Advertisements

Non-governmental park not liable under Georgia Recreational Use Statute because cyclists failed to negotiate a barricade. The dangerous condition was open, obvious and visible to all including the deceased.

Because cyclists failed to look up and did not see the barricades in time, does not change the fact the barricades were visible for hundreds of feet.

Stone Mountain Memorial Association v. Amestoy, 337 Ga. App. 467; 788 S.E.2d 110; 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 358

State: Georgia; Court of Appeals of Georgia

Plaintiff: Nancy Amestoy

Defendant: Stone Mountain Memorial Association

Plaintiff Claims: (1) was liable for Martin’s death due to its failure to warn of the allegedly dangerous condition of the barricades, (2) had actual knowledge that the barricades posed a risk of serious bodily injury or death, and (3) willfully failed to warn of the alleged danger (despite knowing of the risk posed by the barricades).

Defendant Defenses: Georgia Recreational Use Statute

Holding: For the Defendant at trial Court, Plaintiff on appeal 

Year: 2016

Summary

The Georgia Recreational Use Statute extends immunity to non-governmental landowners. Here a cyclist died after failing to look up and see barricades blocking a road. Because the barricades were open and obvious, the Recreational Use Statute protected the landowner from suit. 

Facts 

The deceased was on a bike ride. The road he was riding had been closed for a foot race. The closure was  accomplished by two saw horse barricades. The deceased in attempting to negotiate between them fell suffering head injuries, while wearing a helmet, and died.

…between 7:30 and 7:45 a.m. on the day in question, officers with SMMA’s public-safety department engaged in temporary traffic-control efforts on portions of Stone Mountain Park’s Robert E. Lee Boulevard in anticipation of a 5k walk/run event that was scheduled to begin at 8:00 a.m. These temporary traffic-control efforts consisted of two saw-horse style barricades placed  side-by-side across the road’s southbound lanes, spanning approximately ten-feet wide with an approximately one-and-a-half foot gap between them. Both barricades bore orange and white stripes and “do not enter” signs.

It appeared to witnesses that the deceased did not look up until the last minute to see the barricades. 

…Martin Amestoy was observed riding his bicycle toward the barricades at what a witness believed was a “safe, normal speed”; however, Amestoy’s head was down. Amestoy then traveled between the barricades, striking the inside corner of the lefthand barricade with his handlebar, and was thrown forward off of his bike.3 Although he was wearing a helmet, Amestoy suffered severe head trauma and died later that day. 

The plaintiff, wife of the deceased, sued for:

(1) was liable for Martin’s death due to its failure to warn of the allegedly dangerous condition of the barricades, (2) had actual
knowledge that the barricades posed a risk of serious bodily injury or death, and (3) willfully failed to warn of the alleged danger (despite knowing of the risk posed by the barricades).

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment stating it was not liable because of the Georgia Recreational Use Act. The plaintiff argued that the exception to the act applied, if the landowner of and did not warn of a dangerous condition. The Trial court agreed and the defendant immediately appealed that order. 

SMMA responded and filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that it was immune from suit under the RPA. The trial court ultimately denied SMMA’s motion when it concluded that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether (1) the barricades were a dangerous condition and (2) SMMA had actual knowledge that this condition was dangerous.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

The defendant appealed the decision based upon the facts that:

… (1) there was no evidence that it had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition, (2) the allegedly dangerous condition was
open and obvious as a matter of law, and (3) there was no evidence that it willfully failed to warn of the allegedly dangerous condition. Because the allegedly dangerous condition–i.e., the barricades blocking the southbound lanes of Robert E. Lee Boulevard–was open and obvious as a matter of law….

Under the Georgia Recreational Use Act, the landowner owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for others entering the land for recreational purposes.

In enacting the RPA, the General Assembly sought to “encourage property owners to make their property available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting the owners’ liability.”8 In this regard, OCGA § 51-3-22 provides that “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 the premises to persons entering for recreational purposes.”

There is a liability for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity. Under Georgia’s law:

…”willful failure” involves “a conscious, knowing, voluntary, intentional failure, rather than a mere inadvertent, accidental,  involuntary, inattentive, inert, or passive omission.” And malice requires either “an actual intent to cause the particular harm produced or the wanton and [willful] doing of the act with an awareness of the plain and strong likelihood that harm may result.”  Thus, in order for the “willful or malicious failure” exception to apply, Nancy Amestoy must show that the property owner  (SMMA) had actual knowledge that (1) the property was being used for recreational purposes; (2) a condition existed involving unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm; (3) the condition was not apparent to those using the property; and (4) having the foregoing knowledge, the property owner chose not to warn users in disregard of the possible con-sequences. Constructive knowledge is insufficient to meet this burden of proof, and the property owner has no duty to inspect the property. Importantly, the plaintiff must satisfy each prong of this four-part test to succeed against a recreational property owner under this exception.

The court held the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to create a jury question on whether or not the condition was not apparent to those using the property, the third prong of the test.

The court cited witness statements and statements from the investigators that the barriers where visible at least for hundreds of feet. 

Considering the above testimony, Nancy Amestoy presented no evidence that SMMA had actual knowledge that the barricades were not apparent to park users when they were open and obvious, as overwhelmingly demonstrated by the foregoing testimony and photographic evidence.

The Appellate Court reversed the trial court and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the Georgia Recreational Use Statute

So Now What? 

The first take away is the Georgia Recreational Use Statute protects parks owned non-governmental landowners from suit. The second is, even though the statute has an exception for “willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity,” the landowner must have actual knowledge, not just constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition.

Here because the barricades were visible for hundreds of feet, the barricades did not constitute a dangerous condition. 

If you are a cyclist, look up once in a while. 

What do you think? Leave a comment.

 Copyright 2017 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

clip_image002 clip_image004 clip_image006 clip_image008 clip_image010

 If you are interested in having me write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

By Recreation Law   Rec-law@recreation-law.com       James H. Moss

 #AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw,
#AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps,
#ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw,
#FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,
#IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence,
#OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw,
#Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer,
#RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom,
#Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer,
#RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding,
#SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw,
#OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,

barricade, actual knowledge, dangerous condition, prong,
summary judgment, visible, punctuation, warn, recreational purposes, property
owners, warning, ‘willful, feet, bicyclist, matter of law, issues of material
fact, recreational, genuine, guard, user, captain, injured party, subjective,
stream, block, cone, stationed, distance, bicycle, evidence sufficient, Georgia
Recreational Use Statute, Recreational Use, Stone Mountain Memorial
Association, Non-governmental Park,

 

 

 

Advertisements

Stone Mountain Memorial Association v. Amestoy, 337 Ga. App. 467; 788 S.E.2d 110; 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 358

Stone Mountain Memorial Association v. Amestoy, 337 Ga. App. 467; 788 S.E.2d 110; 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 358

Stone Mountain Memorial Association v. Amestoy.

A16A0056.

COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA

337 Ga. App. 467; 788 S.E.2d 110; 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 358

June 21, 2016, Decided

HEADNOTES Georgia Advance Headnotes

(1) Torts. Real Property Torts. General Premises Liability. The wife of a bicyclist who died of a head injury after striking a barricade that had been placed across the road in a public park to protect runners in a road race failed to produce sufficient evidence to create a jury question as to the park owner’s actual knowledge that the barricades were not apparent to those using the property as required to prove an exception to immunity under OCGA § 51-3-25 (1) of the Recreational Property Act; the road was straight and open and the barricades were highly visible.

COUNSEL: Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Kathleen M. Pacious, Deputy Attorney General, Loretta L. Pinkston, Kirsten S. Daughdril, Senior Assistant Attorneys General, Kristine K. Hayter, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Childers, Schleuter & Smith, William A. Parker, Jr., for appellee.

JUDGES: [***1] DILLARD, Judge. Phipps, P. J., and Peterson, J., concur.

OPINION BY: DILLARD

OPINION

[*467] [**111] Dillard, Judge.

Stone Mountain Memorial Association (“SMMA”) appeals from the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment in a premises-liability and wrongful-death action brought by Nancy Amestoy following her husband Martin’s tragic death in a bicycling accident at Stone Mountain Park. Specifically, SMMA contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment because it is immune from liability under the Recreational Property Act (“RPA”).1 Because we agree with SMMA that the RPA immunizes it from liability, we reverse.

1 See OCGA § 51-3-20 et seq.; see also OCGA § 51-3-20 [HN1] (“The purpose of this article is to encourage owners of land to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting the owners’ liability toward persons entering thereon for recreational purposes.”).

Viewed in the light most favorable to Nancy Amestoy (i.e., the nonmoving party),2 the record reflects that between 7:30 and 7:45 a.m. on the day in question, officers with SMMA’s public-safety department engaged in temporary traffic-control efforts on portions of Stone Mountain Park’s Robert E. Lee Boulevard in anticipation of a 5k walk/run event that [***2] was scheduled to begin at 8:00 a.m. These temporary traffic-control efforts consisted of two saw-horse style barricades placed side-by-side across the road’s southbound lanes, spanning approximately ten-feet wide with an approximately one-and-a-half foot gap between them. Both barricades bore orange and white stripes and “do not enter” signs.

2 See, e.g., Holcomb v. Long, 329 Ga. App. 515, 517 (765 SE2d 687) (2014).

The SMMA major stationed at these barricades manned the post for a few minutes after they were erected, but he left suddenly when [*468] overcome by an urgent need to use the restroom. While the major was in the restroom, the SMMA captain–who was stationed at a separate traffic-control post–saw two bicyclists maneuver around the barricades at the major’s post. Then, six or seven minutes later, Martin Amestoy was observed riding his bicycle toward the barricades at what a witness believed was a “safe, normal speed”; however, Amestoy’s head was down. Amestoy then traveled between the barricades, striking the inside corner of the lefthand barricade with his handlebar, and was thrown forward off of his bike.3 Although he was wearing a helmet, Amestoy suffered severe head trauma and died later that day.

3 Nancy Amestoy alleges that her husband may [***3] have been attempting to avoid a collision with the barricades by trying to ride between them. Officers could not speak to Martin after the collision to ascertain his version of events because he was unconscious. But Nancy’s expert opined that “once [Martin] was aware of [the barricades,] his only path of travel was between the two barricades.”

Thereafter, Nancy Amestoy filed suit against SMMA in her capacity as surviving spouse and on behalf of Martin’s estate. In doing so, she asserted that SMMA (1) was liable for Martin’s death due to its failure to warn of the allegedly dangerous condition of the barricades, (2) had actual knowledge that the barricades posed a risk of serious bodily injury or death, and (3) willfully failed to warn of the alleged danger (despite knowing of the risk posed by the barricades). SMMA responded and filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that it was immune [**112] from suit under the RPA. The trial court ultimately denied SMMA’s motion when it concluded that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether (1) the barricades were a dangerous condition and (2) SMMA had actual knowledge that this condition was dangerous. The trial court did, however, [***4] certify the denial of SMMA’s motion for immediate review, and this Court granted SMMA’s application for interlocutory appeal. This appeal follows.

At the outset, we note that [HN2] on appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment, we conduct a de novo review of the record.4 [HN3] To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law.5 A defendant may do this by showing the trial court that the record [*469] reveals no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of the plaintiff’s case.6 Indeed, if there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to “any essential element of the plaintiff’s claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards.”7 With these guiding principles in mind, we turn now to SMMA’s arguments on appeal.

4 See Gayle v. Frank Callen Boys & Girls Club, 322 Ga. App. 412, 412 (745 SE2d 695) (2013) (“A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant [or denial] of summary judgment[.]” (punctuation omitted)).

5 See id. [HN4] (“Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material [***5] fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (punctuation omitted)).

6 See Farris v. First Fin. Bank, 313 Ga. App. 460, 462 (722 SE2d 89) (2011) [HN5] (“This burden is met by a defendant when the court is shown that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of the plaintiff’s case.” (punctuation omitted)).

7 La Quinta Inns, Inc. v. Leech, 289 Ga. App. 812, 812 (658 SE2d 637) (2008) (punctuation omitted).

SMMA argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment based upon immunity under the RPA because (1) there was no evidence that it had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition, (2) the allegedly dangerous condition was open and obvious as a matter of law, and (3) there was no evidence that it willfully failed to warn of the allegedly dangerous condition. Because the allegedly dangerous condition–i.e., the barricades blocking the southbound lanes of Robert E. Lee Boulevard–was open and obvious as a matter of law, SMMA was entitled to summary judgment.

[HN6] In enacting the RPA, the General Assembly sought to “encourage property owners to make their property available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting the owners’ liability.”8 In this regard, OCGA § 51-3-22 provides [***6] that “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 the premises to persons entering for recreational purposes.”

8 Gayle, 322 Ga. App. at 413 (punctuation omitted). [HN7] The RPA applies when the property is “open to the public for recreational purposes and the owner does not charge an admission fee.” Id. at 414. It is undisputed between the parties that Stone Mountain Park is open to the public for recreational purposes and does not charge an admission fee. See OCGA § 51-3-21 (a) (” ‘Charge’ means the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land.”); see also Hogue v. Stone Mtn. Mem. Ass’n, 183 Ga. App. 378, 380 (1) (358 SE2d 852) (1987) (holding that initial motor-vehicle fee was “a permit for the use of a vehicle in the park” and that “the trial court was authorized to conclude as a matter of law that this fee did not constitute a charge for the recreational use of the parkland itself”).

