. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.

ARTICLE ID 43850

$________ Failure to abide by own permit regulations - Failure to provide alternate bike lane - Severe burns to arm - Disfigurement - Unable to use left arm below elbow.

Pima County, Arizona

In this negligence matter, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant city failed to follow its own permit regulations when it permitted the bike lane to be closed without providing an alternate route. The plaintiff’s bike hit a sandbag, causing him to flip over the handlebars and at which time he was struck by a passing vehicle. The city claimed that the plaintiff was negligent.

The male plaintiff, a bicycle rider, alleged that there was no warning that the bicycle lane was closed or under construction. Investigation disclosed that the defendants, Triumph and Ajax applied to the city for a permit to close the right lane of southbound Craycroft Road in Tucson for construction of a separate right turn lane on private property. The right lane of the road included a designated bike lane. The city’s own rules required that if a bike lane is closed that an alternate bike lane be established or a detour set up. The city failed to follow its own rules and permitted the defendant to barricade off the bike lane without posting any signs or providing an alternate route. On May 11, ________ the plaintiff was riding his bicycle south in the bike lane on Craycroft Road. The bike lane was closed off suddenly without any prior warning. The plaintiff’s bike struck a sandbag which propelled the plaintiff up and over his bike and onto the roadway where he was struck by a motor vehicle. The plaintiff sustained severe burns to his left arm. The incident rendered his left arm disfigured and useless below the elbow. The plaintiff is left hand dominant. The plaintiff also sustained a back injury and separated right shoulder. The plaintiff brought suit against the city and the defendant builders alleging that they were negligent.

The defendant city alleged that the plaintiff was negligent and his negligence contributed to his injuries. The city contended that the street was reasonably safe for travel and that the plaintiff was not paying attention. The plaintiff settled with the defendants Triumph and Ajax builders prior to trial for an undisclosed sum. The defendant city maintained that it met all federal safety standards and it was not negligent.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and assessed liability as follows: City 52%, Plaintiff 23%, Ajax 22%, Triumph 3% and Hart 0%. The jury awarded the total sum of $________ in damages. The plaintiff will receive $________ from the defendant city. The plaintiff did not bring suit against Hart, the driver of the vehicle that struck him.

To read the full article, please login to your account or purchase

5 ways to win with JVRA

JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:

  1. Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
  2. Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
  3. Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
  4. Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
  5. Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.

Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.