City not liable for injuries to BMX rider, riding in City Park on features built without city’s consent
Posted: October 3, 2016 Filed under: Mountain Biking, Washington | Tags: BMX, Dirt Park, Gap Jump, Jump, Park, Pump Track, Quadriplegic 1 CommentThe duty owed by the city to features, structures and changes to the park that the city did not make was low and protected by the recreational use statute in this case.
Wilkerson, v. The City of SeaTac, 2012 Wash. App. LEXIS 2592
State: Washington, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Plaintiff: Jon L. Wilkerson
Defendant: The City of SeaTac
Plaintiff Claims: City breached the duty to use reasonable care in failing to maintain the park and “allowing man-made jumps to remain despite the . . . inherent danger the jumps posed.”
Defendant Defenses: No Duty, and Washington Recreational Use Statute
Holding: For the City
Year: 2012
This is very sad; the plaintiff ended up a quadriplegic because of the accident. This also explains the lawsuit. There is so much money at stake when someone is rendered paralyzed or a quadriplegic that there is bound to be a lawsuit.
In this case, the plaintiff had just moved to the area. He inquired at a local shop where he could practice jumping in anticipation of his trip to Whistler in BC with some friends. The bike shop sent him to Des Moines Trail Park.
The Des Moines Creek Trail Park is a 96-acre woodland preserve open to the public for recreational use. The City of SeaTac (City) owns and operates the portion of the park located within the City, 1 including dirt mounds in the park that bicyclists use as bike jumps. The dirt jumps, known as “the Softies,” are located about a quarter-mile off a paved trail in the park. The City did not create or maintain the dirt jumps.
The plaintiff considered himself an excellent mountain biker and BMX rider. He was used to doing ramps and jumps.
The area was built by people other than the city. It was known as “the softies” by locals. Around 5 pm one day, the plaintiff went to the park to ride. He rode several jumps and scouted them all out before jumping them. He picked out a gap jump, deciding other jumps were outside of his skill set. While riding the gap jump he crashed and rendered himself a quadriplegic.
The plaintiff could not move and laid calling for help for several hours before passing out. Approximately 1 AM the next day the city reported the plaintiff’s car in the parking lot. Around 11 am, two cyclists found the plaintiff and notified EMS.
While in a rehabilitation hospital the plaintiff stated: “…that although he was an experienced mountain biker, as he went over the jump, he came down “wrong” because he” ‘was a bit out of practice’ ” and ” ‘a little too bold.’ “
The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the city. The trial court dismissed the claims based on the city’s motion for summary judgment, and this appeal followed.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
The appellate court first looked at the defense provided by the Recreational Use Statue of Washington. Chapter 4.24 Special Rights of Action and Special Immunities.
Under Washington’s law a landowner is immune from liability for injuries upon his land unless the injury is “caused by a known dangerous artificial latent condition “for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted.”
To establish the City was not immune from suit under RCW 4.24.210, Wilkerson must show the City charged a fee for the use of the land, the injuries were intentionally inflicted, or the injuries were sustained by reason of a known dangerous artificial latent condition for which no warning signs were posted. Davis,
The issue then came down to whether or not the jumps were a latent condition. There are four elements the plaintiff must prove to show the jumps were a latent condition.
Each of the four elements of a known dangerous artificial latent injury-causing condition must be present in order to establish liability under the recreational land use statute. “If one of the four elements is not present, a claim cannot survive summary judgment.”
The definition of latent under Washington Law is “means” ‘not readily apparent to the recreational user.”
In determining whether the injury-causing condition is latent, the question is not whether the specific risk is readily apparent but, instead, whether the injury-causing condition itself is readily apparent.
The plaintiff’s experts argued that the approach which was described as an S-curve was a latent condition. However, the court distinguished that argument by stating there was a difference between a latent condition and a patent condition that had latent dangers.
The condition itself must be latent.” While the court expressly acknowledged that “it may not have occurred to Van Dinter that he could injure himself in the way he did,” the court concluded that “this does not show the injury-causing condition — the caterpillar’s placement — was latent. . . . The caterpillar as well as its injury-causing aspect — its proximity to the grassy area — were obvious.”
Nor did the fact that the plaintiff did not appreciate the risk caused by the approach change the condition of the land.
The plaintiff then argued that his secondary injury, lying in the park all-night, suffering hypothermia that required additional surgeries and hospitalizations were not covered by the recreational use statute.
Secondary injuries were not covered under Wisconsin’s Recreational Use Statute. However, the language in the Wisconsin statute differs from the language in the Washington statute.
By contrast, RCW 4.24.200-.210 grants a broader immunity to landowners “who allow members of the public to use [their lands] for the purposes of outdoor recreation.” RCW 4.24.210(1); (because landowner “open[ed] up the lands for recreational use without a fee,” and thereby “brought itself under the protection of the immunity statute,” landowner was immune from liability regardless of whether “a person coming onto the property may have some commercial purpose in mind”).
The court held the immunity provided by the Washington Recreational Use Statute was broadly written and covered the secondary injuries the plaintiff suffered.
The plaintiff then argued the city was willful and wanton or intentional because the city knew that other cyclists had been injured at the park. This argument stemmed from the plaintiff asserting that “that the government’s failure to” ‘put up signs and ropes’ ” was deliberate and the government” ‘knew or should have known’ ” of the dangerous condition.”
However, the court found that this did not rise to the level of willful or wanton or intentional negligence.
Here, as in Jones, there is no dispute that the City did not create the dirt jumps or S-curve approach. While the alleged failure of the City to “bulldoze the Softies” or post warning signs may constitute negligence, it is not willful or wanton conduct under the recreational land use immunity statute.
The plaintiff next argued the defendant had a duty to supervise and patrol the park.
Wilkerson also claims the City assumed a duty to supervise and patrol the park. Wilkerson points to the sign the City posted in the parking lot and the failure to take some action after the City employee saw his car in the parking lot at 1:00 a.m. The sign posted at the entry to the Des Moines Creek Trail Park parking lot stated:
However, this argument also failed because if there was a duty, it was owed to the general public, not to the plaintiff specially.
“Under the public duty doctrine, no liability may be imposed for a public official’s negligent conduct unless it is shown that the duty breached was owed to the injured person as an individual and was not merely the breach of an obligation owed to the public in general (i.e., a duty to all is a duty to no one).”
Because the record shows that the City did not assume a duty or make express assurances to Wilkerson, the public duty doctrine bars his claim that the City owed him a duty of care.
The appellate court agreed with the trial court, and the dismissal of the lawsuit was affirmed.
So Now What?
