life saver. "Wear a helmet! You'll die without one!" 
Can they help? Sure. But there is a quite narrow band where they work between 'Ouch', and 'You're dead/comatose anyway'.

Mountain biking, I wear mine. It is quite useful in fending off low hanging tree limbs.
 
2013-03-16 04:02:46 PM

WTP 2: money "won" in court is tax free.


Id have to contact my CPA but judgements are not taxed when they are received however they must be listed as income. All income is taxed at its appropriate bracket.

At least it was 6 years ago, when my buddy got his settlement.
 
2013-03-16 04:02:58 PM

xmasbaby: kxs401:
You cut corners on standard safety practices and you deserve to get sued when someone gets hurt.

Except the contractors and City officials who cut corners don't pay the money, the very taxpayers who paid them to do it correctly pay.


And? You hold the entity accountable when you can't hold the people accountable. Even if it's entirely different people in that entity now. It's the same idea as when people sue companies or when Penn State took sanctions for the Sandusky coverup. Why should you allow an exception for if everyone leaves a group/entity, that that group is no longer liable for anything done in the past? The city still elected/appointed those people that cut corners. They should still be liable.

If you made it the case that simply having everyone leave a company makes the company not liable, you'd end up with no company ever being liable for anything ever again. Product defect that kills thousands? It's okay, we fired the minimum wage factory workers and barely-above minimum wage quality control people. So now we don't have to pay anyone for that. And good luck bleeding thousands/millions in settlements out of now-unemployed minimum wage workers.
 
2013-03-16 04:07:56 PM

GAT_00: madcharlie: This is why we can't have nice things, or at least new things. Frivolous lawsuits like this prevent forward progress by making it too risky. I have a hard time believing that had this gone to trial the jurors would have found for the plaintiff.

Except of course for the clear failure to follow plans, to install drainage, or to maintain the trail, sure.


I bike almost everyday, verdicts like this make trails harder to get built. Biking like most activities bears risk, I don't see a natural trail type hazard as something out of the ordinary at least it isn't where I ride. A doctor on vacation died riding a local trail here. It happens, it's rare and unfortunate but to expect every trial to be built to withstand legal challenges if someone is injured is a tall order. Unless thier was malicious intent I would see these types of infrastructure free from liability.
 
2013-03-16 04:11:14 PM

nacker: Glendale: Things go unmaintained all the time. Watch out for yourself, although that's apparently an unpopular view in this thread.
 That's the stupidest comment ever.  No one said you shouldn't watch out for yourself.  In fact, I think most are saying you should also watch out for your financial interests by properly maintaining public areas of your property.


The sentiment I'm getting here is that you're supposed to be able to derp around blindly and everyone except you is responsible for you.
 
2013-03-16 04:12:23 PM

kapaso: Unless thier was malicious intent


I wouldn't say this is a case of malicious intent, but when they HAD plans for proper drainage then skipped that part of the blue print, they opened themselves up to the liability.

I also ride almost every day. The paths around here are very well maintained and I'm happy for it. But I also take note of where the tree roots are starting to push through.
 
2013-03-16 04:23:36 PM

Glendale: The sentiment I'm getting here is that you're supposed to be able to derp around blindly and everyone except you is responsible for you.


So if we lived in your mythical world of derpiness, then I wouldn't be at all at fault if I bury landmines in my front yard and the neighbor happens to walk across it and get himself killed.  Right?
 
2013-03-16 04:25:22 PM

nacker: worlddan: Part of the inherent risk of outdoor activity is that things might not be built and maintained properly.

If something is inherently dangerous that's one thing, but if it's made more dangerous by negligence that's another.   It's like saying that driving on bridges is inherently risky so you shouldn't have any right to sue if a poorly maintained bridge collapses while you drive on it.


HEY! HEY! HEY!  Slow down there smokey. We're talking about Bicycles here. In Farkistan, anything relating to cyclists is akin to the terror-pinko-communists. Those cyclists are automatically guilty just by LOOKING at a motorless two wheeled conveyance.

Driving a car = Sacrosanct. Do get with the "All real Americuns suck the Petro-Cawk" program. ktb
 
2013-03-16 04:32:59 PM
Should have hiked Ricket's Glen in PA. It kills and seriously injures the unprepared all the time. Usually city people and Europeans. Best part is, PA sensibly years ago removed liability for any land given public that is free of charge. It can continue to be bleach in the gene pool.

"Use of Land and Water Act (RULWA), 68 P.S. §§ 477-1 to 477-8 (2003). Under RULWA, "an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes,"  "

So, we can still have nice things if your state just puts similar laws on the book.
 
2013-03-16 04:45:47 PM

Intrepid00: RULWA


...but it looks like this situation would be out of scope for RULWA protection, given prior rulings:  http://conservationtools.org/guides/show/81.  From the article the path was decided "constructed" given the fact the contractors didn't build it to code and portions of the original plans were scrapped to save money.

But yes, I over-all support these types of laws for largely un-improved land opened up for public use.
 
2013-03-16 04:46:57 PM
i817.photobucket.com

Approves
 
2013-03-16 04:51:51 PM
Oh, for Pete's sake.  She drove through mud.  Regardless of who was responsible for the mud being there, the stupid woman shouldn't have driven into it.  Bicycles are not stable on slick mud.  Sounds like her brain wasn't all that good to start with.
 
2013-03-16 04:54:49 PM

nacker: ReverendJynxed: Of course no responsibility on the part of the poor "victim" who was obviously riding at unsafe speeds.