[HN8] Notwithstanding the RPA’s general provision for immunity from liability, there is an exception “[f]or willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity.”9 But as we have previously held, [***7] “willful failure” involves “a conscious, knowing, voluntary, intentional failure, rather than a mere inadvertent, accidental, involuntary, inattentive, inert, or passive [*470] [**113] omission.”10 And malice requires either “an actual intent to cause the particular harm produced or the wanton and [willful] doing of the act with an awareness of the plain and strong likelihood that harm may result.”11 Thus, in order for the “willful or malicious failure” exception to apply, Nancy Amestoy must show that the property owner (SMMA) had actual knowledge that (1) the property was being used for recreational purposes;12 (2) a condition existed involving unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm; (3) the condition was not apparent to those using the property; and (4) having the foregoing knowledge, the property owner chose not to warn users in disregard of the possible consequences.13 Constructive knowledge is insufficient to meet this burden of proof, and the property owner has no duty to inspect the property.14 Importantly, the plaintiff must satisfy each prong of this four-part test to succeed against a recreational property owner under this exception.15

9 OCGA § 51-3-25 (1); see also Gayle, 322 Ga. App. at 415.

10 Collins v. City of Summerville, 284 Ga. App. 54, 56 (643 SE2d 305) (2007) (punctuation omitted); accord Cooley v. City of Carrollton, 249 Ga. App. 387, 388 (547 SE2d 689) (2001); Spivey v. City of Baxley, 210 Ga. App. 772, 773 (437 SE2d 623) (1993).

11 Collins, 284 Ga. App. at 56 (punctuation [***8] omitted); accord Gayle, 322 Ga. App. at 415.

12 The parties do not dispute that the first prong of this test is satisfied.

13 See Gayle, 322 Ga. App. at 415 (listing the four requirements); Collins, 284 Ga. App. at 56 (same); Spivey, 210 Ga. App. at 773 (same); Quick v. Stone Mtn. Mem. Ass’n, 204 Ga. App. 598, 599 (420 SE2d 36) (1992) (same); see also Edmondson v. Brooks Cty. Bd. of Educ., 205 Ga. App. 662, 663 (423 SE2d 413) (1992) (noting that, in the fourth prong, ” ‘[t]his knowledge’ refers to the three previously listed facts of which the owner must have actual knowledge in order to be liable for ‘choosing not to guard or warn’ ” (punctuation omitted)).

14 See Collins, 284 Ga. App. at 56 (“Constructive knowledge is not sufficient, and no duty to inspect is imposed on the property owner.”); Ga. Dep’t of Transp. v. Thompson, 270 Ga. App. 265, 269 (2) (a) (606 SE2d 323) (2004) (“This test excludes either constructive knowledge or a duty to inspect.” (punctuation omitted)).

15 See, e.g., Lee v. Dep’t of Nat’l Res., 263 Ga. App. 491, 493-94 (3) (588 SE2d 260) (2003) (holding that, despite uncontroverted satisfaction of first prong, failure to satisfy other prongs was fatal to claim); Edmondson, 205 Ga. App. at 663 (noting that, in holding that RPA immunized defendant from liability, the issue of liability under the RPA is “resolved by a four-part test” and the defendants “rel[ied] on the absence of the third prong of the test”).

At the outset, [HN9] we reject any suggestion that the four-part test does not require actual knowledge as to each prong. Although we have not always been precise in our recitation of the analytical framework,16 the notion that actual knowledge is not required by the foregoing [***9] four-part test is belied by the plain language of the test adopted by this Court in McGruder v. Georgia Power Co.,17 by our [*471] explanation and application of the test in subsequent cases,18 and even by other jurisdictions that have construed the test employed in Georgia.19 (1) And here, Nancy [**114] Amestoy failed to produce any evidence to create a jury question as to the third prong of the test–that is, that SMMA had actual knowledge that the barricades were not apparent to those using the property.20 As the trial court noted in its order, the road leading up to the barricades is straight and open. Indeed, witnesses observed two other cyclists negotiate their bicycles around the barricades only minutes before Martin Amestoy’s accident. Additionally, not only does the photographic evidence demonstrate that the barricades were highly visible, but testimony by numerous SMMA public-safety personnel established that they believed this to be the case.

16 See Gayle, 322 Ga. App. at 415; Collins, 284 Ga. App. at 56; Norton v. Cobb Cty., 284 Ga. App. 303, 307 (3) (643 SE2d 803) (2007) (physical precedent only).

17 126 Ga. App. 562, 563-64 (1) (191 SE2d 305) (1972) (“In the context of the whole statute, it would seem that a wilful failure to guard or warn would require actual knowledge of the owner that its property is being used for recreational purposes; that a condition exists involving [***10] an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm; that the condition is not apparent to those using the property; and that having this knowledge, the owner chooses not to guard or warn, in disregard of the possible consequences.”), reversed on other grounds by 229 Ga. 811 (194 SE2d 440) (1972); see also Ga. Marble Co. v. Warren, 183 Ga. App. 866, 867 (1) (360 SE2d 286) (1987) (adopting the four-part test as previously set forth in McGruder v. Ga. Power Co., and noting that “[a]lthough the test was turned into dicta by the Supreme Court’s ruling that the RPA was not applicable in that case, it is sound”).

18 See Ray v. Ga. Dep’t of Nat’l Res., 296 Ga. App. 700, 702 (1) (675 SE2d 585) (2009); Lee, 263 Ga. App. at 493-94 (3); Thompson, 270 Ga. App. at 269 (2) (a); S. Gwinnett Athletic Ass’n v. Nash, 220 Ga. App. 116, 119 (1) (469 SE2d 276) (1996); Spivey, 210 Ga. App. at 773; Quick, 204 Ga. App. at 599; Edmondson, 205 Ga. App. at 663; Warren, 183 Ga. App. at 867 (1).

19 Hendrickson v. Ga. Power Co., 80 FSupp2d 1374, 1379 (III) (B) (M.D. Ga. 2000) (acknowledging that this Court uses a four-part test, and reciting test so as to make clear that defendant must have “actual knowledge” as to the first three prongs); Ex parte City of Geneva, 707 So2d 626, 629 n.2 (Ala. 1997) (construing Alabama’s recreational-use statute and observing that “the four-part ‘actual knowledge’ test of [Ala. Code] § 35-15-24 [(which applies ‘actual knowledge’ to the first three prongs of test)] appears likely to be a codification of the test employed by the state courts of Georgia when determining whether a noncommercial recreational landowner may be liable for ‘willful … failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, [***11] structure, or activity.’ “).

20 See Ray, 296 Ga. App. at 702 (2) (“The … third prong of this test was not met, because no evidence was presented that appellees had actual knowledge of a condition that was not apparent to persons using the property.”); Nash, 220 Ga. App. at 119 (1) (reversing denial of motion for summary judgment when, inter alia, “even assuming for the sake of argument that the unfinished bleachers presented a dangerous condition, there is no evidence that the [defendant] had any knowledge that this condition was not apparent to people using the property”); Edmondson, 205 Ga. App. at 663 (“[The third] prong requires plaintiffs to show that defendants actually knew that the dangerous condition of the merry-go-round was not apparent to those using the playground.”).

The testimony from SMMA personnel included that of a corporal who assisted in the investigation after the accident, and who testified that (1) the “barricades were plainly visible for quite a distance,” (2) the barricades were visible “for hundreds of feet,” (3) the sun was shining on the morning in question, and (4) there was “a great deal of visibility.” Likewise, an SMMA officer who performed an accident investigation, including taking various measurements to construct a to-scale diagram and [***12] conducting a “conspicuity test,” estimated that [*472] the barricades would have been visible from “a couple hundred yards” up Robert E. Lee Boulevard. More specifically, the major who was stationed at the barricades estimated that the distance at which they were visible would have been 200 to 250 feet, though he did acknowledge that on the morning in question, “[t]he way the sun was up, [a cyclist or motorist] would possibly [have] been looking into the sun.” Lastly, the SMMA captain calculated that the distance from the first line of sight to the barricades was one-tenth of a mile, or 528 feet, concluding that the barricades were “highly visible.” The captain also echoed other testimony that “[i]t was a clear day, the sun was out, [and] visibility was good.”

Finally, Nancy Amestoy’s expert testified that from his position and speed on a bicycle, Martin Amestoy likely would have seen the gap between the barricades when he was approximately fifteen feet away, giving him about one-half of a second to react. But when questioned about the distance from which the barricades themselves would have been visible, the expert testified that he did not “have an answer for that” and that he did not “know how far [***13] back they would have been seen,” though he opined that it would not have been “very far.” He also testified that he had no way of knowing what Martin Amestoy was doing “10, 20, [or] 50 feet prior to the barricades.”

Considering the above testimony, Nancy Amestoy presented no evidence that SMMA had actual knowledge that the barricades were not apparent to park users when they were open and obvious,21 as overwhelmingly [**115] demonstrated by the foregoing testimony and photographic evidence.22 Indeed, as previously noted, there is no evidence [*473] that SMMA officials knew that the barricades were not apparent.23 Although Nancy Amestoy claims that SMMA stationed a major at the barricades to provide warnings to approaching motorists and bicyclists and that this officer had actual knowledge of the need to provide such warnings, there is no evidence to substantiate these assertions. Instead, the major testified that the objective of his post was to “turn the cars around, bicyclists around.” Additionally, the SMMA captain testified that the purpose of the major’s post was “to block the road, to keep cars from going down into that area where the people would be crossing” and “protect the walkers,”24 not to “protect [***14] bicyclists and cars.” And when further asked if there was “any interest in protecting the bicyclists or the vehicles from entering that area,” the captain responded that “[o]ur objective is to protect everybody in the park.” But this diplomatic answer is a far cry from testimony that would create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether SMMA officials had actual knowledge that the barricades themselves were not apparent–or open and obvious–to park users.

21 Cf. Turkett v. Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co., 117 Ga. App. 617, 617 (161 SE2d 362) (1968) (holding that court erred in dismissing petition alleging negligence when plaintiff collided with warning device placed in roadway by defendant while traveling in the dark, in the rain, and under circumstances of poor visibility; and obstruction was unlighted, obscured from plaintiff’s vision by its placement, and could not be seen until within 10 feet); Rogers v. Johnson, 94 Ga. App. 666, 666 (syllabus), 677 (1), 678 (3) (96 SE2d 285) (1956) (sustaining verdict for plaintiff when decedent was traveling roadway at night in car that collided with defendant’s vehicle, which was hauling house-trailer, nearly blocking the entire roadway after making a lefthand turn); Trammell v. Matthews, 84 Ga. App. 332, 338-39 (1) (66 SE2d 183) (1951) (holding that there was a question for the jury as to negligence when plaintiff alleged, inter alia, “that had the defendant placed proper warnings at the [***15] point where the detour went around the place where the bridge was out, the driver of the car … would not have passed the detour and gone through the partial road block and then into the place where the bridge was out,” and when it appeared from the plaintiff’s petition “that the way ahead of the driver of this car was not clear, that it was yet dark, and the road was not straight as one approached this partial road block from the [s]outh; that the detour was the same color as the paved road; [and] that the partial road block was not sufficient and adequate to prevent one from assuming that the road could be used”).

22 See Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth. v. Fife, 220 Ga. App. 298, 299, 300 (1) (469 SE2d 420) (1996) (noting that photographic evidence showed that allegedly dangerous condition of drainage culvert was “plainly visible to anyone standing at the curb,” and holding that condition was open and obvious); Warren, 183 Ga. App. at 868 (1) (“Photographs of the stream illustrate that even a first time visitor to the stream would perceive that the stream’s bed was or at least was likely to be rocky. … The rocky condition of the terrain in and about the stream was open and obvious.”); see also Engleson v. Little Falls Area Chamber of Commerce, No. Civ. 101-102, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23093, 2002 WL 31689432, at *3 (3) (D. Minn. 2002) (noting, in case involving a plaintiff who tripped over an orange traffic cone, that “[t]he test for obviousness is an [***16] objective test that examines whether the danger was in fact visible, rather than whether the injured party actually saw the danger,” and concluding that not only were traffic cones obvious but that defendants “could not have anticipated harm from the cones because traffic cones are, themselves, warning markers”).

23 See Ray, 296 Ga. App. at 702 (1) (“The … third prong of this test was not met, because no evidence was presented that appellees had actual knowledge of a condition that was not apparent to persons using the property.”); Edmondson, 205 Ga. App. at 663 (“[The third] prong requires plaintiffs to show that defendants actually knew that the dangerous condition of the merry-go-round was not apparent to those using the playground.”).

24 (Emphasis supplied.)

Furthermore, even if we were to assume that Martin Amestoy could not see the barricades from his position and speed on his bicycle or due to the sun’s location at the exact moment of his accident on the morning in question, [HN10] whether a dangerous condition is open and obvious depends on the objective knowledge of a reasonable person, not on the plaintiff’s subjective knowledge.25

25 See Morris v. Clark Equip. Co., 904 FSupp. 1379, 1383 (II) (B) (M.D. Ga. 1995) (“In determining whether a danger was open and obvious to the injured party, the court should [***17] use an objective point of view, as opposed to subjective, since the user’s perceptions are irrelevant.”); see also Weatherby v. Honda Motor Co., 195 Ga. App. 169, 171 (393 SE2d 64) (1990) (“In determining, under the ‘open and obvious rule,’ whether the peril from which an injury results is latent or patent, the decision is made on the basis of an objective view … , and the subjective perceptions of the user or injured party are irrelevant.”), overruled on other grounds by Ogletree v. Navistar Intern. Transp. Corp., 269 Ga. 443, 443-44 (500 SE2d 570) (1998) (holding that “open and obvious danger” rule is not applicable in cases of alleged design defect). See generally 62A Am. Jur. 2d Premises Liability § 713 (2016) [HN11] (“Whether a condition is open and obvious, for premises liability purposes, depends on the objective knowledge of a reasonable person, not the plaintiff’s subjective knowledge. The test for what constitutes an ‘obvious’ danger is an objective test: the question is not whether the injured party actually saw the danger, but whether it was in fact visible.” (footnotes omitted)).