It is sad when any activity renders someone, especially a young person, a quadriplegic. However, sometimes, you have to accept the fact you screwed up, or misjudged the jump, as the plaintiff admitted to in the rehab hospital and live with your mistakes.
If you are such a person, but as much disability, health and life insurance that you can afford, it may be the only way to stay somewhat better off than what the government can provide.
From the stand point of the defendant city, you need to understand your duty and your level of duty to features, additions or other things that are added to a park or city property without your permission or without you exercising control over the situation.
Not all cities can escape liability when a group of people add to a park.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Copyright 2016 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
#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, Park, Gap Jump, Jump, BMX, Dirt Park, Quadriplegic, Pump Track,
Wilkerson, v. The City of SeaTac, 2012 Wash. App. LEXIS 2592
Posted: October 2, 2016 Filed under: Legal Case, Mountain Biking, Washington | Tags: BMX, Dirt Park, Gap Jump, Jump, Park, Pump Track, Quadriplegic Leave a commentWilkerson, v. The City of SeaTac, 2012 Wash. App. LEXIS 2592
Jon L. Wilkerson, Appellant, v. The City of SeaTac, Respondent.
No. 66524-3-I
COURT OF APPEALS OF WASHINGTON, DIVISION ONE
2012 Wash. App. LEXIS 2592
April 17, 2012, Oral Argument
November 5, 2012, Filed
NOTICE:
As amended by order of the Court of Appeals March 27, 2013. RULES OF THE WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE WASHINGTON RULES OF COURT.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Reported at Wilkerson v. City of SeaTac, 171 Wn. App. 1023, 2012 Wash. App. LEXIS 2614 (2012)
Reconsideration denied by, Modified by Wilkerson v. City of SeaTac, 2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 797 (Wash. Ct. App., Mar. 27, 2013)
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]
Appeal from King County Superior Court. Docket No: 09-2-23226-1. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 12/10/2010. Judge signing: Honorable Michael C Hayden.
CORE TERMS: jump, recreational, latent, land use, bike, landowner, gap, summary judgment, immunity, dirt, speed, wanton, injury-causing, willful, trail, pitch, lead-in, user, parking lot, “appreciate”, creek, softies, owed, mountain, readily apparent, artificial, recreation, channel, posted, stump
COUNSEL: Noah Christian Davis, In Pacta PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Appellant(s).
Francis Stanley Floyd, Nicholas L. Jenkins, Floyd Pflueger & Ringer PS, Seattle, WA; Mary E. Mirante Bartolo, City of Seatac, Seatac, WA; Mark Sterling Johnsen, City of Seatac Legal Dept, Seatac, WA, for Respondent(s).
JUDGES: AUTHOR: Ann Schindler, J. WE CONCUR: Anne Ellington, JPT., C. Kenneth Grosse, J.
OPINION BY: Ann Schindler
OPINION
¶1 Schindler, J. — Jon Wilkerson challenges the decision on summary judgment to dismiss his lawsuit against the City of SeaTac based on the recreational land use immunity statute, RCW 4.24.200-.210. We affirm.
FACTS
¶2 The Des Moines Creek Trail Park is a 96-acre woodland preserve open to the public for recreational use. The City of SeaTac (City) owns and operates the portion of the park located within the City, 1 including dirt mounds in the park that bicyclists use as bike jumps. The dirt jumps, known as “the Softies,” are located about a quarter-mile off a paved trail in the park. The City did not create or maintain the dirt jumps.
1 The City of Des Moines and [*2] the Port of Seattle own and operate other portions of the park.
¶3 In June 2006, 30-year-old Jon Wilkerson moved from Arkansas to Kent, Washington to work as a physical therapist. Wilkerson had plans to go mountain biking at Whistler in British Columbia with friends in July. Wilkerson testified that he considered himself an “experienced mountain biker” and had previously used BMX 2 and mountain bikes to do ramp and dirt jumps.
2 (Bicycle motocross.)
¶4 About a week after moving to Kent, Wilkerson went to a bike shop to buy a new helmet. Wilkerson asked the bike shop manager “about nearby parks that had dirt jumps — where I could ride my bike and practice making jumps in anticipation of [the] bike trip to Whistler with friends.” The bike shop manager told Wilkerson about the Des Moines Creek Trail Park and the “BMX style dirt jump[s],” and “told [him] how to get to [the Softies].”
¶5 On June 21, Wilkerson drove to the Des Moines Creek Trail Park. Wilkerson arrived at the park between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. and parked his Ford Expedition in the parking lot located at South 200th Street. Wilkerson left his cell phone in his car. Wilkerson testified that he went to the park that day to train and “work[] [*3] on jumps that I knew that I would need to be able to clear at Whistler. . . . I was working that day to prepare to do more advanced techniques at Whistler.”
¶6 After riding around the park for about 30 to 45 minutes on “single [bike] track trails,” Wilkerson testified that he followed the directions he received from the bike shop manager to get to the Softies. Wilkerson said he “rode down a ravine, crossed a creek, walked [his] bike up and the softies were on the right.” When he arrived at the Softies, no one else was there.
¶7 Wilkerson testified that he examined the dirt jumps and understood the importance of the “approach speed,” as well as the condition of the track and the height and pitch of the jumps. Wilkerson said that he rode his bike over the jumps to “try some of them out” before selecting a smaller “gap jump.” Wilkerson said he decided the other jumps “weren’t within my skill set” because they were “too steep” and “too close together,” and concluded the smaller gap jump was “within my skill set.”
¶8 The dirt jump Wilkerson selected contained “two mounds with a gap in between.” Wilkerson testified that he inspected the jump before attempting it, and rode down the approach to check [*4] the pitch and surface composition.
Q But you did check the jump out before you went off of it, correct?
A I did.
Q And, you rode down and actually, with the intention of checking it out before you went off of it, correct?
A I did.
Q And, you were looking for things like the pitch of the jump, correct?
A Yes.
Q You were looking to see if the composition of the surfaces was adequate, correct?
A Yes.
Q You were looking to see if the jump was safe before you went off of it, correct?
A Yes.
¶9 Wilkerson testified that he concluded “there was enough of a grade to [carry] me into [sic] with a moderate to fast amount of speed.” Wilkerson admitted that it had been at least a couple of years “since I’d done a gap jump.” But Wilkerson said that he had no concerns about his ability to accomplish the jump.
