.

Legal News That You Can Use: Supreme Court To Bicyclists: You’re On Your Own Out There

Five experienced bicyclists were riding downhill on the westbound shoulder of Parsonage Hill Road in Millburn. One of the bicyclists, whom we'll call Martha, was riding behind the pack. Martha's

Five experienced bicyclists were riding downhill on the westbound shoulder of Parsonage Hill Road in Millburn. One of the bicyclists, whom we'll call Martha, was riding behind the pack. Martha's bicycle hit a sharp "depression" in the road.  The “depression” measured two feet in diameter, and was about an inch and a half deep. Martha lost control of her bicycle. Tragically, despite the fact that she wore a bike helmet, Martha suffered a catastrophic head injury. She never regained consciousness.

Martha passed away 26 days later. The accident occurred on August 18, 2001. In 2002, Martha’s husband filed suit against Essex County, which was responsible for maintaining the road. Eventually, the trial judge threw the case out of court, because of certain defects in the evidence.

An intermediate appellate court reversed the trial judge's ruling, and found for the victim. However, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the intermediate appellate court's decision. In doing so, the Supremes sent the case back to the trial judge, to make certain required factual findings. All this took six years. (No one ever said that justice in New Jersey was always swift.)

Again, the trial judge ruled in favor of Essex County, and threw out the lawsuit. One more time, an intermediate appellate court reversed, and ruled against the county. The appellate court stated that the county could indeed be responsible for Martha's death, if a jury found that the county failed to have a proper inspection program for the roadway and shoulder.

Was this the end of the case? Of course not. The county appealed again to the New Jersey Supreme Court. In January 2012, for the second time, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the county, and reinstated the trial judge's dismissal of the case.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court discussed many technical issues, having to do with special immunities that are afforded the government when it is sued for negligence. (You aren't so naïve so as to believe that the government has to play by the same rules that everyone else does, now are you?) I would like to focus on one aspect of the Supreme Court's long and complicated ruling.

One of the reasons the Supreme Court gave for ruling in favor of the County was that bicyclists are supposed to ride as near to the right side of the road as possible. However, they are not supposed to ride off of the road. Therefore, they are not supposed to ride on the shoulder. The court further stated that the intended use of the road was for motor vehicles, not bicycles. In this regard, the court suggested that any inspection of the road by the county would only have to be on the lookout for defects that were large enough to destabilize a car. A pothole that, say, was only big enough to send a bicyclist flying, but not a car, was deemed by the court to be unimportant.

In my view, the Supreme Court got it wrong, for several reasons. First, despite what the law may say about where on the road bicyclists are required to ride, the reality is that they are going to use the shoulder much of the time. This not only keeps the bicyclists safer, it makes driving on such roads easier. When you pass a bicycle rider, would you rather the rider be on the road itself, which might force you to cross the center median in order to pass? Or would you prefer that the rider be on the shoulder, so that you do not have to swerve into the oncoming lane?

Second, by essentially telling bicycle riders that they're on their own when they choose to use the shoulder, the court is discouraging, unintentionally or not, the use of bicycles as a form of transportation. With all the energy problems we have, not to mention the epidemic of obesity in this country, we should be encouraging bicycle ridership.

Finally, when a case is tossed out of court, as this one was, before allowing a jury to decide whether to hold someone responsible, the jury system has been thwarted. These cases are only supposed to be thrown out of court if they are so far off base that no reasonable juror could possibly find in favor of the victim. Doesn't the fact that several appellate judges twice found in favor of the victim strongly indicate that reasonable jurors might have done the same?

Thus, the lesson we can all draw from this case is that the Supreme Court has officially ruled that appellate judges aren't always reasonable.

______

Marc S. Berman is an attorney with offices in Fair Lawn and Paramus.  Disclaimer: The articles posted here  are for informational purposes only, and are not intended as legal advice for specific cases. Readers  should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information presented here, but rather should retain an attorney to advise them.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Marc S. Berman March 06, 2012 at 05:12 PM
Joeyy Thank you for your comment. I would agree with you that, in the vast majority of cases, judges need to simply apply existing law and legal precedent. However, there are exceptions. One is where the letter of the law is contrary to the intent of the law. So if a law designed to foster safety actually makes us less safe, there is room for interpretation. Another example: One of my law school professor was a law clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren, of Brown vs. Board of Education fame. At the time of the Brown case, "separate but equal" segregation was the settled law of the land. My professor told us that the chief justice would start his discussions with his clerks of pending cases with the question "Is it fair?". If judges always just slavishly followed existing precedent, we'd still have legalized racial segregation, and a lot of other nasty things. Finally, if you carefully read my post again , you'll see that I did not argue that "this country is obese BECAUSE our laws don't encourage cyclists." Again, I appreciate your insights and comments.
Joeyy March 06, 2012 at 07:11 PM
Marc, I did not mean to sound as rude as I did when I re-read my comment. I appreciate you taking time out to answer me and clear some things up! Thank you.
Marc S. Berman March 06, 2012 at 10:38 PM
No problem. I appreciate it when people take the time to respond, even if they disagree with me. Thanks again.
zizi March 07, 2012 at 04:26 AM
Rosa Ruiz: Please see my suggestions about how you can improve your English. 1. You misspelled bicyclist. 2. You misspelled familiar. It was sufficient to write just English rather than "English language".
TomW March 07, 2012 at 01:41 PM
I know I will get slack for this but I believe the ruling by the State Supreme court is fair and yes I am a bicyclist for over 35 years and ridden in many states including the craziest, NYC. I don't know what happened on that ride in 2001, but from my experience when riding in a pack, the lead person generally watches for road hazards such as the one that caused the accident and warns the trailing riders. My heart goes out for the victim and family. Bicyclist takes on many risks when on the road.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »