That damages award, according to The Legal Intelligencer, included $2.5 million for medical expenses and lost wages, as well as $2 million for pain and suffering and $1 million in damages to the plaintiff’s wife for loss of consortium. State law caps damages for civil litigation against government agencies at $250,000, but the total damages collected will be $500,000, since the plaintiff and his wife each will receive the maximum amount for their individual claims.

According to court records of the incident, the plaintiff was riding his bicycle on the road when he hit a patch of road that was reportedly uneven. This, his attorneys would later argue, constituted a dangerous defect in the road, causing him to be ejected from his bicycle and land on his head. In addition to a broken vertebra and broken ribs, the plaintiff suffered brain damage leading to post-traumatic seizure disorder. This was despite the fact he was wearing a bicycle helmet. Since his initial treatment, he’s been hospitalized again numerous times due to seizure-related injuries.

The case underscores the fact that state and local governments may in some instances be held liable for failures to maintain the roadways. Furthermore, single-person bicycle accidents aren’t necessarily always the sole fault of the rider. Legal options are often worth exploring.

Indiana courts have similarly held government agencies liable for dangerous road conditions leading to serious injuries or death. Consider the 2008 Indiana Court of Appeals case involving a fatal car accident that killed an 18-year-old girl who was a passenger in a car that overturned in a ditch and filled with water after encountering a steep slope. The decedent’s estate sued the state for wrongful death. When the state sought summary judgment on sovereign immunity grounds, the trial court granted it, but the appellate court reversed. The appeals court noted that while the Indiana Tort Claims Act does shield the state from claims based on defects in roadway designs or redesigns that occurred 20 years or more prior to the accident, “the State still has a duty to provide reasonably safe public roadways.” In this case, the question of whether the road was in a reasonably safe condition was a matter of fact that needed to be decided by a jury, rather than a matter of law for the trial court. The case was remanded for trial.

Bicycles are especially susceptible to accidents stemming from dangerous road conditions. They have relative instability and thin tires, and any unexpected or abrupt difference in the road surface can be catastrophic, even for cyclists who are experienced and careful. Indiana is susceptible to dangerous road conditions, particularly in the spring, due to the freeze-and-thaw cycle that causes the roads to expand and contract, resulting in damage over time. Road hazards likely to cause a motor vehicle collision in Indiana include:

• Pot holes
• Sewer grates
• Uneven road surfaces
• Railroad or trolley tracks

If you are injured in a bicycle accident caused in whole or in part due to unsafe road conditions, our injury attorneys in Highland can help.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond. Additional Resources: Delco Jury Awards $5.4M to Brain-Damaged Cyclist, March 9, 2017, By Max Mitchell, The Legal Intelligencer

More Blog Entries: Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws: Do They Help?, March 19, 2017, Bicycle Accident Attorney Blog

According to court records in the case, the plaintiff, a mountain biker, suffered injuries to his kidney and spleen after falling from his bicycle on a portion of the Town Run Trail Park that runs through Indianapolis. The city contracts with a local mountain biking association to maintain the trails, which are rated based on difficulty and skill level required. In early 2011, an Eagle Scout designed and constructed a technical feature on the trail. The feature is best described as a berm. It created a banked wooden turn. Approaching riders would have three options: avoid it by staying on the dirt path, enter and ride on the low grade, or negotiate the turn and take the more challenging higher grade.

That summer, the plaintiff and his girlfriend went to the trail to ride for the first time since this new feature was constructed. He had about five years of experience riding, and he’d been on this trail before. However, he had not encountered this new feature. He noted in his deposition that he would usually try to get an idea of a trail’s technical requirements before riding, particularly if he was concerned about a potential danger.

Still, he stated that he did understand that routinely falling off the bike was a “general consequence of the sport.”

The pair approached this berm, and the plaintiff reportedly chose to take the more challenging option. He fell as a result, suffering injuries. Still, he was able to ride his bicycle back to the top of the trail, and he and his girlfriend went out to dinner that evening. However, hours later, the pain was worsening, and he went to the hospital. It was there he was diagnosed with lacerations to his spleen and kidney.

Within two months after the vehicle accident, he participated in a 100-mile bicycle ride.

The plaintiff thereafter filed an Indiana personal injury lawsuit against the city, alleging premises liability and seeking compensation for his medical bills.