¶10 In his declaration in opposition to summary judgment, Wilkerson states he “reviewed” the jump, including “the pitch of the take-off jump itself and the size of the jump and the gap and thought everything looked ok,” but “did not take a practice ‘run in.'” The declaration states, in pertinent part:
14. I then rode over to a smaller jump (which had a crevice or drop in the middle) called a gap jump and felt that it was well within my “skill set”;
15. I then generally reviewed the jump, including the pitch of the take-off jump itself and the size of the jump and the gap and thought everything looked ok;
16. That is, looking at the jump itself, it looked fine for me to take;
17. I did not measure the gap width, nor the pitch of the jump nor the pitch of the landing;
… .
23. I also did not take a practice “run in” leading up to the jump because I had no reason to think that there was some danger to me from the approach to the jump or that the approach would be problematic or prevent me from clearing the jump.
¶11 Wilkerson testified that he “gauged the speed to be appropriate for the gap” and approached the jump “moderate to fast, the speed needed to get over the gap.” Wilkerson missed the jump and “[t]umbled forward” over the front of the bike. Wilkerson testified, in pertinent part:
On the back side of the jump for some reason my back wheel didn’t make it all the way over the berm of the back side of the jump. So, [*5] it impacted the top of the berm, rebounded and knocked me over the front of the bicycle.
¶12 Wilkerson hit the ground head-first and landed on his back five or six feet beyond the jump. Wilkerson was unable to move. Wilkerson called for help for some time before losing consciousness.
¶13 At about 1:00 a.m., a City employee reported seeing Wilkerson’s car in the parking lot. Two bicyclists found Wilkerson at about 11:00 a.m. and called 911. Emergency personnel immediately responded and transported Wilkerson to Harborview Medical Center. Wilkerson suffered from hypothermia and went into cardiac arrest. During “life-saving efforts,” Wilkerson’s lung was lacerated. Wilkerson successfully underwent surgery for the laceration. The doctors at Harborview diagnosed Wilkerson with a C4-C6 vertebra fracture. Wilkerson is quadriplegic.
¶14 After an assessment in Arkansas in September 2006, Wilkerson participated in the program at the Baylor Institute for Rehabilitation in Texas. During the assessment, Wilkerson said that although he was an experienced mountain biker, as he went over the jump, he came down “wrong” because he ” ‘was a bit out of practice’ ” and ” ‘a little too bold.’ ”
¶15 Wilkerson filed a lawsuit [*6] against the City alleging the City breached the duty to use reasonable care in failing to maintain the park and “allowing man-made jumps to remain despite the . . . inherent danger the jumps posed.” The complaint also alleged the City breached the duty to supervise the park and report Wilkerson’s vehicle “to authorities.” Wilkerson claimed the failure to report seeing his car in the parking lot caused him to suffer hypothermia and injury to his lungs. The City denied the allegations and asserted a number of affirmative defenses, including immunity under the recreational land use statute, RCW 4.24.200-.210.
¶16 The City filed a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claim that the City breached the duty to remove the dirt jumps. The City argued that because there was no evidence of a known dangerous artificial latent condition, the claim was barred by the recreational land use statute.
¶17 Wilkerson argued there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the approach to the gap jump was a known dangerous artificial latent condition. Wilkerson also argued that the City’s failure to remove, redesign, or maintain the dirt jumps was “willful and wanton conduct [that] rises to [*7] the level of intentional conduct.”
¶18 In support of his argument that the approach to the gap jump was a latent condition, Wilkerson submitted the declarations of Samuel Morris, Jr., a professional mountain bike racer; Lee Bridgers, the owner of a company that conducts mountain bike jumping clinics; and his own declaration. 3
3 In support of his assertion that the approach to the gap jump was a “known” and “dangerous” condition, Wilkerson submitted excerpts from the deposition of the City’s Acting Fire Chief and incident reports of bicycle accidents.
¶19 In his declaration, Wilkerson states that he did not “see[] or appreciate[] the S-curved, angled lead-in to the jump.” Morris states that in his opinion,
it was not the jump itself that caused Jon to crash, but the curvy nature of the lead-in, or approach, to the jump, which more probably than not reduced his speed enough to prevent him from successfully completing the jump. . . . While Jon testified that he reviewed the size of the gap and the pitch of the jump, what he did not consider and what a beginner to even an intermediate jumper would mostly likely not consider because of the subtleness is the curved approach leading into the jump and [*8] the effect that the approach would have on the ability of the rider to complete the jump. These conditions would not be apparent to a rider of Jon’s skill level.
¶20 Bridgers testified that the cause of the crash was the “lack of speed due to the twists and turns in the approach.”
[T]he curvy lead-in to the jump prevented Jon from successfully attaining the speed necessary to complete the jump and was the primary cause of Jon’s injury.
Bridgers stated that in his opinion, Wilkerson did not appreciate the S-curve approach.
While the S-curve after the berm is not visibly dramatic, it affects the direction, physics, and speed of the rider attempting to take the jump and therefore has a significant impact on the rider’s ability to successfully clear the jump, especially on a first attempt. This is something that Jon obviously did not notice or appreciate and which clearly had an impact on his ability to make the jump.
¶21 The court granted the motion for partial summary judgment. Even assuming the effect of the S-curve approach to the jump was not readily apparent to Wilkerson, the court concluded it was not a latent condition. The court ruled that as a matter of law, the inability to appreciate the [*9] risk does not constitute a latent condition.
So for purposes of the summary judgment, I am assuming that the trail, the approach leading to the jump was curved in some fashion such that it would have limited the speed of a biker who arrived at the jump site.
I am going to further conclude, for purposes of the summary judgment, that it would not have been readily apparent to the biker that he could not acquire sufficient speed to clear the jump.
[T]here is no testimony that you couldn’t see the path. The path was there. The path was not submerged; it was not invisible. Whether it was straight or curved, it was the path that one could see.
. . . .
[T]here are no cases where the courts have said you can look directly at it, you can see what is there to be seen, and the inability to appreciate the risk posed constitutes latency. I didn’t see any cases like that.
I find as a matter of law that the lead up, whether it was curved or straight, is not the latent condition required under the statute, and it does not abrogate the statutory immunity.
¶22 The court also concluded there was no evidence that the City acted with willful and wanton disregard for a danger posed by the Softies.
I would also suggest [*10] that there is no evidence here that would rise to the level of willful and wanton disregard, if indeed that is the standard in Washington.
I will accept for a summary judgment proposition that the city knew or should have known these jumps were out there, they knew or should have known that they were dangerous and there have been prior accidents, and that they did not go in and sign it or remov[e them i]s not the standard for recreational use immunity.
¶23 The “Order Granting Defendant SeaTac’s Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Recreational Use Immunity” dismisses the claim that “the City of SeaTac owed [Wilkerson] a duty to protect him from his failed mountain bike jump” at the Des Moines Creek Trail Park. The court denied Wilkerson’s motion for reconsideration.