[*474] [**116] In light of the foregoing, we must reverse the trial court’s denial of SMMA’s motion for summary judgment.26

26 See Nash, 220 Ga. App. at 119 (1) (reversing denial of motion for summary judgment when, inter alia, “even assuming for the sake of argument that the unfinished bleachers presented a dangerous condition, there is no [***18] evidence that the [defendant] had any knowledge that this condition was not apparent to people using the property”).

Judgment reversed. Phipps, P. J., and Peterson, J., concur.


Crashing while mountain biking is an inherent risk under Indiana’s law.

The plaintiff also admitted that he knew the risks of mountain biking and as such were contributorily negligent which barred his claims against the park owner.

Hoosier Mountain Bike Association, Inc., et. al., v. Kaler, 73 N.E.3d 712; 2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 133

State:  Indiana, Court of Appeals of Indiana

Plaintiff: (At Trial) Richard Kaler 

Defendant: (At Trial) Hoosier Mountain Bike Association, Inc., City of Indianapolis, and Indy Parks and Recreation

Plaintiff Claims: Premises Liability 

Defendant Defenses: No liability and Contributory Negligence 

Holding: For the Defendants (at Trial) 

Year: 2017 

Summary

Crashing while mountain biking is an inherent risk under Indiana’s law. The plaintiff, an experienced mountain biker could not recover from the park because he knew and had crashed mountain biking and his knowledge of mountain biking also made him contributorily negligent. Contributory negligence under Indiana Law is a complete bar to recovery when suing a municipality.

Facts 

This decision the parties in the heading is reversed. The plaintiff is listed second in this case at the appellate court heading and the defendants are listed first. The reason is the defendants are appealing the trial court’s ruling and they the defendants are prosecuting the case to the appellate court. Few states work this way in titling their decisions. 

The City of Indianapolis, through its Indy Parks and Recreation department owns Town Run Trail Park. It has numerous mountain bike trails through the park which are managed by the Hoosier Mountain Bike Association.

The plaintiff had been mountain biking for five or six years. An Eagle Scout had created a berm in the park as part of a “merit badge” in the park. While riding the berm the plaintiff crashed and sued.

He described himself as an “experienced” and “better than average” bicyclist. Although he was familiar with the trails at Town Run, he had not been on the mountain-bike trail since the berm had been constructed several months earlier. “Oftentimes,” Kaler would “try to get an idea of the technical requirements of the trail” and would step off his bike, especially if he saw something within his view “as a danger.”

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

All states have Premises Liability statutes. These statutes set out the duties of land owners relative to people on their land. If the land owner fails to meet those duties, the landowner is liability. An injury to a person on someone’s land is called a premises liability claim.

The plaintiff mountain biker brought a premises liability claim for his injuries. To win a premises liability claim in Indiana the plaintiff must prove the landowner. 

(a) Knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable
risk of harm to such invitees, and

(b) Should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and

(c) Fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger. 

The plaintiff failed to prove this to the appellate court on two different arguments. First, the plaintiff’s experience as a mountain bike showed he knew that crashing was a possibility mountain biking, and he crashed often. 

He admitted that a fall “was just a general consequence of the sport.” Although he had ridden the trail the first time without any problems, when Kaler decided to make a second run, it was getting dark, but he was insistent that he “wanted to ride the higher grade because [he] knew it was more challenging.” At no point, did Kaler step off his bike and inspect the berm’s high grade prior to riding it in the approaching darkness. Accordingly, pursuant to Kaler’s own statements, the City could objectively and reasonably have expected an experienced bicyclist to realize the risks a beginner to intermediate trail would present and take appropriate precautions. 

Second he had ridden the wooden berm once before that day, electing to take a lower ride through the berm. The second time he went faster taking the higher edge of the berm when he crashed.

The plaintiff could not prove that actual or constructive knowledge that the City knew the trail created an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiff. Not because of the lack of the cities’ knowledge, but because crashing was part of the sport. Therefore, there was no unreasonable risk. The plaintiff had testified that crashing was part of the sport.

As the expectation of a bicycle crash is a risk inherent to riding trails, it cannot serve to establish the sort of unreasonable risk of harm contemplated in the first Burrell element.

Having the plaintiff admit crashing was part of the sport, the court held that while mountain biking crashing was an inherent risk of the sport. If a risk is inherent to the sport, then you could not sue for injuries from an inherent risk.

The second defense brought by the City on appeal was the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Contributory negligence 

“[c]ontributory negligence is the failure of a person to exercise for his own safety that degree of care and caution which an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person in a similar situation would exercise.

If you can prove the plaintiff was responsible for his own injuries, then the defendant is not liable. In some states, this could act to reduce the plaintiff’s damages. In Indiana, it was a complete bar to the plaintiff’s claims. 

Reviewing the testimony of the plaintiff, the court found that the plaintiff was not completely free of all negligence. Meaning the plaintiff was also negligent and therefore, barred from suing for his claims.

So Now What? 

Two great ideas came out of this for land owners in Indiana. The first is crashing is an inherent risk of the mountain biking. Most mountain bikers already knew this; however, having a court make the statement is great. 

Second premises liability statute in Indiana has been interpreted to allow the defendant to introduce the knowledge and skill of the plaintiff as a defense to the plaintiff’s claims and as a denial of his claims. 

What do you think? Leave a comment. 

Copyright 2017 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529 

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

clip_image002 clip_image004 clip_image006 clip_image008 clip_image010

 If you are interested in having me write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com 

By Recreation Law  Rec-law@recreation-law.com       James H. Moss

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw,
#AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps,
#ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw,
#FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,
#IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence,
#OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw,
#Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer,
#RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom,
#Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer,
#RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding,
#SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw,
#OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,
Hoosier
Mountain Bike Association, Hoosier Mountain Bike Association, Inc., City of
Indianapolis, Indy Parks and Recreation, trail, berm’s, bike, summary judgment,
riding, premises liability, mountain, high grade, ride, genuine, rider,
designated, obstacles, grade, drop, issue of material fact, contributorily
negligent, risk of harm, approaching, landowner’s, invitee, sport, golf course,
golf ball, contributory negligence, challenging, objectively, precaution,
bicyclist, bicycle, mountain bike, mountain biking, inherent risk. Inherent
risk,


 

 


Hoosier Mountain Bike Association, Inc., et. al., v. Kaler, 73 N.E.3d 712; 2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 133

Hoosier Mountain Bike Association, Inc., et. al., v. Kaler, 73 N.E.3d 712; 2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 133

Hoosier Mountain Bike Association, Inc., City of Indianapolis, and Indy Parks and Recreation,1 Appellants-Defendants, v. Richard Kaler, Appellee-Plaintiff.

1 On February 23, 2017, Hoosier Mountain Bike Association, Inc. filed a notice of settlement with Richard Kaler and, as part of the settlement, dismissed this appeal. Accordingly, Hoosier Mountain Bike Association, Inc. is no longer a party in this cause. We will still include facts with respect to the Hoosier Mountain Bike Association, Inc. where necessary for our decision.

Court of Appeals Case No. 49A04-1604-CT-865

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

73 N.E.3d 712; 2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 133

March 23, 2017, Decided

March 23, 2017, Filed

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from the Marion Superior Court. The Honorable Cynthia J. Ayers, Judge. Trial Court Cause No. 49D04-1209-CT-35642

COUNSEL: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: Donald E. Morgan, Lynne D. Hammer, Kathryn M. Box, Office of Corporation Counsel, Indianapolis, Indiana.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: John F. Townsend, III, Townsend & Townsend, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana.

JUDGES: Riley, Judge. Crone, J. and Altice, J. concur.

OPINION BY: Riley

OPINION

[*714] Riley, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE2

2 We held oral argument in this cause on March 7, 2017, in the Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom in Indianapolis, Indiana. We thank both counsel for their advocacy.

P1 Appellants-Defendants, the City of Indianapolis and Indy Parks and Recreation (the City),3 appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment with respect to Appellee-Plaintiff’s, Richard Kaler (Kaler), claims of negligence after Kaler sustained injuries in riding the City’s mountain bike trail at Town Run Trail Park.

3 For all practical purposes, Appellant is the City of Indianapolis as the City’s Indy Parks and Recreation department cannot be sued outside the Access to Public Records Act context. See City of Peru v. Lewis, 950 N.E.2d 1, 4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (noting that units of local government, but not their individual departments, are suable under Indiana law), trans. denied.

P2 We reverse.

ISSUES

P3 The City presents us with four issues on appeal, which we consolidate and restate as follows:

(1) Whether a genuine issue of material fact precluded the entry of summary judgment on Kaler’s claim of premises liability; and

(2) Whether a genuine issue of material fact precluded the entry of summary judgment based on the City’s claim that Kaler was contributorily negligent.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY [**2]

P4 The City of Indianapolis owns and operates the Town Run Trail Park through its Indy Parks and Recreation department. The Hoosier Mountain Bike Association, Inc. (HMBA) is responsible for maintaining the trails, which have a difficulty rating from beginner through intermediate. In the spring of 2011, an Eagle Scout, as part of his merit badge project, built a new technical trail feature along Town Run’s mountain bike trail. The feature can best be described as a banked wooden turn, also known as a berm. A rider, approaching the berm, has three options for completing the turn. First, riders can avoid the berm by staying on the dirt path on its left side. Second, riders can elect to enter the berm and ride it on the low grade, or third, riders can negotiate the turn by riding the berm’s more challenging high grade. The entrance onto the wooden turn is fully tapered with the ground, while the exit is only partially tapered. A rider [*715] choosing the low grade would exit the berm with a “little jump” off the end of the feature. (City’s App. Vol. II, pp. 100-01). A rider exiting on the high grade would have to make a two-foot jump back down to the trail.

P5 By July 9, 2011, Kaler had been mountain [**3] biking for approximately four to five years. He described himself as an “experienced” and “better than average” bicyclist. (City’s App. Vol. II, pp. 90, 91). Although he was familiar with the trails at Town Run, he had not been on the mountain bike trail since the berm had been constructed several months earlier. “Oftentimes,” Kaler would “try to get an idea of the technical requirements of the trail” and would step off his bike, especially if he saw something within his view “as a danger.” (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 89). He understood that “on a mountain bike trail there’s multiple paths that you can take, one being more dangerous or less dangerous than another.” (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 89). In fact, Kaler had ridden a “fairly sophisticated” trail before which had a “four or five foot drop.” (City’s App. Vol. II, pp. 95, 96). While riding a mountain bike, Kaler was “never [] a casual rider. [He] always enjoyed the obstacles[.]” (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 100). He “expected to get in a wreck at least every other time [he] rode, and [he] would routinely fall off the bike over obstacles.” (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 95). “[I]t was just a general consequence of the sport.” (City’s App. Vol. II, [**4] p. 95).

P6 On July 9, 2011, Kaler and his girlfriend took their first trip on the trail. The mountain bike trail is shaped as a “figure 8,” with an approximate length of 6 miles. (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 92). When he first approached the berm, Kaler “took the low grade” on the feature. (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 95). As he approached the end of the turn, Kaler could see “there was a drop” so he “pull[ed] up on the fork and [did] a little bunny hop[.]” (City’s App. Vol II, pp. 102, 101). On their second trip around the course, Kaler’s girlfriend decided to take a shorter loop back to the trailhead. She was not as “adventurous” as Kaler and was concerned about getting back to the trailhead before dusk. (City’s App. Vol II, p. 92). Despite the approaching darkness, Kaler “wanted to ride the higher grade because [he] knew it was more challenging.” (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 101). He reached the berm again around 9:30 p.m. Feeling “capable of riding that high line,” Kaler sped up and rode the berm “as high as [he] could possibly ride it with [his] skill set.” (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 101). As he was near the end of the berm’s high grade, he “just saw [him]self lose control [] and just knew he was dropping.” [**5] (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 101). Kaler “didn’t see the drop, [nor] was he aware of the drop” at the end of the high grade turn, instead he “thought it tapered off.” (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 104). Due to the fall, Kaler sustained lacerations to his spleen and kidney. After calling his mother and girlfriend to inform them that he had crashed, he rode his bicycle back to the trail head. That evening, Kaler and his girlfriend went out for dinner.

P7 Around 1:30 a.m. on the following morning, Kaler went to the hospital where he was diagnosed with lacerations to his spleen and kidney. On discharge, Kaler was offered physical therapy but refused it because he “didn’t feel it was necessary.” (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 99). Kaler’s recovery did not last long and he participated in a 100-mile bicycle ride later that summer.

P8 On September 7, 2012, Kaler filed his Complaint against the City, sounding in premises liability. On August 21, 2015, the City filed its motion for summary judgment. (City’s App. Vol II, p. 46). In turn, Kaler submitted his response to the City’s motion, as well as his designation of evidence. On January 6, 2016, the trial court [*716] conducted a hearing on the City’s motion for summary [**6] judgment. On February 2, 2016, the trial court issued its Order, summarily denying the motion. The trial court certified its Order for interlocutory appeal and the City sought this court’s permission to appeal. We granted the request and accepted the interlocutory appeal on May 19, 2016.

