Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 51

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 50
50 APPENDIX D. CASE/ISSUE INDEX BIKEWAY AND OTHER RELEVANT BICYCLE-ACCIDENT CLAIMS AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITIES CASE ISSUE/CLAIM HOLDING RESULT/ACTION I. Duty to Bicyclist Dennis v. City of No duty to enforce Public entity not liable; Summary judgment for Tampa, 581 So. 2d 1345 speed limit on a bikeway no duty to enforce a the city affirmed (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) speed limit Lompoc Unified No duty to maintain a Public entity not liable; Superior Court order School Dist. v. Superior hedge to shield a distrac- no duty to maintain the denying summary judg- Court, 20 Cal. App. 4th 1688, 1691, 26 Cal. Rptr. tion from motorists who existing hedge ment for the school dis- 2d 122 (Cal. App. 2d might strike bicyclists trict vacated Dist. 1993) II. Notice to Public Entity Langton v. Town of Bicycle wheel fell into Public entity not liable; Superior Court's judg- Westport, 38 Conn. App. a grate on a public street no prior notice of a defect ment for the town af- 14, 658 A.2d 602 (Conn. firmed App. 1995) III. Proximate Cause Puhalski v. Brevard Negligent maintenance Public entity not liable; Case dismissed County, 428 So. 2d 375 allegedly forced bicyclists alleged negligence held (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) from bike path onto the not to be the proximate edge of the highway cause of the accident where they were injured IV. Design Immunity Johnson v. Alaska, 636 Bicycle wheel caught Public entity did not Judgment for the state P.2d 47 (Alaska 1981) in a railroad track have immunity; deci- reversed; case remanded sions regarding the rail- for new trial road intersection were not policy-level decisions Juge v. County of Sac- Alleged negligence in Public entity not liable; Summary judgment for ramento, 12 Cal. App. the design of a bike trail county established that the county dismissing 4th 59, 15 Cal. Rptr. 2d it had design immunity the case affirmed 598 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. established under the 1993) California Design Im- munity Statute, Cal.

OCR for page 50
51 Gov't Code 830.6 Schmitz v. City of Du- Bicycle wheel caught Immunity denied; city Order dismissing the buque, 682 N.W.2d 70 on the asphalt overlay on failed to establish it ex- action reversed; case re- (Iowa 2004) a bicycle trail ercised its discretion manded V. Discretionary Function Exemption and Immunity for Decisions on Guardrails, Traffic Control Devices, and Signs Alexander v. Eldred, 63 Alleged failure to re- City had no immunity; Appellate court's af- N.Y.2d 460, 472 N.E.2d view traffic counts and city's action held to be firmance of trial court's 996, 483 N.Y.S.2d 168 install a stop sign at an inherently unreasonable denial of the City of (1984) intersection Ithaca's motion for judgment dismissing the complaint and to set aside the jury verdict affimed Angell v. Hennepin Alleged failure to re- No immunity for the Denial of the author- County Regional Rail strict access to a dirt public entity; no evi- ity's motion for summary Authority, 578 N.W.2d path from a paved public dence presented by de- judgment affirmed; case 343 (Minn. 1998) trail fendant that it evaluated remanded for trial policy factors Augustine v. City of Bicyclist struck by a Public entity not liable; Order granting city's West Memphis, 281 Ark. limb while city employ- municipalities have motion to dismiss af- 162, 662 S.W.2d 813 ees were trimming trees; statutory immunity in firmed (1984) claim based in part on Arkansas the absence of warning signs Bookman v. Bolt, 881 Alleged failure to in- Public entity not liable; Summary judgment for S.W.2d 771 (Tex. Ct. Civ. stall planned traffic public entity exercised the city affirmed App. 1994) signs where a bicycle its discretion and was path crossed a street immune Bjorkquist v. City of Bicyclist alleged negli- Public entity not liable; Summary judgment for Robbinsdale, 352 N.W.2d gence in the timing of immunity for the exer- defendants affirmed 817 (Minn. Ct. App. the clearance interval in cise of discretion 1984) a traffic light at an inter- section where accident occurred Dahl v. State of New Alleged that there Public entity not liable; Judgments for the York, 45 A.D. 3d 803, 846 should have been a no proof of the state's state after a nonjury N.Y.S.2d 329 (N.Y. App. guardrail between the violation of safety stan- trial affirmed Div. 2d Dept. 2007) roadway and the bicycle dards or of prior similar path accidents Hanson v. Vigo County Alleged failure to place No proof that the Trial court's summary Bd. of Comm'rs, 659 or replace warning signs county exercised its dis- judgment for defendants N.E.2d 1123 (Ind. App. after plan approval to do cretion in approving the reversed and remanded 4th Dist. 1996) so plan