¶24 The City then filed a motion for summary judgment dismissal of Wilkerson’s claim that the City breached the duty to supervise the park and report seeing Wilkerson’s vehicle in the parking lot. The City argued that the recreational land use statute and the public duty doctrine barred these claims.
¶25 Wilkerson argued the recreational land use statute did not apply to the cardiac and lung injuries he suffered as a result of remaining in [*11] the park overnight because he was no longer engaged in recreation. Wilkerson also argued that the City assumed a duty to users of the park to exercise reasonable care in patrolling the park.
¶26 The court granted summary judgment. The court ruled that the recreational land use statute barred Wilkerson’s claim that the City was liable for the injuries Wilkerson suffered as a result of the crash. The court’s oral ruling states, in pertinent part:
I mean to suggest that a landowner is immune from someone using their land for recreation, but if they get hurt, then a new duty arises to come take care of them and to use reasonable efforts to make sure they are safe after they are injured, as opposed to being safe before they are injured, really stretches it too far.
[T]o suggest the landowner has a duty not to protect the person from injury, but to treat them after they are injured, or to be alert to the fact of injury, even though they are not alert to prevent the injury, makes no sense.
So I am ruling that in the circumstances of having failed to detect him injured on site and failed to having brought medical services to him fast enough, the city is still acting in its capacity as landowner.
The [*12] “Order Granting Defendant SeaTac’s Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Duty to Rescue” dismisses Wilkerson’s claim that the City “owed him a duty to supervise and rescue him sooner.” 4
4 Wilkerson filed a motion to compel the City to produce discovery, which the court denied. Wilkerson appeals the order denying the motion to compel but does not assign error to the order or address it in the briefs. Accordingly, the issue is waived. RAP 10.3(a)(4); Hollis v. Garwall, Inc., 137 Wn.2d 683, 689 n.4, 974 P.2d 836 (1999).
ANALYSIS
¶27 Wilkerson contends the trial court erred in dismissing his negligence claims against the City under the recreational land use immunity statute, RCW 4.24.200-.210, and the court erred in concluding that the statute barred his claim for “hypothermia and cardiac and lung injuries.”
¶28 We review summary judgment de novo and consider the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Hearst Commc’ns, Inc. v. Seattle Times Co., 154 Wn.2d 493, 501, 115 P.3d 262 (2005). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Bulman v. Safeway, Inc., 144 Wn.2d 335, 351, 27 P.3d 1172 (2001). [*13] A party cannot rely on allegations in the pleadings, speculation, or argumentative assertions that factual issues remain. White v. State, 131 Wn.2d 1, 9, 929 P.2d 396 (1997).
¶29 The recreational land use statute, RCW 4.24.200-.210, grants immunity to landowners for unintentional injuries to recreational users of the land.
¶30 The statute modifies a landowner’s common law duty in order “to encourage landowners to open their lands to the public for recreational purposes.” Davis v. State, 144 Wn.2d 612, 616, 30 P.3d 460 (2001). Because the recreational land use statute is in derogation of common law, it is strictly construed. Matthews v. Elk Pioneer Days, 64 Wn. App. 433, 437, 824 P.2d 541 (1992).
¶31 Under RCW 4.24.200, the purpose of the recreational land use statute is to
encourage owners or others in lawful possession and control of land and water areas or channels to make them available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon and toward persons who may be injured or otherwise damaged by the acts or omissions of persons entering thereon. [5]
5 The legislature amended the statute several times between 2006 and 2012. Laws of 2006, ch. 212, § 6; [*14] Laws of 2011, ch. 53, § 1; Laws of 2011 ch. 171, § 2; Laws of 2011 ch. 320, § 11; Laws of 2012 ch. 15, § 1. The amendments are not pertinent to this appeal.
¶32 Under RCW 4.24.210, a landowner is immune from liability for unintentional injuries unless the injury is caused by a known dangerous artificial latent condition “for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted.” RCW 4.24.210 states, in pertinent part:
(1) [A]ny public or private landowners . . . or others in lawful possession and control of any lands whether designated resource, rural, or urban, or water areas or channels and lands adjacent to such areas or channels, who allow members of the public to use them for the purposes of outdoor recreation, which term includes, but is not limited to, . . . bicycling, . . . without charging a fee of any kind therefor, shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to such users.
. . . .
(4)(a) Nothing in this section shall prevent the liability of a landowner or others in lawful possession and control for injuries sustained to users by reason of a known dangerous artificial latent condition for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted.
¶33 To establish the City was not immune [*15] from suit under RCW 4.24.210, Wilkerson must show the City charged a fee for the use of the land, the injuries were intentionally inflicted, or the injuries were sustained by reason of a known dangerous artificial latent condition for which no warning signs were posted. Davis, 144 Wn.2d at 616.
¶34 Here, there is no dispute that the Des Moines Creek Trail Park was open to the public for recreational purposes and no fee was charged. The parties dispute whether the injury-causing condition was latent. Each of the four elements of a known dangerous artificial latent injury-causing condition must be present in order to establish liability under the recreational land use statute. Ravenscroft v. Wash. Water Power Co., 136 Wn.2d 911, 920, 969 P.2d 75 (1998). “If one of the four elements is not present, a claim cannot survive summary judgment.” Davis, 144 Wn.2d at 616.
¶35 Wilkerson asserts there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the S-curve lead-in was a latent condition, and whether a recreational user would recognize the danger of the S-curve approach. Wilkerson contends the S-curve “lead-in to the jump” caused his injuries.
¶36 For purposes of the recreational land use statute, RCW 4.24.210, [*16] “latent” means ” ‘not readily apparent to the recreational user.’ ” Ravenscroft, 136 Wn.2d at 924 (quoting Van Dinter v. City of Kennewick, 121 Wn.2d 38, 45, 846 P.2d 522 (1993)). In determining whether the injury-causing condition is latent, the question is not whether the specific risk is readily apparent but, instead, whether the injury-causing condition itself is readily apparent. Ravenscroft, 136 Wn.2d at 924. A landowner will not be held liable where a patent condition posed a latent, or unobvious, danger. Van Dinter, 121 Wn.2d at 46. Although latency is a factual question, when reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion from the evidence presented, summary judgment is appropriate. Van Dinter, 121 Wn.2d at 47.
¶37 Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Wilkerson, as a matter of law, the S-curve lead-in was not a latent condition. At most, the S-curve approach is a patent condition that “posed a latent, or unobvious, danger.” Van Dinter, 121 Wn.2d at 46.
