Liability Aspects of Bikeways (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

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

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

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

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

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