OCR for page 50
52 VI. Maintenance Dinelli v. County of Alleged negligence in Public entity not liable; Summary judgment for Lake, 294 Ill. App. 3d the design and mainte- county had recreational the county affirmed 876, 691 N.E.2d 394 (Ill. nance of a midblock bicy- use immunity App. 2d Dist. 1998) cle trail crosswalk Garcia v. City of Chi- Alleged faulty mainte- Public entity not liable; Trial court judgment in cago, 240 Ill. App. 3d nance of a sidewalk bicyclist was not an in- favor of bicyclist re- 199, 608 N.E.2d 239 (Ill. tended or permitted user versed App. 1st Dist. 1992) Stahl v. Metropolitan Alleged negligent Jury question pre- Summary judgment for Dade County, 438 So. 2d maintenance forcing sented regarding the the county reversed; case 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) young bicyclist from path public entity's liability remanded onto the highway where he was injured Lipper v. City of Chi- Use of a alleged defec- Public entity not liable; Summary judgment for cago, 233 Ill. App. 3d tive sidewalk to reach a bicyclist not an intended the city affirmed 834, 600 N.E.2d 18 (Ill. bicycle path by an adult or permitted user App. 1st Dist. 1992) bicyclist Payne v. City of Belle- Bicycle struck a hole at Factual question Summary judgment for vue, 1997 Wash. App. the edge of a public trail whether under the rec- the city dismissing the LEXIS 1401 (Wash. Ct. reational use statute ap- action reversed App. 1997) (Unrept.) plied if the city knew of a dangerous condition and failed to warn Vestal v. County of Potholes in the surface Public entity could be Denial of county's mo- Suffolk, 7 A.D. 3d 613, and no signs or other liable for surface condi- tion for summary judg- 776 N.Y.S.2d 491 (N.Y. warnings tion and/or lack of sign- ment affirmed App. 2d Dept. 2004) age VII. Liability for Adjacent Areas Camillo v. Department Accident on a sidewalk Department of Trans- Summary judgment for of Transportation, 546 when bicyclist struck by portation responsible for DOT reversed (liability So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA eyebolts that extended obstructions caused by was a jury question); 1988) from a seawall into the third parties summary judgment for path of travel county affirmed Predney v. Village of Bicycle accident caused Village could be held Summary judgment for Park Forest, 164 Ill. App. by bushes obstructing liable when it exercised village reversed 3d 688, 518 N.E.2d 1243 view of intersection control and maintained (1987) the accident area; village had a duty to correct the condition of streets, as well as adjacent areas

OCR for page 50
53 VIII. Recreational Use Statutes and Immunity Ali v. City of Boston, Collision with a gate Public entity not liable; Trial court's summary 441 Mass. 233, 804 while bicycling on a path city had recreational use judgment for the city N.E.2d 927 (2004) in a city park immunity regardless of affirmed the bicyclist's purpose in being on the path Armenio v. County of Fall caused by im- Public entity not liable; Summary judgment for San Mateo, 28 Cal. App. proper patching of a sur- county had recreational the county affirmed 4th 413, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d faced bicycle trail use immunity regardless 631 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. of the type of surface of 1994) the trail Carroll v. County of Skater on a bicycle Public entity not liable; Summary judgment for Los Angeles, 60 Cal. App. path fell because of a public entity had recrea- county affirmed 4th 606, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 504 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. crack in the pavement tional use immunity 1998) Farnham v. City of Los Accident on a Class I Public entity not liable; Judgment on the Angeles, 68 Cal. App. 4th bikeway as classified city's recreational use pleadings for the city 1097, 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d under a California stat- immunity did not depend affirmed 720 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. ute on the trail being pri- 1998) marily for recreational use Goodwin v. Carbondale Tree fell across a bicy- Issue whether under Trial court's dismissal Park District, 268 Ill. cle path the recreational use of rider's claim for ordi- App. 3d 489, 644 N.E.2d statute the defendant's nary negligence af- 512 (Ill. App. 5th Dist. conduct amounted to firmed; trial court's order 1994) willful or wanton negli- dismissing rider's claims gence for district's alleged wan- ton and willful negli- gence in maintaining the path reversed Graney v. Metropolitan Obstacles left by the No immunity for the Defendant's motion for District Commission, defendant's employees public entity; question- summary judgment de- 2001 Mass. Super. on the path able whether recrea- nied LEXIS 352 (Mass. Super. tional use statute ap- Ct. 2001) (Unrept.) plied, and even if it did, defendant's action con- stituted willful, wanton, or reckless conduct Hovland v. City of Injury to an inline Public entity not im- Summary judgment for Grand Forks, 1997 N.D. skater caused by a crack mune; recreational use the city reversed 95, 563 N.W.2d 384 in a city bike path immunity in North Da- (1997) kota not applicable to a municipality Kern v. City of Sioux Uneven section of bike Public entity not liable; Summary judgment for Falls, 1997 S.D. 19, 560 trail causing skaters to city had recreational use the city affirmed N.W.2d 236 (1997) fall immunity Parents v. State, 991 Steep portion of a bicy- Although the state had Reversal of the dis- S.W.2d 240 (Tenn. 1999) cle trail in a park that a recreational use de- missal of the plaintiff culminated in a sharp fense, plaintiff was enti- minor's claim affirmed turn tled to have facts of the case developed before

OCR for page 50
54 determining whether any of the exceptions to immunity under the rec- reational use statute ap- plied Prokop v. City of Los Collision with chain Public entity not liable; Summary judgment for Angeles, 150 Cal. App. link fence while exiting a city had recreational use the city affirmed 4th 1332, 59 Cal. Rptr. bikeway immunity regardless of 3d 355 (Cal. App. 2d whether faulty design or Dist. 2007) maintenance was claimed Scott v. Rockford Park Bicycle struck a crack Public entity not liable; Summary judgment for District, 263 Ill. App. 3d on a paved bike path park district had recrea- the city affirmed 853, 636 N.E.2d 1075 tional use immunity (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 1994) Stephen F. Austin Plaintiff knocked off Public entity not liable; Reversal of the deci- State University v. her bicycle while riding public entity had recrea- sion of intermediate ap- Flynn, 228 S.W.3d 653 on a bicycle trail by the tional use immunity pellate court; judgment (Tex. 2007) university's lawn sprin- rendered dismissing the kler case Walker v. City of Fall on designated bike Public entity did not Trial court's dismissal Scottsdale, 163 Ariz. 206, path have immunity; recrea- of bicyclist's action re- 786 P.2d 1057 (Ariz. Ct. tional use statute not versed and remanded App. 1989) applicable because of limited applicability of the statute