¶38 In Van Dinter, the Washington Supreme Court addressed the difference between a latent condition and a latent danger. In Van Dinter, Van Dinter struck his eye on a protruding metal antenna of a caterpillar-shaped [*17] playground toy located next to the grassy area at the park where he was engaged in a water fight. Van Dinter, 121 Wn.2d at 40. Van Dinter stated that “he did not realize someone on the grass could collide with any part of the caterpillar.” Van Dinter, 121 Wn.2d at 40. Van Dinter asserted “a condition is latent for purposes of RCW 4.24.210 if its injury-producing aspect is not readily apparent to the ordinary recreational user,” and argued that “while the caterpillar was obvious, its injury-causing aspect was not.” Van Dinter, 121 Wn.2d at 45.
¶39 The court disagreed with Van Dinter and held that “RCW 4.24.210 does not hold landowners potentially liable for patent conditions with latent dangers. The condition itself must be latent.” Van Dinter, 121 Wn.2d at 46. While the court expressly acknowledged that “it may not have occurred to Van Dinter that he could injure himself in the way he did,” the court concluded that “this does not show the injury-causing condition — the caterpillar’s placement — was latent. . . . The caterpillar as well as its injury-causing aspect — its proximity to the grassy area — were obvious.” Van Dinter, 121 Wn.2d at 46.
¶40 Here, Wilkerson’s experts testified that the [*18] danger posed by the S-curve approach was not “obvious” to “beginning to intermediate” bike jumpers.
[T]he S-curve . . . affects the direction, physics, and speed of the rider attempting to take the jump . . . . It is my opinion that the dangers posed by the S-curved lead-in to the jump were not obvious for [Wilkerson] and other beginning to intermediate jumpers. [6]
6 (Emphases added.)
¶41 Morris testified that it was unlikely that Wilkerson or other jumpers would “consider . . . the effect that the approach would have.”
While [Wilkerson] testified that he reviewed the size of the gap and the pitch of the jump, what he did not consider and what a beginner to even an intermediate jumper would most likely not consider because of the subtleness is the curved approach leading into the jump and the effect that the approach would have on the ability of the rider to complete the jump. [7]
7 (Emphases added.)
¶42 The testimony that Wilkerson did not “appreciate” the danger of the S-curve approach to the jump does not establish a latent condition. As in Van Dinter, at most, Wilkerson’s failure to “appreciate” the S-curve lead-in “shows that the present situation is one in which a patent condition posed a latent, [*19] or unobvious, danger.” Van Dinter, 121 Wn.2d at 46.
¶43 The cases Wilkerson relies on, Ravenscroft and Cultee v. City of Tacoma, 95 Wn. App. 505, 977 P.2d 15 (1999), are distinguishable. In Ravenscroft, a man was injured when the boat he was riding in hit a rooted tree stump submerged in a channel of water that formed part of a dam reservoir. Ravenscroft, 136 Wn.2d at 915. The driver of the boat testified that “he saw nothing that would indicate the presence of any submerged objects or hazards in the direction he was traveling.” Ravenscroft, 136 Wn.2d at 916. Other witnesses testified that other boats had hit the stumps. Ravenscroft, 136 Wn.2d at 925.
¶44 The court identified the injury-causing condition as the “man-created water course, containing a submerged line of tree stumps” that was “created by [the Washington Water Power Company] cutting down trees, leaving stumps near the middle of a water channel, then raising the river to a level which covered the stumps.” Ravenscroft, 136 Wn.2d at 923. The court concluded that summary judgment was not appropriate because “[t]he record does not support a conclusion that the submerged stumps near the middle of the channel were obvious or visible as [*20] a matter of law.” Ravenscroft, 136 Wn.2d at 926.
¶45 In Cultee, a five-year-old girl rode a bicycle on a road with an eroded edge that was partially flooded by the Hood Canal tidal waters. Cultee, 95 Wn. App. at 509. The girl fell into the water and drowned at a point where the road and the eroded edge were covered by two to four inches of muddy water and the adjacent fields were covered with several feet of water. Cultee, 95 Wn. App. at 510. The court held there were material issues of fact about whether the condition that killed the girl was “the depth of the water alone, or a combination of the muddy water obscuring the eroded edge of the road and an abrupt drop into deep water;” and whether ” ‘recreational users’ would have been able to see the edge of the road, given that it was eroded and covered with a two-to-four-inch layer of muddy water.” Cultee, 95 Wn. App. at 523.
¶46 Wilkerson also argues that the trial court erred in concluding the recreational land use statute bars his claim for cardiac and lung injuries. Wilkerson argues the statute does not apply to the injuries he suffered after he missed the jump because he was not “engaged in recreation” or “using” the land when he suffered [*21] cardiac and lung injuries.
¶47 Wilkerson relies on Wisconsin law in support of his argument that the recreational land use statute does not apply to secondary injuries. But unlike RCW 4.24.210(1), the Wisconsin statute predicates landowner immunity on recreational use. The Wisconsin statute states, in pertinent part: “[N]o owner . . . is liable for . . . any injury to . . . a person engaging in recreational activity on the owner’s property.” Wis. Stat. § 895.52(2)(b). By contrast, RCW 4.24.200-.210 grants a broader immunity to landowners “who allow members of the public to use [their lands] for the purposes of outdoor recreation.” RCW 4.24.210(1); see also Gaeta v. Seattle City Light, 54 Wn. App. 603, 608-10, 774 P.2d 1255 (1989) (because landowner “open[ed] up the lands for recreational use without a fee,” and thereby “brought itself under the protection of the immunity statute,” landowner was immune from liability regardless of whether “a person coming onto the property may have some commercial purpose in mind”).
¶48 Next, Wilkerson argues that the City’s willful and wanton or intentional conduct precludes immunity under the recreational land use statute because the City knew that other bicyclists [*22] had been injured. Jones v. United States, 693 F.2d 1299 (9th Cir. 1982), does not support Wilkerson’s argument.
¶49 In Jones, the plaintiff went to Hurricane Ridge located in Olympic National Park as part of a church-sponsored event. Jones, 693 F.2d at 1300. The plaintiff was severely injured while riding on an inner tube at Hurricane Ridge. Jones, 693 F.2d at 1300. The plaintiff sued the church and the federal government. Jones, 693 F.2d at 1300. The jury returned a verdict against the church but found the plaintiff was also negligent. Jones, 693 F.2d at 1301. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the federal government under Washington’s recreational land use statute on the grounds that the plaintiff did not establish the government’s conduct was willful or wanton. Jones, 693 F.2d at 1300-01. 8
8
The evidence established that the extent of the danger was not actually or reasonably known to the Government. Its failure to put up signs and ropes was negligence which proximately contributed to the plaintiff’s accident but it did not constitute “an intentional failure to do an act” nor was it “in reckless disregard of the consequences.”