P9 Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Standard of Review

P10 Summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). “A fact is material if its resolution would affect the outcome of the case, and an issue is genuine if a trier of fact is required to resolve the parties’ differing accounts of the truth . . . , or if the undisputed facts support conflicting reasonable inferences.” Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756, 761 (Ind. 2009).

P11 In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on summary judgment, this court stands in the shoes of the trial court, applying the same standards in deciding whether to affirm or reverse summary judgment. First Farmers Bank & Trust Co. v. Whorley, 891 N.E.2d 604, 607 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. Thus, on appeal, we must determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the trial court has correctly applied the law. Id. at 607-08. In doing so, we consider all of [**7] the designated evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 608. The party appealing the grant of summary judgment has the burden of persuading this court that the trial court’s ruling was improper. Id. When the defendant is the moving party, the defendant must show that the undisputed facts negate at least one element of the plaintiff’s cause of action or that the defendant has a factually unchallenged affirmative defense that bars the plaintiff’s claim. Id. Accordingly, the grant of summary judgment must be reversed if the record discloses an incorrect application of the law to the facts. Id.

P12 We observe that in the present case, the trial court did not enter findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its judgment. Special findings are not required in summary judgment proceedings and are not binding on appeal. AutoXchange.com. Inc. v. Dreyer and Reinbold, Inc., 816 N.E.2d 40, 48 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). However, such findings offer this court valuable insight unto the trial court’s rationale for its review and facilitate appellate review. Id.

II. Premises Liability

P13 In support of its argument that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment, the City relies on Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 1991), and Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011). In Burrell,4 [*717] Indiana’s seminal case for premises liability, [**8] our supreme court imposed a three-part test to determine a landowner’s liability for harm caused to an invitee5 by a condition of its land. Under the Burrell test, a landowner can be held responsible only if the landowner:

(a) Knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and

(b) Should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and

(c) Fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.

Burrell, 569 N.E.2d at 639-40.

4 We acknowledge that on October 26, 2016, our supreme court redrew the premises liability landscape with its decision in Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316, 321 (Ind. 2016), in which the court issued a new test with respect to the situation where an invitee’s injury occurs not due to a dangerous condition of the land but due to claims involving activities on the land. In Rogers, our supreme court distinguished Burrell as follows:

When a physical injury occurs as a condition of the land, the three elements described in the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 343 accurately describe the landowner-invitee duty. And because Burrell involved an injury due to a condition on the land, it accordingly framed the landowner-invitee duty broadly. [] [W]hile Section 343 limits the scope of the landowner-invitee duty in cases involving injuries due to conditions of the land, injuries could also befall invitees due to activities on a landowner’s premises unrelated to the premises’ condition–and that landowners owe their invites the general duty of reasonable care under those circumstances too.

Rogers, 63 N.E.3d at 322-23. Because Kaler’s injury occurred when riding a mountain bike trail feature, we find the cause more properly analyzed pursuant to Burrell [**9] as it involved a condition of the land.

5 All parties agree that Kaler is an invitee of the City.

P14 On May 18, 2011, our supreme court issued Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011), which applied the Burrell test in the realm of premises liability while participating in sports activities. In Pfenning, Cassie Pfenning was injured by a golf ball at a golf outing when she was sixteen years old. Id. at 396. At the time of the incident, Pfenning drove a beverage cart and after making several trips around the golf course “was suddenly struck in the mouth by a golf ball while driving the beverage cart on the cart path approaching the eighteenth hole’s tee pad from its green.” Id. at 397. The ball was a low drive from the sixteenth tee approximately eighty yards away. Id. The golfer’s drive traveled straight for approximately sixty to seventy yards and then severely hooked to the left. Id. The golfer noticed the roof of another cart in the direction of the shot and shouted “fore.” Id. But neither the plaintiff nor her beverage-serving companion heard anyone shout “fore.” Id. After hearing a faint yelp, the golfer ran in the direction of the errant ball and discovered the plaintiff with injuries to her mouth, jaw, and teeth. Id.

P15 Pfenning brought, among others, a premises liability claim against the Elks, the fraternal lodge that owned and [**10] operated the golf course. Id. at 405. Finding that the injury arose from a condition on the premises, the supreme court turned to Burrell in its articulation of the contours of the Elks’ duty. Id. at 406. In applying the Burrell test, the court held that the two first aspects of premises liability were not established by the designated evidence. Id. at 407. First, turning to the second element–the discovery or realization of danger–the court concluded that “for the purpose of our premises liability jurisprudence, the issue here is [] whether the Elks objectively should have expected that [Pfenning] would be oblivious to the danger or fail to protect herself from it.” Id. at 406. In applying this principle the court found “no genuine issue of fact to contravene the objectively reasonable expectation by the Elks that persons present on its golf course would realize the risk of being struck with an errant golf ball and take appropriate precautions.” Id. Addressing Burrell‘s first element–unreasonable [*718] risk of harm–the Pfenning court reasoned that “the risk of a person on a golf course being struck by a golf ball does not qualify as the ‘unreasonable risk of harm’ referred to in the first two components of the Burrell three-factor [**11] test.” Id.

P16 Likewise, here, we conclude that the designated evidence does not satisfy the Burrell requirements with respect to the duty component of premises liability. Initially, we find that it was objectively reasonable for the City under the facts of this case to expect Kaler to appreciate the risks of riding the trail and take suitable protections. The trail’s difficulty was advertised as appropriate for beginner through intermediate. Kaler’s own deposition characterized himself as an “experienced” bicyclist, who had ridden “a fairly sophisticated” trail before and who “always enjoyed the obstacles.” (City’s App. Vol. II, pp. 91, 95, 100). He conceded that to “try to get an idea of the technical requirements of the trail,” he would get off his bike, especially if he noticed something “as a danger.” (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 89). He admitted that a fall “was just a general consequence of the sport.” (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 95). Although he had ridden the trail the first time without any problems, when Kaler decided to make a second run, it was getting dark but he was insistent that he “wanted to ride the higher grade because [he] knew it was more challenging.” (City’s App. Vol. [**12] II, p. 101). At no point did Kaler step off his bike and inspect the berm’s high grade prior to riding it in the approaching darkness. Accordingly, pursuant to Kaler’s own statements, the City could objectively and reasonably have expected an experienced bicyclist to realize the risks a beginner to intermediate trail would present and take appropriate precautions.

P17 We also conclude that the designated evidence fails to establish that the City had actual or constructive knowledge of a condition on the trail that involved an unreasonable risk of harm to Kaler. Kaler’s own deposition unequivocally affirms that being involved in a bicycle crash “was just a general consequence of the sport.” (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 95). In fact, Kaler “expected to get in a wreck at least every other time [he] rode, and [he] would routinely fall off the bike over obstacles.” (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 95). As the expectation of a bicycle crash is a risk inherent to riding trails, it cannot serve to establish the sort of unreasonable risk of harm contemplated in the first Burrell element. See Pfenning, 947 N.E.2d at 407.

P18 Finding that the designated evidence conclusively established that two of the elements of the premises liability [**13] test are not satisfied, we conclude that the trial court erred by denying summary judgment to the City. We reverse the trial court’s decision and now find summary judgment for the City.

II. Contributory Negligence

P19 Next, the City maintains that Kaler is foreclosed from any recovery because of his failure to exercise the care a reasonable, prudent mountain biker should have exercised. It should be noted that Kaler brought his claim against the City, a governmental entity, and therefore, his claim falls under the common law defense of contributory negligence, as the Indiana Comparative Fault Act expressly excludes application to governmental entities. See I.C. § 34-51-2-2. Consequently, even a slight degree of negligence on Kaler’s part, if proximately contributing to his claimed damages, will operate as a total bar to his action for damages against the City, even though, as against nongovernmental defendants, any fault of Kaler would only operate to reduce the damages he might obtain.

[*719] P20 A plaintiff is contributorily negligent when the plaintiff’s conduct “falls below the standard to which he should conform for his own protection and safety.” Funston v. School Town of Munster, 849 N.E.2d 595, 598 (Ind. 2006). Lack of reasonable care that an ordinary person would [**14] exercise in like or similar circumstances is the factor upon which the presence or absence of negligence depends. Id. Expressed another way, “[c]ontributory negligence is the failure of a person to exercise for his own safety that degree of care and caution which an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person in a similar situation would exercise.” Id. at 599. Contributory negligence is generally a question of fact and is not an appropriate matter for summary judgment “if there are conflicting factual inferences.” Id. “However, where the facts are undisputed and only a single inference can reasonably be drawn therefrom, the question of contributory negligence becomes one of law.” Id.

P21 In Funston, the plaintiff sued the school after incurring injuries caused by a fall when he leaned backwards while sitting on the top row of a set of bleachers. Id. at 599. Funston had been at the gym for about four hours, watching two basketball games while sitting on lower rows on other sets of identical bleachers. Id. For the third game, he moved to the top row of one of the bleachers. Id. It was clearly visible that there was no back railing for spectators sitting on the top row, but Funston leaned back anyway because he “thought there [**15] was something back there[.]” Id. Our supreme court concluded that Funston was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, finding that:

It certainly is understandable that [Funston] would be distracted as he engaged his attention on his son’s basketball game. But being understandable does not equate with being completely free of all negligence.

Id. at 600.

P22 In his deposition, Kaler affirmed that in trying to build a skill, it would not be unusual for him “to get off [his] bike and look at the [] obstacles.” (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 89). He also acknowledged that he knew the berm’s high grade would be challenging because he had just started riding high berms and had never ridden a berm as steep as the one at Town Run. As he approached the end of the turn during his first ride on the berm, Kaler could see “there was a drop[.]” (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 103). After a successful first run on the berm’s low grade, Kaler decided to ride the feature again. Despite the approaching darkness, he planned to ride the berm’s high grade as high as he possibly could because it would be “really cool to ride it and get that speed[.]” (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 101). Notwithstanding the coolness factor, Kaler conceded [**16] that riding obstacles posed a risk of bodily injury as crashes were a general consequence of the sport. Typically, to get an idea of the technical requirements of a trail, the biker “would get off his bike.” (City’s App. Vol. II, p. 89).

P23 Based on the designated evidence, we cannot conclude that Kaler was “completely free of all negligence.” See id. Kaler knew and understood the precautions a reasonably prudent mountain biker should take–inspect the feature prior to riding it–but chose not to follow them. There is no evidence that the jump from the high grade was obscured from view and Kaler conceded that he could have anticipated the drop from the high grade had he taken the precaution a reasonable bicyclist riding an unfamiliar trail would take. Accordingly, we find Kaler contributorily negligent.

[*720] CONCLUSION

P24 Based on the foregoing, we hold that there is no genuine issue of material fact that precludes the entry of summary judgment in the City’s favor on Kaler’s claim of premises liability; and Kaler was contributorily negligent when riding the City’s mountain bike trail at Town Run.

P25 Reversed.

P26 Crone, J. and Altice, J. concur


You can’t sue for a danger which you could have seen when biking on someone’s land

Besides riding a BMX course before it is open is not smart.

Cottom v. USA Cycling, Inc, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6745 (W.D. Mich. 2002)

Plaintiff: Bradley J. R. Cottom and Melissa Cottom

Defendant: USA Cycling, Inc.

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence

Defendant Defenses: the danger which injured the plaintiff was Open and Obvious

Holding: for the defendant on its motion for summary judgment

 

In this Federal District Court case from Michigan, the court discusses the open and obvious rule applied to a mountain biker on someone else’s land. In this case, the plaintiff entered upon an unfinished BMX or dirt bike track being built by USA Cycling, Inc. and was injured in loose dirt. Because the condition of the track was open and obvious, he could not recover from the defendant.

The plaintiff was a fairly experienced BMX rider. He had seen a dirt track being built and went over to investigate. He saw construction workers as well as cyclists on the track. Talking to one construction worker, he as assured the track was safe. He rode around the track once without incident. On the second lap, he fell when he hit a rock or slipped on loose gravel and hyperextended his knee and broke his leg.

Summary of the case

Under Michigan’s law, the plaintiff was identified as a licensee. A licensee is someone who:

…is a person who is privileged to enter the land of another by virtue of the possessor’s consent. A landowner owes a licensee a duty only to warn the licensee of any hidden dangers the owner knows or has reason to know of, if the licensee does not know or have reason to know of the dangers involved. The landowner owes no duty of inspection or affirmative care to make the premises safe for the licensee’s visit.

The other two categories describing people on another’s land are trespasser and invitee. A trespasser is there without any benefit for the land owner generally, and an invitee is one who is there for the benefit to the landowner and at the bequest of the landowner.

The defense is whether the danger that injured the plaintiff was hidden or open and obvious.

USA Cycling [defendant] argues that because the condition of the track was open and obvious, it did not owe Cottom [plaintiff] a duty of protection or warning. USA Cycling notes that Cottom was able to observe the track prior to riding, that he rode around the track one time without falling, and that he was able to get a feel for the track conditions prior to his accident. Thus, according to USA Cycling, there were no hidden dangers present and it cannot be held liable for Cottom’s accident.

