Is this lawsuit justified?

[farmkid]

I work at a university which, like most universities, has a lot of young adults doing young adult things, including biking and slacklining. About a year ago a kid on a bike was killed when he rode down a hill and was clotheslined by a slackline setup between a couple of trees at the bottom of the hill. The line hit the kid in the neck and severed his trachea. He was pronounced dead a couple of hours later.

Some important points:
1. The hill is a long, fairly steep hill with lots of trees that people regularly use for all sorts of recreation, but bikes are not officially allowed on the hill. There is a bike path across the top of the hill with warning signs at the top. In spite of that, students fairly regularly ride down the hill.

2. The slackline was setup in a small cluster of large trees with plenty of open space on both sides of the cluster.

3. The people who set it up weren't on it at the time, but were standing next to it talking.

4. Many claim he couldn't see the line, but witnesses report he tried to duck under it. Also, I walked by the scene shortly after it happened, as emergency personnel were there working on him. I was on the bike path at the top of the hill ~100 feet away and I could see the slackline.

At the time, everyone agreed that this was a nothing more than a tragic accident. The parents said they don't blame the kids who set up the slackline and harbor no hard feelings toward them. Now, a year later, they have filed a $2 million lawsuit against the university and the three who setup the slackline.

So what do you think? Is there a case here? Is a lawsuit justified?

 

[Misfit Toy]

Was the slackline set up up by and/or endorsed by the university?

 

[farmkid]

No, it was just a group of 3 guys relaxing after classes.

 

[J.T.B.]

^ You must be up in Logan. That was really sad. But it is rare for that kind of thing to not end up in a lawsuit these days. The court system will decide the rest.

 

[Roger Wilco]

It's probably not justified I'd say, only hearing one side of the story, but depending on how much financial hardship this incident caused on the deceased's family, it may be tough not to at least try to get some compensation.

 

[MacLeod]

It might be one of those grey areas of the law.

As the university is being sued as well, I take it the hill is private property (or at least on ground owned by the university).

What sort of signage existed at the top of the hill. Did it expressly forbide cycling down the hill. i.e. Cyclist MUST NOT cycle down the hill and use the cycle path instead?

Was this person a student at the university? If so were they issued any specifci instructions when they started at the university regarding cycling?

Did the slackline have any warnings or ribbons attached to indicate it was there?

Did the university have any policy regarding slacklines?

The fact that he tried to duck it, could indicate that he saw it but did not have enough time to avoid it on either side. Just because person A could see it from 100 yards away doesn't mean person B could. After all angle, shadows etc... could hide it.

If he could see it and tried to duck under it, I would say the case would have to be dismissed. As that would indicate he knowingly cycled towards it, i.e intention,a deliberate act etc.. on the part of the perswon who unfortunatly was killed.

 

[Marc]

If he could see it and tried to duck under it, I would say the case would have to be dismissed. As that would indicate he knowingly cycled towards it, i.e intention,a deliberate act etc.. on the part of the perswon who unfortunatly was killed.

But then you'd have to work out at what point he spotted it and if was possible he could have stopped in time to avoid getting caught by the line.

 

[farmkid]

It might be one of those grey areas of the law.

As the university is being sued as well, I take it the hill is private property (or at least on ground owned by the university).

What sort of signage existed at the top of the hill. Did it expressly forbide cycling down the hill. i.e. Cyclist MUST NOT cycle down the hill and use the cycle path instead?

Was this person a student at the university? If so were they issued any specifci instructions when they started at the university regarding cycling?

Did the slackline have any warnings or ribbons attached to indicate it was there?

Did the university have any policy regarding slacklines?

The fact that he tried to duck it, could indicate that he saw it but did not have enough time to avoid it on either side. Just because person A could see it from 100 yards away doesn't mean person B could. After all angle, shadows etc... could hide it.

If he could see it and tried to duck under it, I would say the case would have to be dismissed. As that would indicate he knowingly cycled towards it, i.e intention,a deliberate act etc.. on the part of the perswon who unfortunatly was killed.