Jones, 693 F.2d at 1304 (internal quotation marks [*23] omitted).
¶50 On appeal, the plaintiff argued the court erred in concluding the government’s conduct was not willful or wanton under the recreational land use statute. Jones, 693 F.2d at 1301. The plaintiff asserted that the government’s failure to ” ‘put up signs and ropes’ ” was deliberate and the government ” ‘knew or should have known’ ” of the dangerous condition. Jones, 693 F.2d at 1304.
¶51 The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Jones, 693 F.2d at 1305. The Court distinguished cases that involved specific acts of the government that create a dangerous condition, and held that ” ‘[w]anton misconduct is not negligence since it involves intent rather than inadvertence, and is positive rather than negative.’ ” Jones, 693 F.2d at 1305 n.21 (quoting Adkisson v. City of Seattle, 42 Wn.2d 676, 687, 258 P.2d 461 (1953)). Because the government did not create the injury-causing condition, and the ” ‘impact of tubing and the inherent dangers . . . were not apparent to the public or the Government,’ ” the Court concluded the failure to put up signs or ropes was not intentional and willful or wanton conduct under the recreational land use statute. Jones, 693 F.2d at 1305.
We agree with the district court that, [*24] “While it was negligence on the Government’s part not to put up signs or ropes, its failure to do so does not rise to the status of willful and wanton conduct under the law of Washington.”
Jones, 693 F.2d at 1305.
¶52 Here, as in Jones, there is no dispute that the City did not create the dirt jumps or S-curve approach. While the alleged failure of the City to “bulldoze the Softies” or post warning signs may constitute negligence, it is not willful or wanton conduct under the recreational land use immunity statute.
¶53 Wilkerson also claims the City assumed a duty to supervise and patrol the park. Wilkerson points to the sign the City posted in the parking lot and the failure to take some action after the City employee saw his car in the parking lot at 1:00 a.m. The sign posted at the entry to the Des Moines Creek Trail Park parking lot stated:
Park is patrolled by City of SeaTac Police Department . . .
Park is operated by City of SeaTac Parks & Recreation Department . . .
. . . .
Park is closed from dusk to dawn unless otherwise posted
. . . .
Parking . . . is only permitted during park hours.
. . . .
Unauthorized vehicles will be impounded.
¶54 But in order to establish liability, Wilkerson must show there [*25] is a duty owed to him and not a duty owed to the public in general. Babcock v. Mason County Fire Dist. No. 6, 144 Wn.2d 774, 785, 30 P.3d 1261 (2001).
“Under the public duty doctrine, no liability may be imposed for a public official’s negligent conduct unless it is shown that the duty breached was owed to the injured person as an individual and was not merely the breach of an obligation owed to the public in general (i.e., a duty to all is a duty to no one).”
Babcock, 144 Wn.2d at 785 (quoting Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wn.2d 159, 163, 759 P.2d 447 (1988) 9). Because the record shows that the City did not assume a duty or make express assurances to Wilkerson, the public duty doctrine bars his claim that the City owed him a duty of care. Babcock, 144 Wn.2d at 785-86.
9 (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted.)
¶55 We affirm dismissal of Wilkerson’s lawsuit against the City.
Grosse, J., and Ellington, J. Pro Tem., concur.
After modification, further reconsideration denied March 27, 2013.
QBP Recalls Stolen Series BMX Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
Posted: January 22, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: BMX, BMX bicycles, Consumer Product Safety Council, CPSC, QBP, Recall, Stolen Leave a commentHazard: The bicycles fail to meet the federal bicycle standard. The bicycle’s front wheel can detach due to improperly fitting retention washers, posing a fall hazard to the rider.
http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2016/QBP-Recalls-Stolen-Series-BMX-Bicycles/
Recall Date: January 13, 2016
Name of Product: Stolen series BMX bicycles
Remedy: Replace
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled BMX bicycles and return them to the store where purchased for a free inspection and free replacement wheel retention washers.
Consumer Contact: QBP toll-free at 844-610-7484 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or online at http://www.qbpbmx.com and click on the Recall Information tab for more information.
Recall Details
Photos available at http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2016/QBP-Recalls-Stolen-Series-BMX-Bicycles/
Units: About 1,000 in the U.S.
Description: This recall involves Stolen series BMX bicycles, including Stolen Agent 16CB and 16FW, Stolen Compact, Stolen Casino and Stolen Stereo models. “Stolen” and the model name are printed on the frame of the bicycles. The Agent 16-inch bikes were sold in dark blue, the Compact 20-inch bikes were sold in neon orange and satin white, the Casino 20-inch bikes were sold in phosphate raw (gray), highlight yellow and electric red, and the Stereo 20-inch bikes were sold in satin black and electric green.
Incidents/Injuries: The firm has received one report of an incident. No injuries have been reported.
Sold at: BMX bicycle/product dealers, Stolen series BMX distributors and specialty bicycle retailers nationwide and online at http://www.QBP.com and other BMX bicycle/product websites from September 2015 through October 2015 for between $230 and $350.
Distributor: Quality Bicycle Products Inc. (QBP), of Bloomington, Minn.
Manufactured in: Taiwan
Retailers: If you are a retailer of a recalled product you have a duty to notify your customers of a recall. If you can, email your clients or include the recall information in your next marketing communication to your clients. Post any Recall Poster at your stores and contact the manufacturer to determine how you will handle any recalls.
For more information on this see:
For Retailers
Recalls Call for Retailer Action
Combination of a Products Liability statute, an Expert Witness Report that was just not direct enough and odd facts holds a retailer liable as manufacture for product defect.
Product Liability takes a different turn. You must pay attention, just not rely on the CPSC.
Retailer has no duty to fit or instruct on fitting bicycle helmet
Summary Judgment granted for bicycle manufacturer and retailer on a breach of warranty and product liability claim.
For Manufacturers
The legal relationship created between manufactures and US consumers
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Copyright 2016 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
#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, Recall, CPSC, Consumer Product Safety Council, QBP, BMX, Stolen, BMX bicycles,
Do you have contracts with all of your athletes? Manufacturers who provide more than swag to athletes may be sued without a written agreement.