To prove the danger that injured the plaintiff was not open and obvious the plaintiff must complete a two-step test. Plaintiff must prove that the defendant should have known of the potentially dangerous condition and that the plaintiff did not know about the dangerous condition. The court stated the plaintiff failed to prove the second part of the test because there is no requirement to safeguard licensees from dangers that are open and obvious because those dangers come with their own warnings. The open and obvious test is an objective one, whether a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff would have foreseen the danger.

…there is no duty to take steps to safeguard licensees from conditions that are open and obvious, for “such dangers come with their own warning. A danger is open and obvious if “‘an average user with ordinary intelligence [would] have been able to discover the danger and the risk presented upon casual inspection.”

The plaintiff’s experience, visual review of the track and one lap without incident defeated his claim.

Cottom, an experienced BMX cyclist, was able to casually inspect the track and the track conditions before his accident by watching other bikers on the track and then riding on the track once himself. A reasonable person in this position would foresee the dangers the track presented, making the condition of the track open and obvious. In fact, most Americans have ridden bicycles in their youth and know that bike riders lose control of their bikes in loose dirt or that a rock will cause a bike to tip over.

First, the unpacked, gravelly condition of the track surface did not make the likelihood of injury higher than an ordinary, complete bike track. It is just as difficult for an ordinarily prudent person to ride a bike on a race track of loose dirt without losing control of the bike or falling as it is on any other dirt track. Second, there was not a high potential for severe harm. Thousands of people ride bikes every day, and many of them fall while riding their bikes on sidewalks, bike paths, tracks or trails. Bumps, bruises, and scrapes, or occasionally broken bones or more serious injuries, are the normal incidents of bike riding, especially BMX bike riding as in this case.

Because the plaintiff was able to inspect the track himself, had seen other bikers on the track and ridden the track once before falling on this second lap the plaintiff had a chance to see any dangers. The danger that cased the injury, therefore, was open and obvious and the defendant did not owe any greater duty to the defendant licensee.

Once this burden was met by the defendant the only option left to the plaintiff was to argue the danger was unreasonable. Whether there were special aspects of the danger that created or differentiated the risk. The court explained the differences this way.

For example, a pothole in a parking lot presents an open and obvious risk for which the premise’s owner would not normally be liable if someone were to trip and fall because of the hole. An unguarded, 30-foot-deep pit might present an unreasonable risk, however, because of the danger of death or severe injury.

The plaintiff was unable to argue that a rock on a dirt track was an unreasonable danger.

Thousands of people ride bikes everyday, and many of them fall while riding their bikes on sidewalks, bike paths, tracks or trails. Bumps, bruises, and scrapes, or occasionally broken bones or more serious injuries, are the normal incidents of bike riding, especially BMX bike riding as in this case.

The risks of the track were ordinary, not an unguarded deep pit. Nor was he able to prove the person who gave him the assurance that the track was safe was an employee of the defendant or that the person providing the warning had any greater knowledge about the track than the plaintiff.

The court granted the defendants motion for summary judgment.

So Now What?

This decision besides explaining the landowner’s duty for hidden dangers and the defense of open and obvious danger has great language in it for any cycling decision. The court sets forth facts that falling is a part of cycling. “Bumps, bruises, and scrapes or occasionally broken bones or more serious injures” are normal for bike riders. If you are a land owner, bike rental company, or cycling retailer, this is important language to keep available or even incorporate into your release.

If you are a land owner offering your land to someone, you should review your risks with an attorney specializing in real estate. You have multiple defenses available to you so you can allow people the opportunity to recreate. The first is all states have a statute that provides indemnity for landowners who allow others to recreate for free. These laws are called Recreational Use statutes. They differ wildly from state to state and the amount of protections they provide. Make sure you understand what you must and must not do to qualify for this protection.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FaceBook, Twitter or LinkedIn

Copyright 2013 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

By Recreation Law       Rec-law@recreation-law.com              James H. Moss               #Authorrank

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, Recreational Lawyer, Fitness Lawyer, Rec Lawyer, Challenge Course Lawyer, Ropes Course Lawyer, Zip Line Lawyer, Rock Climbing Lawyer, Adventure Travel Lawyer, Outside Lawyer, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #FitnessLawyer, #RecLawyer, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #RopesCourseLawyer, #ZipLineLawyer, #RockClimbingLawyer, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #OutsideLawyer,Bradley J. R. Cottom, Melissa Cottom, USA Cycling, Inc., BMX, cycling, biking, bicyclist, bicycle racing, bicycle track, dirt track, race track, dirt bike race track, bike park,

WordPress Tags: danger,Besides,Cottom,Dist,LEXIS,Mich,Plaintiff,Bradley,Melissa,Defendant,Claims,Negligence,Defenses,Open,Obvious,judgment,Federal,District,Court,Michigan,mountain,biker,dirt,bike,rider,construction,workers,worker,incident,knee,Summary,Under,licensee,person,virtue,possessor,landowner,dangers,owner,inspection,premises,categories,trespasser,bequest,protection,accident,Thus,requirement,licensees,warnings,user,intelligence,bikers,fact,Americans,bicycles,youth,riders,bikes,injury,Second,Thousands,sidewalks,paths,Bumps,injuries,incidents,Once,option,Whether,aspects,differences,example,pothole,premise,foot,death,assurance,employee,knowledge,defendants,decision,rental,retailer,attorney,estate,statute,landowners,laws,Recreational,statutes,protections,Make,Leave,FaceBook,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,Outside,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,Lawyer,Paddlesports,Line,RecreationalLawyer,FitnessLawyer,RecLawyer,ChallengeCourseLawyer,RopesCourseLawyer,ZipLineLawyer,RockClimbingLawyer,AdventureTravelLawyer,OutsideLawyer,bicycle,park,upon,invitee,himself


Cottom v. USA Cycling, Inc, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6745

Cottom v. USA Cycling, Inc, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6745

Bradley J. R. Cottom and Melissa Cottom, Plaintiffs, v. USA Cycling, Inc., Defendant.

Case No. 1:01-CV-474

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6745

April 11, 2002, Decided

April 11, 2002, Filed

Counsel: For BRADLEY J.R. COTTOM, MELISSA COTTOM, plaintiffs: Michael J. Cronkright, Michael J. Cronkright, PC, Lansing, MI.

For USA CYCLING INC, defendant: John J. Hoffman, Thomas, DeGrood, Witenoff & Hoffman, Southfield, MI.

Judges: GORDON J. QUIST, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Opinion By: GORDON J. QUIST

Opinion:

Plaintiffs, Bradley Cottom (“Cottom”) and his wife Melissa, filed this premises liability action against Defendant, USA Cycling, Inc. (“USA Cycling“), in state court after Cottom suffered injuries in a bicycling accident. USA Cycling removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction, and the matter is now before the Court on USA Cycling’s motion for summary judgment. Oral argument on the Motion was heard on April 9, 2002.

Facts

Cottom, an avid dirt bicycle rider, participated in competitive BMX bicycle racing from age 14 to 20. (Cottom Dep. at 4-5, Pl.’s Br. Resp. Ex. A.) Since that time, he has primarily restricted himself to recreational riding on streets and bike trails. n1 (Id. at 10-11, 20.) At approximately 5 p.m. on July 12, 2000, Cottom took his high performance Diamondback Reactor BMX bicycle to Gier Park in Lansing, Michigan. (Id. at 6, 15.) USA Cycling was constructing a dirt bike race track at the park, and Cottom went to investigate the progress of the track construction. (Id. at 6-7.) Cottom had been to the park approximately one month before and had seen a bulldozer working at the site. (Id. at 7-9.) At that time, he observed approximately 12 riders using the track. (Id. at 9.) When Cottom arrived at the park on July 12, he saw a bulldozer and men who appeared to be construction workers, but they were not working on the track at the time. (Id. at 47, 103.) Other people present at the park were picking up rocks and removing them from the track. (Id. at 93, 103.) There was no fence or other barricade around the track, and no warning or construction signs were posted. (Compl. PP 8-9, 19f.) Other riders were using the dirt track, and Cottom retrieved his bike from his truck in order to join them on the track. (Cottom Dep. at 26-28.) The track was dry, and it was still daylight when he began to ride. (Id. at 26.)

n1 Cottom was 36 years old at the time of his deposition in November 2001. (Cottom Dep. at 4.)

Cottom rode his bike around the track one time without incident. (Id. at 29.) Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that Cottom stopped to discuss the track conditions with a worker at the track and that the worker assured him that the track was safe. (Compl. P 10.) Plaintiffs have not presented evidence regarding the identity of this person. It is unknown whether the person was an employee or agent of USA Cycling, a construction worker employed by an independent contractor, or merely a bystander, a passerby, or a volunteer picking up rocks. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the person had any more experience on the track or knowledge of the track conditions than Cottom had.

On his second lap around the track, Cottom was riding through a banked turn and heading toward a jump when he lost control of his bike. (Cottom Dep. at 61.) He hyperextended his knee while attempting to recover control and fell to the ground, injuring his leg. (Id. at 32-34, 40.) Cottom testified at his deposition that he was not sure exactly what caused his accident, but he surmised that his tire may have hit a rock or a rut or sank into loose, gravelly dirt. (Id. at 30-32, 92-93.) According to Cottom, his bike was functioning properly and he was “taking it easy” by traveling between 5-10 miles per hour at the time, so neither the condition of his bike nor his speed caused him to lose control. (Id. at 41, 91-92.) Cottom’s wife was present at the park at the time, but she did not see the fall. (Id. at 42.)

Cottom was taken to a hospital where he was admitted for four days. (Compl. P 13.) He fractured his lower left leg in the fall and has undergone three corrective surgeries on his leg and knee since the accident. n2 (Medical Records, Pl.’s Br. Resp. Ex. B.)

n2 The Complaint states that Cottom injured his right leg, but at his deposition, Cottom testified that it was his left leg that was injured. (Compl. PP 11, 23; Cottom Dep. at 33.) Cottom’s medical records confirm that it was his left leg that was fractured. (Medical Records, Pls.’ Br. Resp. Ex. B.)

Standard

[HN1] Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The rule requires that the disputed facts be material. Material facts are facts which are defined by substantive law and are necessary to apply the law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). A dispute over trivial facts which are not necessary in order to apply the substantive law does not prevent the granting of a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 248, 106 S. Ct. at 2510. The rule also requires the dispute to be genuine. A dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return judgment for the non-moving party. Id. This standard requires the non-moving party to present more than a scintilla of evidence to defeat the motion. Id. at 251, 106 S. Ct. at 2511 (citing Improvement Co. v. Munson, 81 U.S. 442, 14 Wall. 442, 448, 20 L. Ed. 867 (1872)).

[HN2] A moving party who does not have the burden of proof at trial may properly support a motion for summary judgment by showing the court that there is no evidence to support the non-moving party’s case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553-54, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). If the motion is so supported, the party opposing the motion must then demonstrate with “concrete evidence” that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id.; Frank v. D’Ambrosi, 4 F.3d 1378, 1384 (6th Cir. 1993). The court must draw all inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, but may grant summary judgment when “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Agristor Financial Corp. v. Van Sickle, 967 F.2d 233, 236 (6th Cir. 1992)(quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986)).

Analysis

The parties agree that Michigan law governs the substantive issues of this case because all of the events occurred in Michigan, the forum state. (Def.’s Br. Supp. at 8-9; Pls.’ Br. Resp. at 4.) See Haque Travel Agency, Inc. v. Travel Agents Int’l, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 569, 572 (E.D. Mich. 1992).

USA Cycling makes several arguments as to why it is entitled to summary judgment. Because the Court believes that the “open and obvious” argument is dispositive, the Court will address only that argument.

USA Cycling argues that because the condition of the track was open and obvious, it did not owe Cottom a duty of protection or warning. USA Cycling notes that Cottom was able to observe the track prior to riding, that he rode around the track one time without falling, and that he was able to get a feel for the track conditions prior to his accident. Thus, according to USA Cycling, there were no hidden dangers present and it cannot be held liable for Cottom’s accident. The Court agrees.

For the purposes of this motion, the parties agree that Cottom entered USA Cycling’s premises as a licensee. (Def.’s Br. Supp. at 10; Pls.’ Br. Resp. at 8-9.) The Michigan Supreme Court has defined licensee status and explained the duty owed to a licensee by a premises owner:

[HN3] A “licensee” is a person who is privileged to enter the land of another by virtue of the possessor’s consent. A landowner owes a licensee a duty only to warn the licensee of any hidden dangers the owner knows or has reason to know of, if the licensee does not know or have reason to know of the dangers involved. The landowner owes no duty of inspection or affirmative care to make the premises safe for the licensee’s visit.

Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich. 591, 596-97, 614 N.W.2d 88, 91-92 (2000)(citation omitted).

Plaintiffs contend that USA Cycling knew of the dangers presented by an unfinished dirt track, and they submit as evidence publications from USA Cycling regarding safety guidelines and its recommendations concerning BMX track conditions that discuss the dangers of unpacked, loose dirt tracks. (Insurance Guidelines and Safety Manual, Pls.’ Br. Resp. Ex. F; Building the Track – Suggestions, Pls.’ Br. Resp. Ex. E.) Even assuming that USA Cycling knew of the dangers presented by the track at Gier Park, this assertion only gets Plaintiffs halfway over their burden of proof. In order to hold USA Cycling liable for Cottom’s accident, Plaintiffs must not only show that USA Cycling knew or should have known of the potential danger on the premises but also that Cottom did not know about it. This is because [HN4] there is no duty to take steps to safeguard licensees from conditions that are open and obvious, for “such dangers come with their own warning.” Pippin v. Atallah, 245 Mich. App. 136, 143, 626 N.W.2d 911, 914 (2001). A danger is open and obvious if “‘an average user with ordinary intelligence [would] have been able to discover the danger and the risk presented upon casual inspection.'” Abke v. Vandenberg, 239 Mich. App. 359, 361-62, 608 N.W.2d 73, 75 (2000) (per curiam) (alteration in original) (quoting Novotney v. Burger King Corp., 198 Mich. App. 470, 475, 499 N.W.2d 379, 381 (1993)). The test is an objective one, asking whether a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff would foresee the danger. Hughes v. PMG Bldg., Inc., 227 Mich. App. 1, 11, 574 N.W.2d 691, 696 (1997).