The signage doesn't mention cycling specifically, but it does warn that people are responsible for their own safety on the hill. It's a popular sledding hill in the winter, and I think the signs were posted with sledding in mind, but the message applies to other activities as well. University rules state that bikes are only allowed on sidewalks, roads, bike paths, etc. All of those involved are (were) students.

The slackline didn't have any warnings or ribbons, and that's one of the contentions of the lawsuit. However, I have never seen a slackline that did, so that's normal. There is no university policy whatsoever regarding slacklines.

While I didn't see it happen, from what I have heard and can surmise based on my knowledge off the area, here's what I think happened. I don't think he was looking very far head, but was focusing on the ground maybe 20-30 feet in front of him, as cyclists normally do. Because of that, he wouldn't see the slackline until he was pretty close to it and by that time all he could do was try to duck. The hill is steep enough that he easily could have been going 15-20 mph when he hit the line, and the injuries are consistent with that kind of speed. I don't know whether ribbons would have made any difference. He probably would have noticed it a little sooner, but still wouldn't have had time to go around it or stop.

Ironically, he may have been okay if he hadn't ducked because the line would have caught him in the chest instead of the neck. It would have thrown him off the bike and ruined his day, but he probably wouldn't have died.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

Justified? Sure why not. There may be an issue as to whether the school breached its duty to the kid and that breach resulted in his death. Should there have been better warnings? Should there have been a policy as to biking down the hill? Should there have been a policy as to slack lining?

All that stuff. Remember that most jurisdictions require a good faith basis to bring a claim so I would think there is one here.

Doesn't mean they will recover or that the school will be held liable.

 

[MacLeod]

Well other things to consider as stated by the OP the hill was used regularly used by cyclists, so I case could be said that it had become a de-facto cycle path. Had any students previoulsy been warned/cautioned about use of the hill? If they hadn't it could be argued that the University by not acting had allowed it to become a de-facto cycle path.

Sure you can say that they ride at their own risk, but wouldn't that only cover naturally occuring risks, Trees/Branches/Roots/Ruts etc.. and not man made ones, or at least man-made ones that are temporary in nature.

 

[Gov Kodos]

What was the slackline there for?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

What was the slackline there for?

It's a sport/activity where you tie a rope between two trees (or other things) and keep some slack in the line, so it's not rigid like a tightrope. This makes it more difficult to cross and allows for doing tricks by using the give in the rope to bounce and so forth. It's big on college campuses (and at the pier here in Huntington Beach).

 

[farmkid]

Well other things to consider as stated by the OP the hill was used regularly used by cyclists, so I case could be said that it had become a de-facto cycle path. Had any students previoulsy been warned/cautioned about use of the hill? If they hadn't it could be argued that the University by not acting had allowed it to become a de-facto cycle path.

I didn't mean regularly as in you could any time you went by there see several bikes on the hill. I meant that as I walked up and down the hill to and from work every day, I would see a bike on the grass maybe once every week or two, whereas I would have to dodge a bike on the path several times every day.

What was the slackline there for?

Slacklining

 

[Gov Kodos]

What was the slackline there for?

It's a sport/activity where you tie a rope between two trees (or other things) and keep some slack in the line, so it's not rigid like a tightrope. This makes it more difficult to cross and allows for doing tricks by using the give in the rope to bounce and so forth. It's big on college campuses (and at the pier here in Huntington Beach).

The three guys mentioned who, presumably, were the only users bear the immediate heavy burden of that, I think. The opening post says the area is a common recreational area which if this sport is permitted they may be able to claim this was a tragic accident that they are not at fault for.

Going by the description, the line was off lain paths of traffic and the hill has warnings against riding down off the course of the bicycle path, so at first, I am not sure about the university's liability. The guys were slacklining in an area where bikes aren't allowed, but go anyway. If the university isn't enforcing its policy to keep bikes going down this way that may cause them some trouble. The warnings to not go off the bike path are irrelevant if they haven't been enforced.