Posted: September 7, 2015 Filed under: Contract, Cycling, Massachusetts, Mountain Biking | Tags: Athlete, BMX, Competitor, Cycling team, Cyclists, Defamation, Diamondback, Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Nicholi Rogatkin, Raleigh, Raleigh America, Raleigh America Inc., Sponsored Athlete, Sponsorship Leave a commentIn this case the manufacturer one because the damages were not able to be proven, however, this is just the tip of the iceberg on what could happen. What if the rider was injured, and you were their largest contributor to their income?
Rogatkin v. Raleigh America Inc., 69 F. Supp. 3d 294; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164154
State: Massachusetts, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAS-SACHUSETTS
Plaintiff: Nicholi Rogatkin, Minor by His Father and Next Friend, Vladmir Rogatkin
Defendant: Raleigh America Inc./Diamondback BMX, and John Does 1-8
Plaintiff Claims: : unauthorized use of name and portrait or picture in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214 § 3A (Count I); unfair and/or deceptive business practices in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, §§ 2 & 11 (Count II); defamation (Count III); negligent misrepresentation (Count IV); unjust enrichment (Count V); promissory estoppel (Count VI); and intentional misrepresentation (Count VII).
Defendant Defenses: No evidence and No damages
Holding: for the defendant
Year: 2014
The plaintiff was a very talented BMX rider starting at a very early age. The defendant started sponsoring him at age 11 in 2007. That sponsorship continued for five years until 2012 when the plaintiff moved on to another sponsorship. During that time, the sponsorship started as a bike and other equipment and grew to a monthly income and travel expenses. During that time the plaintiff wore the defendant’s logos and sent photographs and videos to the defendant to be used on their website.
The plaintiff one year flew out to the defendants, at the defendant’s expense to be photographed for the defendant’s catalog. The defendant started asking for in 2010 and was told that he had a great career ahead of him.
Prior to receiving income, the plaintiff and defendant did not have any contract between them. Once the defendant started receiving a monthly income the plaintiff signed a Team Rider Sponsorship Agreement. The agreement was signed by the plaintiff’s father on behalf of the plaintiff. The agreement provided the plaintiff with a monthly payment, and the defendant got unlimited promotional use of the plaintiff’s name and likeness.
At no time, was the plaintiff restricted from receiving sponsorship from other manufacturers. Eventually, the plaintiff was picked up by other manufacturers, including other bike manufacturers. Eventually, he went to one of the manufacturers as a high-paid rider and left the defendant. Soon thereafter the plaintiff, by and through his father, sued the defendant. The claims total seven counts.
unauthorized use of name and portrait or picture in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214 § 3A (Count I);
unfair and/or deceptive business practices in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, §§ 2 & 11 (Count II);
defamation (Count III);
negligent misrepresentation (Count IV);
unjust enrichment (Count V);
promissory estoppel (Count VI);
and intentional misrepresentation (Count VII).
Basically, the plaintiff sued to get more money believing that he was not compensated enough by the defendant for his work prior to leaving. He did not win any of these arguments. The judge granted the defendants motion for summary judgment.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
The decisions starts with an analysis of the defamation claim. To prove defamation on Massachusetts law the plaintiff must prove:
…the defendant was at fault for the publication of a false statement regarding the plaintiff, capable of damaging the plaintiff’s reputation in the community, which either caused economic loss or is actionable without proof of economic loss.
The plaintiff based his claims on the theory that the defendant did not change the photos on its website fast enough to match the growth of the plaintiff and his riding larger bikes. For a year or so after he had advanced from a 16” (wheel size) bike to 18” then 20” bikes he was pictured on the website riding 16” bikes.
Although Rogatkin admits that the accused material was accurate and non-defamatory when published, he contends that as he grew in age and skill, his static portrayal by Raleigh took on a defamatory undertone.
Because the information was valid at the time it was posted, and the plaintiff’s date of birth was on the site, the court found no major issue with not changing photographs as quickly as the plaintiff wanted. The court even had fun with this argument.
Although Raleigh did not update Rogatkin’s biography with the march of time (the court knows of no duty the law imposes to do as much), it published Rogatkin’s accurate date of birth on the same page — a reasonable assurance that the public would never confuse Rogatkin with, say, Peter Pan or Benjamin Button.
More importantly the plaintiff could not offer any evidence showing that by failing to change the photographs, he had suffered an injury.
A false statement is defamatory if it “would tend to hold the plaintiff up to scorn, hatred, ridicule or contempt, in the minds of any considerable and respectable segment in the community
The court then had fun and brought in Shirley Temple in its analysis of the negative publicity claimed by the plaintiff.
The publication of Rogatkin’s age (12) and characterizing him as a “kid” in a biography is no more susceptible to a defamatory meaning than biographical references to Ambassador Shirley Temple as a child actor or as “America’s Little Darling.
A biography, like a photograph, is a faithful snapshot of a person taken at a particular time in his or her life.
The court also looked at the argument made by the plaintiff as one of not suffering injury from not showing him riding larger bikes, but of failing to post more images of him on larger bikes, which could not be actionable.
Rogatkin alleges that Raleigh’s continued publication of images of him as a 16-inch bike rider led to ridicule and scorn because he was not shown riding a larger bike. This is not an objection to the publications, but to the lack of publication of photos showing Rogatkin riding larger bikes. Rogatkin has not identified any support for the novel proposition that the absence of publication may form the basis of a defamation claim.
The court then looked at the first count, unauthorized use of the name and image of the plaintiff.
The statute at issue allows a private right of action when an image had been used for commercial advertising without the consent of the person. The defendant argued that the emails between them showed consent to use the images. The court agreed.
…Rogatkin does not disagree that he condoned Raleigh’s use of his name and images for purposes of advertising at the time of publication, or that he attended the various photo shoots (such as the one in Seattle in 2008) with any expectation other than that his name and image would be used by Raleigh to promote sales of its bikes.
The court also brought up the fact the emails from the plaintiff complained they were not posting enough photographs of him on the defendant’s website. Again, the plaintiff could not show any damages from the posting of his images. Just because Raleigh made money from using his injuries is not damages for injury upon the plaintiff. “Because Rogatkin has adduced no material evidence of damages attributable to the use of his name and image, Raleigh is entitled to summary judgment on Count I.”
Next the court took on claims IV, VI and VII, Intentional/Negligent Misrepresentation, and Promissory Estoppel.
Under Massachusetts’s law to win a claim of misrepresentation, the plaintiff had to show false statement that induced him to do something.
To sustain a claim of misrepresentation, a plaintiff must show a false statement of material fact made to induce the plaintiff to act, together with reliance on the false statement by the plaintiff to the plaintiff’s detriment. . . . The speaker need not know ‘that the statement is false if the truth is reasonably susceptible of actual knowledge, or otherwise expressed, if, through a modicum of diligence, accurate facts are available to the speaker.’
