DEFENDANT’S Premises Liability – Hazardous Premises – Plaintiff riding an off road vehicle strikes a pipe sticking up out of the ground on the defendant’s property – Failure to warn – Severe dislocation of left knee – Numerous surgical procedures requires – RSD.

Cumberland County, PA

In this premises liability action, the plaintiff claimed the defendant allowed a dangerous condition to exist on his property that he openly allowed others to use for the purpose of trail riding all-terrain vehicles. The plaintiff was riding on one of these trails when he struck a pipe that was protruding from the ground and fell off his ATV sustaining serious injury. The defendant denied all allegations of negligence.

On July 18, ________, the plaintiff entered into a lease with the defendants for a single family home and a small piece of the defendant’s 39 acre tract of land. At all times the defendants allowed the full 39 acres of land to be used by the plaintiffs and others for the purposes of riding off road vehicles on the land. On June 2, ________, the plaintiff suffered severe injury when the front wheel of an off road motorcycle which he was riding struck an iron pipe protruding from the ground within or immediately adjacent to one of the established trails located on defendants land. The presence of the pipe was concealed by an over growth of weeds and vegetation.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant was negligent for failing to properly and adequately maintain the premises, failing to warn of the dangerous condition, failing to barricade the dangerous condition and allowing a hazardous condition to exist on the premises. The plaintiff suffered a severe dislocation of the knee. The plaintiff required multiple surgical procedures including vascular repairs to veins and arteries, fasciotomy, cruciate ligament repair, skin grafting and major reconstruction of his left knee joint. He has been left with left leg RSD. In addition, his wife made a claim for loss of consortium.

The defendants denied being negligent and argued that the plaintiff did not have permission to ride his off road vehicle on the defendant’s property and was therefore trespassing when the alleged incident occurred. The defendant further argued that the plaintiff had been consuming alcohol prior to the accident and was operating the vehicle under the influence of alcohol.The first question presented to the jury was “Did the plaintiff assume the risk of harm?” The jury answered yes and a defense verdict was entered.