Cottom, an experienced BMX cyclist, was able to casually inspect the track and the track conditions before his accident by watching other bikers on the track and then riding on the track once himself. A reasonable person in this position would foresee the dangers the track presented, making the condition of the track open and obvious. In fact, most Americans have ridden bicycles in their youth and know that bike riders lose control of their bikes in loose dirt or that a rock will cause a bike to tip over. Therefore, USA Cycling is absolved of potential liability unless Plaintiffs can show that the condition of the track posed “an unreasonable risk of harm.” Abke, 239 Mich. App. at 361, 608 N.W.2d at 75 (citing Millikin v. Walton Manor Mobile Home Park, Inc., 234 Mich. App. 490, 498-99, 595 N.W.2d 152, 156-57 (1999)). Michigan courts have explained that “special aspects of a condition [might] make even an open and obvious risk unreasonably dangerous.” Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., 464 Mich. 512, 517, 629 N.W.2d 384, 386 (2001). In Lugo, the Michigan Supreme Court discussed the “special aspect” exception to the open and obvious doctrine:

[HN5] With regard to open and obvious dangers, the critical question is whether there is evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether there are truly “special aspects” of the open and obvious condition that differentiate the risk from typical open and obvious risks so as to create an unreasonable risk of harm, i.e., whether the “special aspect” of the condition should prevail in imposing liability upon the defendant or the openness and obviousness of the condition should prevail in barring liability.

. . . .

. . . In sum, only those special aspects that give rise to a uniquely high likelihood of harm or severity of harm if the risk is not avoided will serve to remove that condition from the open and obvious danger doctrine.

Id. at 517-19, 629 N.W.2d at 387-88. For example, a pothole in a parking lot presents an open and obvious risk for which the premises owner would not normally be liable if someone were to trip and fall because of the hole. An unguarded, 30-foot-deep pit might present an unreasonable risk, however, because of the danger of death or severe injury. Id. at 520, 629 N.W.2d at 388.

Cottom has failed to present a genuine issue of material fact about whether the unfinished condition of the track made it unreasonably dangerous. First, the unpacked, gravelly condition of the track surface did not make the likelihood of injury higher than an ordinary, complete bike track. It is just as difficult for an ordinarily prudent person to ride a bike on a race track of loose dirt without losing control of the bike or falling as it is on any other dirt track. Second, there was not a high potential for severe harm. Thousands of people ride bikes everyday, and many of them fall while riding their bikes on sidewalks, bike paths, tracks or trails. Bumps, bruises, and scrapes, or occasionally broken bones or more serious injuries, are the normal incidents of bike riding, especially BMX bike riding as in this case. The track at Gier Park presented these same types of dangers, making it more like an ordinary pothole and less like a deep, unguarded pit. Finally, Cottom has failed to support with any evidence the allegation that an employee or agent working on the track assured him that it was safe for use. There is no indication in the record that this person was actually an employee or agent of USA Cycling rather than a passerby or bystander who came to watch people ride on the track. Moreover, there is nothing to demonstrate that he or she was any more knowledgeable about the safety of the track conditions than was Cottom. In fact, Cottom had the benefit of riding around the track one time and experiencing the track conditions firsthand, and he himself concluded that the track was suitable for riding. (Cottom Dep. at 48-49.)

USA Cycling is entitled to summary judgment because the dangers presented by the track were open and obvious and Plaintiffs have failed to show that there were special aspects of the track making it unreasonably dangerous.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant USA Cycling’s motion for summary judgment.

An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.

Dated: APR 11 2002

GORDON J. QUIST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the Opinion filed this date,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 24) is GRANTED.

This case is closed.

Dated: APR 11 2002

GORDON J. QUIST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

WordPress Tags: Cottom,Dist,LEXIS,Bradley,Melissa,Plaintiffs,Defendant,Case,States,District,Court,Western,Michigan,Southern,Division,April,Counsel,Michael,John,Hoffman,Thomas,DeGrood,Witenoff,Southfield,Judges,GORDON,QUIST,JUDGE,Opinion,wife,premises,action,injuries,accident,jurisdiction,judgment,Oral,argument,Motion,Facts,dirt,bicycle,rider,Resp,streets,bike,performance,Diamondback,Reactor,Gier,Park,construction,bulldozer,riders,workers,Compl,truck,November,incident,Complaint,worker,person,employee,agent,contractor,bystander,passerby,knowledge,knee,hour,hospital,surgeries,Medical,Records,Standard,Summary,fact,Material,Anderson,Lobby,jury,scintilla,Improvement,Munson,Wall,Celotex,Corp,Catrett,Frank,Ambrosi,inferences,trier,Agristor,Financial,Sickle,Matsushita,Elec,Indus,Zenith,Radio,Analysis,events,forum,Supp,Haque,Travel,Agency,Agents,Mich,arguments,protection,Thus,dangers,purposes,licensee,Supreme,status,owner,virtue,possessor,landowner,inspection,Holland,Abundant,Life,Fellowship,citation,publications,guidelines,recommendations,Insurance,Manual,Track,Suggestions,assertion,danger,licensees,Pippin,Atallah,user,intelligence,Abke,Vandenberg,alteration,Novotney,Burger,plaintiff,Hughes,Bldg,bikers,Americans,bicycles,youth,bikes,Millikin,Walton,Manor,Mobile,Home,aspects,Lugo,Ameritech,aspect,exception,doctrine,example,pothole,foot,death,injury,Second,Thousands,sidewalks,paths,Bumps,incidents,allegation,indication,Moreover,Conclusion,Order,HEREBY,himself,whether,upon


Conning v. Dietrich, 2011 NY Slip Op 51340U; 32 Misc. 3d 1215A; 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3481