What was the posted speed limit on that part of the trail?


Personal liability. If you can't see far enough ahead of you, you just keep going? If she hit someone walking on the trail she would be liable.
 
2013-03-16 04:55:45 PM

Glendale: nacker: Glendale: Things go unmaintained all the time. Watch out for yourself, although that's apparently an unpopular view in this thread.
 That's the stupidest comment ever.  No one said you shouldn't watch out for yourself.  In fact, I think most are saying you should also watch out for your financial interests by properly maintaining public areas of your property.

The sentiment I'm getting here is that you're supposed to be able to derp around blindly and everyone except you is responsible for you.


Seems that way. At least when you ask the ones on two wheels.
 
2013-03-16 05:12:00 PM

ReverendJynxed: Personal liability. If you can't see far enough ahead of you, you just keep going? If she hit someone walking on the trail she would be liable.


But it's a bike trail.  That much should help limit the liability of hitting a pedestrian (by placing fault on the pedestrian for being on the bike trail to begin with).  My point about the posted speed limit was that the entity who put up that sign gave an expectation that the trail was in a condition where it would be safe to ride at a given rate of speed.  That one section of the trail wasn't safe for that rate of speed, which could directly be traced back to the original design and maintenance of the trail.

I am all for personal liability, and honestly I was expecting to hate the victim before I read the article.  But there is enough evidence to show negligence on part of the owner\maintainer of the trail in this case.
 
2013-03-16 05:14:32 PM
Speed limit was 20mph
 
2013-03-16 05:29:01 PM

nacker: Glendale: The sentiment I'm getting here is that you're supposed to be able to derp around blindly and everyone except you is responsible for you.

So if we lived in your mythical world of derpiness, then I wouldn't be at all at fault if I bury landmines in my front yard and the neighbor happens to walk across it and get himself killed.  Right?


Traps and explosive devices are usually explicitly codified. For my state that's probably NRS Chapter 202.
 
2013-03-16 05:30:45 PM

Glendale: Traps and explosive devices are usually explicitly codified. For my state that's probably NRS Chapter 202.


So you are saying that laws and codes pertain in at least *some* situations?  Interesting.  Did you happen to see the part of the article where they mentioned that the trail was not built to code?
 
2013-03-16 05:44:06 PM

nacker: Glendale: Traps and explosive devices are usually explicitly codified. For my state that's probably NRS Chapter 202.

So you are saying that laws and codes pertain in at least *some* situations?  Interesting.  Did you happen to see the part of the article where they mentioned that the trail was not built to code?


I just disagree that the rider should have continued on in a manner that could have contributed to her ultimate condition.
 
2013-03-16 05:51:46 PM

Glendale: I just disagree that the rider should have continued on in a manner that could have contributed to her ultimate condition.


I don't necessarily disagree with you on principal, especially because I believe that people should be aware of situations around them.  But without seeing the actual area, or knowing whether it was raining at the time or if the mud was from rain a day or more prior I can't really say whether or not the person should have more persona, responsibility in this case.  What does impact my opinion is the fact they have actual data showing the owners of the tail were negligent in it's building and maintenance.
 
2013-03-16 05:53:46 PM

Parthenogenetic: Ruden has been unable to return to her work as a nurse practitioner at a neonatal unit at University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. She has since become an inspirational speaker, sharing the story of her injuries, her prolonged rehabilitation and what she calls a miraculous recovery, with medical groups. Her teenage son, Ryan, received a national award from the Boy Scouts after he was credited with saving her life in 2009, months after the accident, when she suffered a violent seizure at their home.

She benefited from that accident!  She has a fabulous new job and fame that she never would have gotten otherwise, and her son got a national Boy Scout award!  Why, she should be grateful!

This... *points shaky, accusatory finger*  this is an example of liberal trial lawyers run amok, and why tort reform is so vital to protecting the rights of America's Job Creators!


I'm thinking the award should be based on actual losses, she did get a new career out of this.

Huck And Molly Ziegler: I agree with those saying One Point Two million (the figure the story seems to report, as it does break it down by payer) is not that much.
Unfortunately, it is true ... if you create something for public use, you must maintain it for public use -- or else post really big warning signs and flashy lights etc.


FTFA, they had a speed limit sign. And flashy lights cause spastics to go bonkers.

But hey, why take responsibility for yourself, it's not like you can't sue over anything anymore.
 
2013-03-16 06:09:19 PM

IbiEvacua: NephilimNexus: The crash put her in a coma, required several surgeries during an extended hospital stay and left her disabled with traumatic brain injury and epilepsy.

And she only got $1.2 million?

Oh sorry, subby, were we not supposed to read that far?

So when I trip and fall down my stairs, and break my brain, do I sue the apartment's owners? The landlord? The firm which built it? Because goddamnit someone other than me deserves to pay for my accident.


All of the above?
 
2013-03-16 06:13:28 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: WTP 2: money "won" in court is tax free.

Id have to contact my CPA but judgements are not taxed when they are received however they must be listed as income. All income is taxed at its appropriate bracket.

At least it was 6 years ago, when my buddy got his settlement.


"Actual damages" is replacing losses which would cancel each other out resulting in income of $0 and taxes of $0. Anything above the actual damages like punitive is bonus money and will result in income to be taxed.
 
2013-03-16 06:48:32 PM
zerobs.net
 
2013-03-16 06:54:33 PM
Sorry, i'm in my garage, repairing my bicycle...
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report