However, even if the defendant had made a false representation, the plaintiff had to prove he was worse off based on the false representation.
…a plaintiff must allege that (1) a promisor makes a promise which he should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee, (2) the promise does induce such action or forbearance, and (3) injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.
The plaintiff could have rejected the sponsorship from the defendant, and the plaintiff was free to contract with other manufacturers for sponsorship.
On top of that, the plaintiff could not prove a promissory estoppel claim because he could not prove any terms or elements to create a legal claim.
Under Massachusetts law, “as with a claim for breach of contract, [i]n order to establish the existence of an enforceable promise under promissory estoppel, the plaintiff must show that the defendants’ promise included enough essential terms so that a contract including them would be capable of being enforced.”
Count V, unjust enrichment was reviewed by the court next.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant unfairly profited from his work and photographs by paying him minimally. To prove an unjust enrichment claim the plaintiff must show:
(1) a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff;
(2) an appreciation or knowledge of the benefit by the defendant; and
(3) the acceptance or retention of the benefit by the defendant under circumstances which make such acceptance or retention inequitable.
Damages from an unjust enrichment claim are the disgorgement of the property unjustly appropriated.
Because unjust enrichment is a theory of equitable recovery, and not a separate cause of action, a court may not order restitution as a form of damages; it may only require a party to disgorge property that has been wrongfully appropriated from the rightful possession of the other party.
First because the relationship between the parties was voluntary there were no fraud or “unjust” actions by the defendant. On top of that, the plaintiff benefited from the relationship just as the defendants did.
He also benefited materially from the relationship in terms of equipment, gear, and travel expenses. If Rogatkin found the terms of his association with Raleigh unsatisfactory, he was free to renegotiate, or leave to pursue other opportunities (both of which he eventually did). Because Raleigh did not unfairly retain any benefit conferred by Rogatkin,….
Here again, the plaintiff could show no damages nor could he even show injury in this case.
The court looked at Count II then, Unfair and/or Deceptive Business Practices under Chapter 93A, a Massachusetts statute.
Here again, the plaintiff did not successfully argue this claim because he could not prove that the defendant was unethical, unscrupulous and a fraud.
Rogatkin has not shown that Raleigh’s actions fell within “the penumbra of some common-law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness . . . or [was] immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous . . . [or] cause[d] substantial injury to consumers (or competitors or other businessmen).
These arguments were all based in fraud or contract. In all cases, the damages cannot be what the defendant got from third parties but what it cost the plaintiff in dealing with the defendant. Here the plaintiff could not show any damages that qualified, in fact, the court found the plaintiff had benefited from the relationship and at worse was a bad negotiator.
So Now What?
Once you put someone’s image on your website or your give something, specifically to someone based upon their relationship with your product you better have that relationship in writing.
Once you hand product to someone to sue in an effort to promote your product and create a long-term relationship with that person that is not defined by other facts, such as product testers, writers, reviewers, etc., you might look at immortalizing that relationship in writing.
Most states have laws concerning the unauthorized use of someone’s likeness without their permission. That is an easy reason to see why you should have an agreement.
The facts here are another reason. A written contract outlining the relationship from the beginning would have eliminated this lawsuit.
However, this can get worse.
The IRS wants to know what your relationship is. Without an agreement, the IRS is free to determine that relationship on its own with little help. (Although a contract is not persuasive, it helps when dealing with the IRS.) If the sponsored athlete is only sponsored by you and uses your equipment and does not pay taxes, the IRS can look to you for failing to pay withholding for the “employee.” The IRS wants it money and will work hard to get it from anyone who can write a check easily.
Another group that wants money is the athlete’s health insurance carrier or the unpaid hospital and doctors if the athlete does not have any insurance. The health insurance carrier through its subrogation clause can look to anyone it believes is legally responsible for the damages it paid out for the injured athlete’s medical bills. The insurer may see the action as the same way the IRS does; the injured athlete was an employee and should have been covered under your worker’s compensation insurance. A successful lawsuit on this issue will not only cost you money in paying the health insurance company, but double more for penalties to your worker’s comp carrier for not listing the athlete.
The health insurance carrier could also come after you if it believes the bike or another product was defective. Again, a contract with the athlete would eliminate both arguments.
Unpaid medical bills can also trigger claims based on either an employee theory or on the legal theory that you were legally responsible for encouraging the athlete.
It is easy to get these contracts written. You need to specify general issues like medical coverage, health insurance, taxes and the legal definition of the parties and that relationship. More importantly you need to define what you are going to do and all limits to that relationship so that no matter who or what, they cannot exceed the limits placed in the agreement.
You want to get your product out there, and you want to help up-and-coming athletes. However, taking the time to establish legally the relationship will make everyone’s life easier from the start.
Who knows, fifty years from now, that signature on an athlete’s first contract might have value in itself.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Copyright 2015 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
#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, BMX, Diamondback, Raleigh, Athlete, Sponsored Athlete, Cyclists, Competitor, Raleigh America Inc., Raleigh America, Nicholi Rogatkin, Cycling Team, Sponsorship, Defamation, Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation
You can’t sue for a danger which you could have seen when biking on someone’s land
Posted: September 2, 2013 Filed under: Cycling, Michigan, Mountain Biking | Tags: Bicycle motocross, Bicycle Racing, bicycle track, bicyclist, bike park, biking, BMX, Bradley J. R. Cottom, Cycling, dirt bike race track, dirt track, Inc., Licensee, Melissa Cottom, Michigan, race track, Summary judgment, USA Cycling Leave a commentBesides 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
Posted: September 2, 2013 Filed under: Cycling, Legal Case, Michigan, Mountain Biking | Tags: Bicycle Racing, bicycle track, bicyclist, bike park, biking, BMX, Bradley J. R. Cottom, Cottom, Cycling, dirt bike race track, dirt track, Inc., Melissa Cottom, race track, USA Cycling Leave a commentCottom 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
Olympic Cycling Kits (clothes) Unveiled: They Look Good
Posted: July 19, 2012 Filed under: Cycling | Tags: Bicycle motocross, BMX, Bob Haro, Cycling, Olympic, Olympic Games, Olympics, United States, USA Cycling 1 Comment |
||||
 |
|
|||
Cottom v. USA Cycling, Inc, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6745
Posted: December 20, 2010 Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Cycling, Legal Case, Michigan, Mountain Biking | Tags: BMX, Cycling, Mountain biking, USA Cycling Leave a commentCottom 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
Recreation Law 