Per the so-called “Burrell test,” based on the 1991 decision in Burrell v. Meads, Indiana landowners can be liable for injuries to those welcomed on the site if the landowner:

• Knew or should have discovered in the exercise of reasonable care that there was an unreasonable risk of harm to invitees;
• Should have expected invitees would not discover or realize the danger or would fail to protect themselves against it; and
• Failed to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees against the danger.

A later Indiana Supreme Court case, Pfenning v. Lineman, applied this ruling to participation in sports activities. In that case, the plaintiff was struck by a golf ball on a golf course, which the court ruled did not constitute as an “unreasonable risk of harm.”

In the present case, the court ruled, the evidence did not support the assertion that an experienced rider would fail to appreciate the risks of riding the trail and not taking appropriate precautions. Furthermore, the court ruled the evidence presented did not establish the city had actual or constructive knowledge that the trail presented an unreasonable risk of harm to the rider. Thus, the court reversed the trial court’s earlier denial of summary judgment favoring the city.

Although this is a disappointing outcome for the plaintiff, it’s important to review cases like this to weigh the viability of similar claims. Still, this is just one case, and our injury attorneys urge anyone with questions to seek a free consultation to explore your legal options.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond. Additional Resources: City of Indianapolis et al. v. Kaler, March 23, 2017, Indiana Court of Appeals

More Blog Entries: Bike Accident Injury Victim Awarded $38M Verdict Against Valet Company, Feb. 2, 2017, Bicycle Injury Lawyer Blog

The bike accident occurred four years ago in downtown Seattle, but the circumstances could easily apply to any similar service in any city here in Indiana, where an increasing number of bicyclists occupy the roads. A recent report by Smart Growth America and the National Complete Streets Coalition, Dangerous by Design 2016, indicated that of the top 105 largest metro areas in the country, Indiana’s Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson area ranked 50th. Comparing state-to-state rankings, Indiana ranked 22nd in the country for pedestrian danger index (PDI), which looks at the number of people who bike and walk to work relative to the number of injuries and fatalities of those travelers. Our rate was 46.3 in 2016, just beneath the national average of 52.5.

But of course, there is no safe state. Consider that Washington, where this devastating bicycle accident happened, ranked 36th on the state comparison list.

According to The Seattle Times, the company that employed the valet has many such operations nationally and reported a gross profit of $129 million just in the first nine months of the year. Despite this, the plaintiff alleged, the company turned a blind eye to what were clearly unsafe and illegal practices by its employees, who were under high pressure to deliver vehicles quickly back to patrons at a nearby hotel from an off-site parking lot. In fact, the company had received a number of complaints about the recklessness of the valets, particularly in taking the shortcut in question. However, the plaintiff alleged, the company never intervened.

Specifically, the cars for which valets were responsible belonged to customers at a local hotel. However, there was more room at an off-site parking lot. So drivers took the vehicles from the hotel across the street and into a surface parking lot. But instead of making a longer – and legal – trip across the streets and through four intersections, the drivers cut through alleys, drove across lanes, and pulled other illegal maneuvers.

The plaintiff at the time of the incident was riding in a lane marked by “sharrows” when the 21-year-old valet employee drove a customer’s vehicle across a one-way street, perpendicular to traffic, and didn’t see the cyclist approaching from his right. The cyclist was struck and suffered severe injuries in the car accident. The driver was cited by police for failure to yield.

At trial, the plaintiff argued that while the company never directed drivers to take this route, it never issued directives to stop them from doing so either, even after receiving complaints and notice of it. Based on the timing of the other complaints, the plaintiff’s lawyers argued, the company did have a reasonable time in which to take action on this issue and yet failed to do so.

The defendant attorneys, meanwhile, argued the plaintiff was at least partially responsible for his failure to react to avoid the crash. The plaintiff’s lawyers presented evidence showing he would have had just four seconds to react.

Ultimately, the jury decided the defendant should pay a substantial sum to compensate the plaintiff for the injuries sustained as a result of the driver’s negligence.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond. Additional Resources: Bicyclist severely injured in crash with parking valet is awarded $38M, Dec. 15, 2016, By Mike Lindblom, Seattle Times

More Blog Entries: Trucks and Bicycles: A Too-Often Lethal Combination on Indiana Roads, Nov. 2, 2016, Highland Bicycle Accident Lawyer Blog