Conning v. Dietrich, 2011 NY Slip Op 51340U; 32 Misc. 3d 1215A; 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3481
Suzanne M. Conning, Plaintiff, against Robert J. Dietrich, BROOKLYN TRIATHLON CLUB and JOHN STEWART, Defendants.
32474/08
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, KINGS COUNTY
2011 NY Slip Op 51340U; 32 Misc. 3d 1215A; 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3481
July 15, 2011, Decided
NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRINTED OFFICIAL REPORTS.
CORE TERMS: bicycle, training, triathlon, route, summary judgment, shoulder, weekend, roadway, ride, cyclist, riding, participating, cycling, recreational, risk of injuries, issues of fact, participated, cross-claims, bicyclist, verified, hazard, sport, assumption of risk, experienced, recreation, amusement, triable, speed, mile, paceline
HEADNOTES
[**1215A] Negligence–Assumption of Risk–Injury during Cycling Event. Release–Scope of Release.
COUNSEL: [***1] For CONNING, Plaintiff: Alan T. Rothbard, Esq., Harrison & Rothbard, P.C., forest Hills, NY.
For DIETRICH, Defendant: Michael J. Caulfield, Esq., Connors & Connors, PC, Staten Island NY.
For STEWART & BTC, Defendant: French & Casey LLP, NY NY.
JUDGES: HON. ARTHUR M. SCHACK, J. S. C.
OPINION BY: ARTHUR M. SCHACK
OPINION
Arthur M. Schack, J. [*2]
Plaintiff SUZANNE M. CONNING (CONNING), a resident of Brooklyn (Kings County), fell off a bicycle while participating in an August 2, 2008 triathlon training ride on New York State Route 28, a designated state bicycle route, in Ulster County. After her fall she was struck by an automobile owned and operated by defendant ROBERT J. DIETRICH (DIETRICH). Plaintiff had been training intensively for two upcoming triathlons she planned to enter. Defendant BROOKLYN TRIATHLON CLUB (BTC) organized weekend trips to allow triathletes, such as plaintiff CONNING, to train for upcoming events. Defendant BTC designated defendant JOHN STEWART (STEWART) to lead its cycling training the weekend of plaintiff CONNING’s accident.
Defendants BTC and STEWART move for summary judgment and dismissal of plaintiff’s verified complaint and all cross-claims against them, pursuant to CPLR Rule 3212, alleging, among [***2] other things, that: plaintiff CONNING assumed the risk of injuries she sustained by voluntarily participating in defendant BTC’s triathlon training weekend; and, plaintiff CONNING signed a valid waiver of liability releasing defendants BTC and STEWART from any liability that they may sustain in a BTC event. Defendant DIETRICH moves for summary judgment and dismissal of plaintiff’s verified complaint and all cross-claims against him, pursuant to CPLR Rule 3212, alleging that: plaintiff CONNING caused her own accident by following the cyclist in front of her too closely; and, there is no evidence that defendant DIETRICH failed to use reasonable care in the operation of his motor vehicle. Plaintiff opposes both motions. For the reasons to follow, the Court grants summary judgment to defendants BTC and STEWART and denies summary judgment to defendant DIETRICH.
Background
Plaintiff CONNING had experience as a “triathalete” before the subject accident, having participated in three prior triathlons and other organized bicycling events, including a thirty-five (35) mile bike tour in September or October 2006. When plaintiff lived in Arizona, from 2001-2005, she participated several times per [***3] month in organized and informal cycling rides and mountain biked several times per year. Subsequently, plaintiff moved to New York and joined BTC in November 2007. In 2008, plaintiff began participating in instructional cycling rides with BTC members. Plaintiff Conning testified in her examination before trial (EBT) that: she gradually increased the frequency of her rides and the distance covered to develop endurance and strength; her training rides included bike paths in Brooklyn with pedestrians and highways with motor vehicles; and, she was aware of the potential hazards a cyclist encounters on roads, including small stones, ruts and cracks.
Defendant BTC organized a triathlon training weekend for the first weekend of August 2008, based in Phoenicia, New York, to train its members in the skills necessary for triathlon events. Plaintiff signed BTC’s waiver of liability, on July 29, 2008, before commencing training with BTC. Then, plaintiff CONNING voluntarily took part in BTC’s three (3) day training camp in preparation for her planned participation in upcoming triathlons. Plaintiff testified, in her [*3] EBT, that on Friday, August 1, 2008, she participated in a twenty (20) mile bicycle [***4] ride and then chose to take a thirty-five (35) mile ride the next day, led by defendant STEWART. In the August 2, 2008-ride, the six riders stayed in a paceline if the road was straight and level. In a paceline, bicycle riders, to reduce wind resistance, ride in a line with each bicycle approximately twelve to eighteen inches behind each other.
After the group traveled about twenty-five (25) miles, while on Route 28, plaintiff CONNING was last in the paceline, to keep weaker cyclists in front of her. The paceline was on the shoulder of Route 28, separated from vehicular traffic by a white line. Plaintiff CONNING testified, in her EBT, that while she was following a fellow cyclist, Cindy Kaplan, she observed the shoulder narrowing and a difference in elevation between the shoulder and the gravel area to the right of the shoulder. When plaintiff observed Ms. Kaplan leave the shoulder and swerve right onto the gravel surface, plaintiff voluntarily followed. Plaintiff testified, in her EBT, that she then attempted to get her bicycle back onto the shoulder, at which point the front wheel of her bicycle caught the slight rise in the shoulder’s elevation. This caused her wheels to stop and [***5] plaintiff CONNING was propelled over her bicycle’s handlebars onto Route 28’s roadway. Then, plaintiff CONNING was struck by defendant DIETRICH’s vehicle, which was traveling on Route 28. Further, plaintiff admitted that prior to the accident she never complained about roadway conditions to STEWART.
Summary Judgment Standard
The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case. (See Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320, 324, 501 N.E.2d 572, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562, 404 N.E.2d 718, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595 [1980]; Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404, 144 N.E.2d 387, 165 N.Y.S.2d 498 [1957]). Failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers. (Winegrad v New York University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851, 476 N.E.2d 642, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316 [1985]; Qlisanr, LLC v Hollis Park Manor Nursing Home, Inc., 51 AD3d 651, 652, 857 N.Y.S.2d 234 [2d Dept 2008]; Greenberg v Manlon Realty, 43 AD2d 968, 969, 352 N.Y.S.2d 494 [2nd Dept 1974]).
CPLR Rule 3212 (b) requires that for a court to grant summary judgment the court must determine if the movant’s papers justify holding as a matter of law [***6] “that there is no defense to the cause of action or that the cause of action or defense has no merit.” The evidence submitted in support of the movant must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant. (Boyd v Rome Realty Leasing Ltd. Partnership, 21 AD3d 920, 921, 801 N.Y.S.2d 340 [2d Dept 2005]; Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v Dino & Artie’s Automatic Transmission Co., 168 AD2d 610, 563 N.Y.S.2d 449 [2d Dept 1990]). Summary judgment shall be granted only when there are no issues of material fact and the evidence requires the court to direct judgment in favor of the movant as a matter of law. (Friends of Animals, Inc., v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 390 N.E.2d 298, 416 N.Y.S.2d 790 [1979]; Fotiatis v Cambridge Hall Tenants Corp., 70 AD3d 631, 632, 895 N.Y.S.2d 456 [2d Dept 2010]).
Plaintiff’s assumption of risk
Defendants BTC and STEWART make a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment and dismissal of the verified complaint and cross-claims against them because plaintiff CONNING assumed any risks involved with bicycle riding and she executed defendant BTC’s valid waiver of liability. The Court of Appeals, in Turcotte v Fell (68 NY2d 432, 502 N.E.2d 964, 510 N.Y.S.2d 49 [1986]), held, at 437: [*4]
It is fundamental that to recover in a negligence action a plaintiff must establish that the defendant [***7] owed him a duty to use reasonable care, and that it breached that duty . . . The statement that there is or is not a duty, however, begs the essential question — whether the plaintiff’s interests are entitled to legal protection against the defendant’s conduct. Thus, while the determination of the existence of a duty and the concomitant scope of that duty involve a consideration not only of the wrongfulness of the defendant’s action or inaction, they also necessitate an examination of plaintiff’s reasonable expectations of the care owed to him by others.
Further, in Turcotte at 438-439, the Court instructed that risks involved with sporting events:
are incidental to a relationship of free association between the defendant and the plaintiff in the sense that either party is perfectly free to engage in the activity or not as he wishes. Defendant’s duty under such circumstances is a duty to exercise care to make the conditions as safe as they appear to be. If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty.
The doctrine of assumption of risk is “intended to facilitate free and vigorous participation [***8] in athletic activities.” (Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 657, 541 N.E.2d 29, 543 N.Y.S.2d 29 (1989). However, “[a]s a general rule, [sporting event] participants may be held to have consented, by their participation, to those injury-causing events which are known, apparent or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation (see Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270, 277-278, 487 N.E.2d 553, 496 N.Y.S.2d 726 [1985]).” (Turcotte at 439). (See Benitez at 657; Murphy v Steeplechase Amusement Co., 250 NY 479, 482, 166 N.E. 173 [1929]). To establish plaintiff’s assumption of risk, “it is not necessary . . . that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which the injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury from the mechanism from which the injury results.” (Maddox at 278). “If a participant makes an informed estimate of the risks involved in the activity and willingly undertakes them, then there can be no liability if he is injured as a result of those risks.” (Turcotte at 437). Further, the Turcotte Court, at 438, in defining the risk assumed, instructed that:
in its most basic sense it “means that the plaintiff, in advance, has given his * * * consent to relieve the defendant of an obligation [***9] of conduct toward him, and to take his chances of injury from a known risk arising from what the defendant is to do or leave undone. The situation is then the same as where the plaintiff consents to the infliction of what would otherwise be an intentional tort, except that the consent is to run the risk of unintended injury * * * The result is that the defendant is relieved of legal duty to the plaintiff; and being under no duty, he cannot be charged with negligence” (Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 68, at 480-481 [5th ed]; 4 Harper, James & Gray, [*5] Torts § 21.0 et seq. [2d ed]; Restatement [Second] of Torts § 496A comments b, c; see also, Bohlen, Voluntary Assumption of Risk, 20 Harv. L Rev 14 [assumption of risk is another way of finding no duty of care]; Comment, Assumption of Risk and Vicarious Liability in Personal Injury Actions Brought by Professional Athletes, 1980 Duke LJ 742).
Assumption of risk is frequently invoked in connection with voluntary participation in sports and recreational activities. “By engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly-appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and [***10] flow from such participation.” (Rivera v Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc., 41 AD3d 817, 820, 839 N.Y.S.2d 183 [2d Dept 2007]). In Sanchez v City of New York (25 AD3d 776, 808 N.Y.S.2d 422 [2d Dept 2006]), the Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint because “the injured plaintiff assumed the risks inherent in playing baseball in the gymnasium where she sustained her injuries, including those risks associated with any readily observable defect or obstacle in the place where the sport was played.” In Cuesta v Immaculate Conception Roman Catholic Church (168 AD2d 411, 562 N.Y.S.2d 537 [2d Dept 1990]) the Court granted summary judgment to defendant. Plaintiff, voluntarily acted as an umpire in his son’s Little League game. While standing behind the pitcher, he was struck in the eye by a ball thrown by the catcher. The Court held, at 411, that “[t]he injury is one common to the sport of baseball, and was foreseeable by the plaintiff prior to accepting the job as umpire.” In an assumption of risk case, “[p]laintiff can avoid summary judgment only by demonstrating that the risk of injury was somehow unreasonably increased or concealed in the instant circumstances.” (Mondelice v Valley Stream Cent. High School Dist., 2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1292, 2002 NY Slip Op 50403 [U], *3 [***11] [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2002, Winslow, J.]).
Plaintiff CONNING, in the instant action, was aware of the inherent risks involved in triathlon participation. She was an experienced cyclist and prior to her accident previously participated in triathlons and cycling events. In addition, she participated in weekly training for triathlon events. At the time of her accident no risks inherent in bicycling were veiled or concealed from her. “[B]y engaging in a sport or recreation activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation.” (Morgan v State, 90 NY2d 471, 484, 685 N.E.2d 202, 662 N.Y.S.2d 421 [1997]). (See Marino v Bingler, 60 AD3d 645, 874 N.Y.S.2d 542 [2d Dept 2009]; Lumley v Motts, 1 AD3d 573, 768 N.Y.S.2d 24 [2d Dept 2003]; Cook v Komorowski, 300 AD2d 1040, 752 N.Y.S.2d 475 [4th Dept 2002]). “A reasonable person of participatory age or experience must be expected to know” that there are risks inherent with cycling. (Morgan at 488) A known, apparent or reasonably foreseeable consequence of participating in a sporting activity will be considered an inherent risk. (See Turcotte at 439; Tilson v Russo, 30 AD3d 856, 857, 818 N.Y.S.2d 311 [3d Dept. 2006]; Rubenstein v Woodstock Riding Club, 208 AD2d 1160, 617 N.Y.S.2d 603 [3d Dept. 1994]). [***12] Plaintiff, an experienced bicyclist, was aware of risks, in cycling on Route 28, when she left the shoulder where her training group was riding and went onto adjacent gravel. She should have been aware that road bikes of the type she was riding are designed to be ridden on pavement and their handling is greatly compromised on gravel.
Moreover, whether the risk of injury is open and obvious is a determinative factor in assessing plaintiff’s comparative fault. (See Palladino v Lindenhurst Union Free School Dist., 84 AD3d 1194, 924 N.Y.S.2d 474 [2d Dept 2011]; Krebs v Town of Wallkill, 84 AD3d 742, 922 N.Y.S.2d 516 [2d Dept 2011]; Bendig v [*6] Bethpage Union Free School Dist., 74 AD3d 1263, 1264, 904 N.Y.S.2d 731 [2d Dept 2010]; Mondelli v County of Nassau, 49 A.D.3d 826, 827, 854 N.Y.S.2d 224 [2d Dept 2008]; Mendoza v Village of Greenport, 52 AD3d 788, 861 N.Y.S.2d 738[2d Dept 2008]). Plaintiff CONNING, in the instant matter, alleges that defendants BTC and STEWART were negligent in allowing her to ride on “a decrepit and narrow path.” However, plaintiff rode her bicycle on the shoulder of Route 28 for one-tenth of a mile (about two city blocks) before her accident. She was able to observe the roadway as she was riding on the shoulder. Also, despite observing the narrowing of the [***13] shoulder, she continued to ride. Plaintiff, did not, as she knew she could have, slowed down or stopped.
Moreover, even for experienced cyclists “[t]he risk of striking a hole and falling is an inherent risk of riding a bicycle on most outdoor surfaces.” (Goldberg v Town of Hempstead, 289 AD2d 198, 733 N.Y.S.2d 691 [2d Dept. 2001]). Similarly, “the risk of encountering ruts and bumps while riding a bicycle over a rough roadway . . . is so obvious . . . or should be to an experienced bicyclist . . . that, as a matter of law, plaintiff assumed any risk inherent in the activity.” (Furgang v Club Med, 299 AD2d 162, 753 N.Y.S.2d 359 [1d Dept 2002]). Plaintiff, in the instant action, was participating in a guided bicycle tour conducted by defendants BTC and STEWART when she hit a rut, an inherent risk, and fell off her bicycle. (See Rivera v Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc. at 820-821; Reistano v Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 13 AD3d 432, 785 N.Y.S.2d 711 [2d Dept 2004]). In Werbelow v State of New York (7 Misc 3d 1011[A], 801 N.Y.S.2d 244, 2005 NY Slip Op 50549[U] [Ct Cl, 2005]), a self-proclaimed “rather competent rollerblader” was injured after she fell over a “crack” on a New York State bicycle path and the Court found that plaintiff assumed the risk of injury. The Werbelow Court held, at *3, [***14] that “there is no indication that there were unreasonably increased risks’ in this case, or that defendant acted recklessly, intentionally, or concealed the risks, such that the doctrine of assumption of risk would not apply.” “Since the risk of striking a hole and falling is an inherent risk in riding a bicycle on most outdoor surfaces and the defective condition in this case was open and obvious, the infant plaintiff assumed the risk of riding her bicycle on the ballfield.” (Goldberg at 692). (See Rivera v Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc. at 820). In the instant action, a rut in the road surface or a change in elevation between the shoulder and gravel area or a “decrepit and narrow” shoulder were not unique conditions created by either STEWART or BTC.