Allowing bikes to travel at speed down a lawn area without set paths, I assume from the description at the outset, is letting bikes put pedestrians at risk. The area being a recreational area, I assume there are a fair number here if my old school is any indication. I would assume that's why the school has warnings not to go off the bike path. They are going to have to show they try to enforce a no bike policy in the area the guys were slacklining to avoid some measure of responsibility.

I'm guessing it's this place. http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=960&sid=29718926&fm=most_popular

http://www.utahbirds.org/counties/cache/OldMainMiF1.jpg

 

[publiusr]

ATV riders also have to watch for abandoned farms--what with barbed wire.
One reason to purchase old Honda Odysseys with the roll bars up front
http://www.atvstyle.com/1985-honda-odyssey-fl350

 

[Locutus of Bored]

As tragic as this incident was, and as much as I sympathize with the parents, I think the university covered its bases with the signage about taking care while you're on the hill, and with the rule about which areas you're allowed to ride bikes in. They can't reasonably anticipate every contingency.

Looks like a beautiful part of campus though judging by the picture Kodos posted above. Shame something so tragic had to happen there.

 

[Trekker4747]

We may have to get Alidar in on this. While the school may have place signage up to use the bike paths, that strikes me as a bit of a "CYA" sort of thing and not necessarily a legally-binding thing. Just because you put a sign up I don't think that necessarily washes your hands of any responsibility of what is going on.

You could probably argue that the school/property owner has some responsibility to enforce this rule and if they're not enforcing it or enforcing it evenly you could likely say the rule doesn't count. It's there to scare off people who might try and to take action should something happen but people who're more savvy on the law and their rights may know better.

But, I'd still say this was a tragic accident that's all on the biker's shoulders. If there's bike paths/lanes available to riders then they should be on those instead of screaming down hills on the lawn. There may be a *tiny* bit on the part of the property owners for maybe not monitoring this hill if its a known trouble spot, maybe something on those who had put up the rope in a place where bikers are known/could come down the hill without any kind of warning that it was there.

But, eh, it's all just a tragic, horrible, accident. I think it's really hard to lay much blame anywhere and on anyone. It just... happened.

 

[M'Sharak]

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=960&sid=29718926&fm=most_popular

At the very end of this article, I find this:

Anderson's parents said their son had a 3.0 GPA, played trumpet in the marching band, and "had an expectation to earn at least $2 million dollars throughout his life." The family is asking for a little over $2 million in their suit.

I'm wondering whether that sort of expectation is typical of a lawsuit like this and whether it's realistic to suppose a figure of "at least $2 million" (with or without the redundant "dollars".)

 

[MacLeod]

Expectations have no value. He could have earned US$2m, could being the operative there. Many of us studied to get higher qualifications, with potential of very well paying jobs but did we all end up with those well paying jobs?

 

[Gov Kodos]

2 million? Conceivably, over a lifetime. One million even more so, but either way the bulk of that would be eaten up in the cost of living over a lifetime. However, before one can think of such values on a life, is it money the family would have gotten from him in his lifetime? Very unlikely. Most of it would have been buying a home, car, perhaps supporting a family, and all the incidentals that make up the gross cost of living for decades. That assuming he didn't die from any other host of things in life even before graduating college.

The family wants accountability and sees it in terms of dollars at the moment. Whether that makes their suit seem reasonable or not, or their evaluation of recompense appropriate remains to be seen. His GPA and and trumpet playing have nothing to do with the determination of fault, of course, and as a basis for awarding a settlement there is no reason to think those factors would amount to a life that made 2 million. Many with better scores and hobbies go no where after college, and some who did worse thrive better outside academia.

I'm sure they want what this money will not give them the fulfillment of seeing their son go through life. If they win, it changes nothing for them but seeing a punishment on people they see responsible for their son's death. One which they probably know he had a large hand in and are desperate to not want to accept. If they lose, the pain they are in is just going to be worse for them. Their son was riding where he shouldn't have been by campus direction in an area used for multiple purposes not just biking. He could have as easily badly injured someone on the way down as gotten killed as happened. I'm not connected to this so it's easy for me to say that, but I think it's something his family needs to think about to really get past this tragedy.