It is clear that defendants BTC and STEWART did not take plaintiff on an unreasonably dangerous roadway surface. The EBT testimony demonstrates that the cyclists did not anticipate that every patch of the roadway would be smooth. Cindy Kaplan, one of the cyclists in plaintiff’s training group, testified that “[i]n general the entire route was appropriate, the entire weekend was appropriate because that’s how the roads are Upstate . . . [***15] I guess you can’t expect it to be perfectly paved the whole time.” Plaintiff CONNING came into contact with a ledge or lip in the roadway while trying to get back on the path she diverged from. Unable to navigate the ledge or lip, she fell and was then struck by defendant DIETRICH’s passing car. Prior to plaintiff’s accident, defendant STEWART was diligent in pointing any roadway hazards to the bicycle riders in his group. The shoulder narrowing cannot be considered a roadway hazard because it was open, obvious and not something for cyclists to avoid. Thus, it is manifest that CONNING understood and assumed the risks of the activities she partook in based upon her prior participation in triathlons and cycling events before the date of her accident. Plaintiff CONNING assumed the risk in choosing to participate in the August 2, 2008 cycling event on Route 28 conducted by defendant BTC and led by defendant STEWART, with its known and obvious [*7] risks.
Plaintiff’s waiver of liability
Plaintiff CONNING, on July 29, 2008, signed defendant BTC’s waiver of liability making her aware of the risk of injury prior to her participation in BTC’s triathlon training weekend. This waiver states, in pertinent [***16] part:
I ACKNOWLEDGE that there may be traffic or persons ON THE course route, and I ASSUME THE RISK OF RUNNING, BIKING, SWIMMING OR PARTICIPATING IN ANY OTHER BTC EVENT. I also ASSUME ANY AND ALL OTHER RISKS associated with participating in BTC events including but not limited to falls, contact and/or effects with other participants, effects of weather including heat and/or humidity, defective equipment, the condition of the roads, water hazards, contact with other swimmers or boats, and any hazard that may be posed by spectators or volunteers. All such risks being known and appreciated by me, I further acknowledge that these risks include risks that may be the result of the negligence of the persons or entities mentioned above . . . or of other persons [or] entities. I AGREE NOT TO SUE any of the person or entities mentioned above . . . for any of the claims, losses or liabilities that I have waived, released or discharged herein. [Emphasis added]
It is undisputed that plaintiff CONNING, prior to and as a condition of participating in BTC’s training weekend, read and executed BTC’s waiver of liability. Therefore, she was aware of the risks explicitly stated in the waiver. Once “risks [***17] of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious” to plaintiff, plaintiff is deemed to have accepted the risks by taking part in the activity. (Turcotte at 439).
It is firmly established that a valid release which is clear and unambiguous on its face and which is knowingly and voluntarily entered into will be enforced as a private agreement between parties.” (Appel v Ford Motor Co., 111 AD2d 731, 732, 490 N.Y.S.2d 228 [2d Dept 1985]). Absent fraud, duress or undue influence, a party who signs a waiver will be bound by its terms. (Skluth v United Merchants & Mfrs., Inc., 163 AD2d 104, 106, 559 N.Y.S.2d 280 [1d Dept. 1990]). Plaintiff CONNING does not claim that she was fraudulently induced or unduly influenced or forced to sign BTC’s waiver of liability. She participated in BTC’s training weekend of her own free will and signed BTC’s waiver of liability as a condition of her participation in BTC’s events. A plain reading of the waiver of liability demonstrates that it relieves BTC and STEWART from liability for any injuries sustained by plaintiff CONNING, whether or not caused by defendants’ negligence.
In Castellanos v Nassau/Suffolk Dek Hockey, Inc. (232 AD2d 354, 648 N.Y.S.2d 143 [2d Dept 1996]), the Court found that the [***18] injury waiver form executed by plaintiff, an experienced deck hockey player, who participated in a deck hockey game at premises owned by one defendant and maintained or controlled by another defendant, was enforceable. The Court held, at 355, that:
The language of the agreement clearly expresses the intention of the parties to relieve the “organizers, sponsors, supervisors, participants, owners of the business and owners of the premises” of liability (see Lago v Krollage, 78 NY2d 95, 99-100, 575 N.E.2d 107, 571 N.Y.S.2d 689 [1991]). Moreover, the [*8] agreement is similarly clear in reciting that the plaintiff was aware of and assumed the risks associated with participating in the game of deck hockey (see Chieco v Paramarketing, Inc., 228 AD2d 462, 643 N.Y.S.2d 668 [2d Dept 1996]).
“In the absence of a contravening public policy, exculpatory provisions in a contract, purporting to insulate one of the parties from liability resulting from that party’s own negligence, although disfavored by the courts, generally are enforced, subject to various qualifications.” (Lago v Krollage at 99). However, an exculpatory agreement, as a matter of public policy, is void, “where it purports to grant exemption from liability for willful or grossly negligent [***19] acts or where a special relationship exists between the parties such that an overriding public interest demands that such a contract provision be rendered ineffectual.” (Lago v Krollage at 100). Thus, “it is clear . . . that the law looks with disfavor upon agreements intended to absolve an individual from the consequences of his negligence . . . and although they are, with certain exceptions, enforceable like any other contract . . . such agreements are always subjected to the closest of judicial scrutiny and will be strictly construed against their drawer.” (Abramowitz v New York University Dental Center, College of Dentistry, 110 AD2d 343, 345, 494 N.Y.S.2d 721 [2d Dept 1985]). (See Lago v Krollage at 100; Gross v Sweet, 49 NY2d 102, 106-107, 400 N.E.2d 306, 424 N.Y.S.2d 365 [1979]; Sterling Investors Services, Inc. v 1155 Nobo Associates, LLC, 30 AD3d 579, 581, 818 N.Y.S.2d 513 [2d Dept 2006]; Dubovsky & Sons, Inc. v Honeywell, Inc., 89 AD2d 993, 994, 454 N.Y.S.2d 329 [2d Dept 1982]).
In 1996, the New York Legislature, as a matter of public policy, enacted General Obligations Law (GOL) § 5-326, which states:
“[e]very covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with . . . any contract . . . entered into between the owner or operator of any . . . place of [***20] amusement or recreation . . . and the user of such facilities, pursuant to which such owner or operator receives a fee or other compensation for the use of such facilities, which exempts the said owner or operator from liability for damages caused by or resulting from the negligence of the owner, operator or person in charge of such establishment, or their agents, servants or employees, shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.
Despite plaintiff CONNING’s contention that GOL § 5-326 applies to the instant action, it does not. Plaintiff CONNING did not sign BTC’s waiver of liability to participate in a “place of amusement or recreation” owned or operated by defendant BTC. Clearly, BTC does not own or operate Route 28 and plaintiff paid a fee to defendant BTC for training weekend expenses, not for her use of Route 28. Moreover, GOL § 5-326 does not apply to participants engaged in training events, because they are not recreational. The primary purpose of plaintiff CONNING’s August 2, 2008-ride was triathlon training.
Plaintiff, in Tedesco v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. (250 AD2d 758, 673 N.Y.S.2d 181 [2d Dept. 1998]), was injured on the Verrazano Narrows Bridge during [***21] a “five borough bicycle tour.” The Court held, at 758, that the release plaintiff signed was enforceable “since the Verrazano Narrows Bridge, where the plaintiff Tedesco was injured, is not a place of amusement or recreation.'” Similarly, in Brookner v New York Roadrunners Club, Inc. (51 AD3d 841, 858 N.Y.S.2d 348 [2d Dept 2008]), [*9] plaintiff sustained injuries in the 2004 New York Marathon, while running on a Brooklyn street. Plaintiff, prior to the race, signed defendant’s waiver of liability. The Court held GOL § 5-326 inapplicable to plaintiff because he paid an entry fee to participate in the Marathon, not an admission fee for use of a city-owned street. Further, the Court held, at 842, that “the public roadway in Brooklyn where the plaintiff alleges that he was injured is not a place of amusement or recreation.'” Similarly, in Bufano v. National Inline Roller Hockey Ass’n. (272 A.D.2d 359, 707 N.Y.S.2d 223 [2d Dept 2000]), the Court held that a member of an inline roller hockey league assumed the risk of injuries sustained from a fight with another player during a game. The Court held, at 359, that GOL § 5-326 did not “void the release Bufano signed, since the $25 he paid was not paid to the owner or operator of a recreational [***22] facility.” Further, the Court instructed, at 359-360, that “the liability release he signed expressed in clear and unequivocal language the intent to relieve the defendants of all liability for personal injuries to Bufano caused by defendants’ negligence. Thus, the release is enforceable.”
Plaintiff CONNING, in the instant action, paid $40 annual membership dues to BTC and paid BTC a registration fee for the August 2008 triathlon training weekend. She signed BTC’s waiver of liability to train on a “course route,” and did not pay a fee to use a “place of amusement or recreation.” Thus, GOL § 5-326 does not void the BTC waiver of liability signed by CONNING. (See Lago v Krollage at 101; Schwartz v Martin, 82 AD3d 1201, 1203, 919 N.Y.S.2d 217 [2d Dept 2011]; Fazzinga v Westchester Track Club, 48 AD3d 410, 411-412, 851 N.Y.S.2d 278 [2d Dept 2008]; Millan v Brown, 295 AD2d 409, 411, 743 N.Y.S.2d 539 [2d Dept 2002]). Further, the waiver of liability signed by plaintiff CONNING expressly relieves defendant BTC and its “employees, representatives, and any agents,” such as defendant STEWART from liability for injuries she sustained during the triathlon training weekend.
New York State Courts have uniformly found that when a sporting activity is [***23] “instructional” rather than “recreational” a waiver of liability will not be deemed void under GOL § 5-326. The Court in Boateng v Motorcycle Safety School, Inc. (51 AD3d 702, 703, 858 N.Y.S.2d 312 [2d Dept. 2008]), held that the release signed by a student motorcyclist, who fell from a motorcycle during a training session, was enforceable and not voided by GOL § 5-326 because “the defendants submitted evidence that the raceway premises, which the defendant leased to conduct its classes, were used for instructional, not recreational or amusement purposes.” (See Thiele v Oakland Valley, Inc., 72 AD3d 803, 898 N.Y.S.2d 481 [2d Dept 2010]; Baschuk v Diver’s Way Scuba, Inc. 209 AD2d 369, 370, 618 N.Y.S.2d 428 [2d Dept 1994]). Plaintiff CONNING, at the time of her accident was not taking a recreational bicycle ride but engaged in triathlon training supervised by defendant STEWART, an agent of defendant BTC. Plaintiff registered with BTC to participate in a triathlon training weekend to train for upcoming triathlons in which she planned to participate. Defendant BTC advertised the August 2008 training weekend as instructional, for participants to develop triathlon skills. Plaintiff confirmed this in her EBT testimony.
Defendants BTC and STEWART [***24] demonstrated that plaintiff CONNING knowingly and voluntarily executed a valid waiver of liability and assumed the risk of injury by riding her bicycle on a public roadway. Plaintiff CONNING’s arguments, in opposition to the instant motion of defendants BTC and STEWART, that her August 2, 2008-ride was “recreational” are mistaken. Moreover, the risks inherent in plaintiff CONNING’s August 2, 2008-instructional [*10] bicycle ride, that she consented to, were fully comprehended by plaintiff and obvious to her as an experienced cyclist. Therefore, without material issues of fact, the motion of defendants BTC and STEWART for summary judgment and dismissal of the verified complaint against them and all cross-claims against them is granted.
Defendant DIETRICH’s motion for summary judgment
Defendant DIETRICH’S summary judgment motion on liability is denied because of the existence of triable issues of fact. “It is well established that on a motion for summary judgment the court is not to engage in the weighing of evidence. Rather, the court’s function is to determine whether by no rational process could the trier of facts find for the nonmoving party’ (Jastrzebski v North Shore School Dist., 223 AD2d 677, 637 N.Y.S.2d 439 [2d Dept 1996]).” [***25] (Scott v Long Island Power Authority, 294 AD2d 348, 741 N.Y.S.2d 708 [2d Dept 2002]). Moreover, “[s]ummary judgment is a drastic remedy which should only be employed when there is no doubt as to the absence of triable issues.” (Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18, 23, 918 N.Y.S.2d 176 [2d Dept 2011]). As will be explained, there is no doubt that in the instant action, there are triable issues of fact that must be resolved at trial by the finder of fact. (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. at 404).
Defendant DIETRICH, the owner and operator of the motor vehicle that collided with plaintiff CONNING, admitted in his deposition that he was aware of the presence of plaintiff CONNING and other bicycle riders about 200 feet before the accident occurred [EBT – p. 19]. He also acknowledged that in the seconds before the accident, his wife, the front seat passenger “said I see a line of bikers up there. Slow down. Be careful.’ Then she said one of them might hit a stone or something in the road and fall into the road. [EBT – p. 17, lines 10-14].'” Further, defendant DIETRICH testified [EBT – p. 18] that he clearly saw the bicycle riders that his wife had spoken about and that the section of Route 28 where the subject accident [***26] occurred was straight [EBT – p. 20]. Moreover, defendant DIETRICH lived near the scene of the accident [EBT – p.10], on many prior occasions had observed bicycle riders on Route 28 [EBT – p. 22] and knew that Route 28 was a designated state bike route [EBT – p. 26]. Defendant DIETRICH stated that the speed limit on Route 28 was 55 miles per hour [EDT – p.23] and prior to the accident he was driving at that rate of speed [EBT – p. 24] until he saw the bikers and reduced his speed [EBT – pp. 39-40].
Defendant DIETRICH’s counsel, in P 22 of his affirmation in support of the motion, offers conjecture, without expert opinion, that “the plaintiff was following the bicyclist in front of her too closely which prevented her from properly using her senses to see what was before her. This caused her to lose control of the bicycle and to fall into the side of the defendant’s vehicle.” Plaintiff CONNING and the other cyclists were traveling in a paceline. If counsel for defendant DIETRICH believes that the paceline or the spacing of the bicycles was improper, counsel for defendant DIETRICH was obligated to present expert opinion in evidentiary form. However, counsel for defendant DIETRICH failed [***27] to do so.
Both plaintiff CONNING and defendant DIETRICH were under the same duty to operate their respective bicycle and motor vehicle in a safe manner, keep a safe lookout and avoid collisions. “A person riding a bicycle on a roadway is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle (see Vehicle and Traffic Law [VTL] § 1231). (Thoresz v Vallone, 70 AD3d 1031, 894 N.Y.S.2d 769 [2d Dept 2010]). The Court, in Palma v Sherman (55 AD3d 891, 867 N.Y.S.2d 111 [2d Dept 2009], instructed: [*11]
In general, a motorist is required to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for bicyclists, to sound the vehicle’s horn when a reasonably prudent person would do so in order to warn a bicyclist of danger, and to operate the vehicle with reasonable care to avoid colliding with anyone on the road. A bicyclist is required to use reasonable care for his or her own safety, to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for vehicles, and to avoid placing himself or herself in a dangerous position (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146; Rosenberg v Kotsek, 41 AD3d 573, 837 N.Y.S.2d 343 [2d Dept 2007]; Trzepacz v Jara, 11 AD3d 531, 782 N.Y.S.2d 852 [2d Dept 2004]; Redcross v State of New York, 241 AD2d 787, 660 N.Y.S.2d 211 [3d Dept 1997]; PJI 2:76A). Each is required to obey the statutes governing [***28] traffic and is entitled to assume that the other also will do so (see Rosenberg v Kotsek, 41 AD3d 573, 837 N.Y.S.2d 343 [2d Dept 2007]; Trzepacz v Jara, 11 AD3d 531, 782 N.Y.S.2d 852 [2d Dept 2004]; Redcross v State of New York, 241 AD2d 787, 660 N.Y.S.2d 211 [3d Dept 1997]; PJI 2:76A).
In the instant action there are material issues of fact whether defendant DIETRICH used that level of ordinary care that a reasonably prudent person would have used under the same circumstances and if not, whether the subject accident was foreseeable. (See PJI 2:10; PJI 2:12). “Whether a breach of duty has occurred, of course, depends upon whether the resulting injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendants’ conduct.” (Danielenko v Kinney Rent A Car, Inc., 57 NY2d 198, 204, 441 N.E.2d 1073, 455 N.Y.S.2d 555 [1982]). Defendant DIETRICH had a duty of care to keep his vehicle under control and to reduce his speed to a safe level, which is clear from his acknowledgment that he took his foot off the gas pedal prior to the accident. VTL § 1180 (a) states that “[n]o person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing [Emphasis added].” Thus, there is a triable issue [***29] of fact whether defendant DIETRICH’s rate of speed was “reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.” Also, VTL § 1146 requires a driver to “exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist.” It is a triable issue whether defendant DIETRICH could have avoided his collision with plaintiff CONNING.
The Court, by determining that triable issues of fact exist, denies defendant DIETRICH’s motion for summary judgment and dismissal of plaintiff’s verified complaint and all cross-claims against him.
Conclusion
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that the motion of defendants BROOKLYN TRIATHLON CLUB and JOHN STEWART for summary judgment and dismissal of the verified complaint and all cross-claims against them, pursuant to CPLR Rule 3212, is granted; and it is further;
ORDERED, that the motion of defendant ROBERT J. DIETRICH for summary judgment [*12] and dismissal of the verified complaint and all cross-claims against him, pursuant to CPLR Rule 3212, is denied.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
ENTER
HON. ARTHUR M. SCHACK
J. S. C.