# WH Rez loses suit for $2.9 million...



## bvibert (May 10, 2010)

This doesn't sound good...

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hc-bicyclist-jury-award-mdc.artmay10,0,6140008.story

I wonder if it will affect mountain bike access there???


----------



## rueler (May 10, 2010)

REALLY!!! If I read this article correctly, it said that SHE ran into a GATE with her bike. How is that MDC's fault. They essentially awarded her money for "pilot error"... I'm sure that there is much more to it than that...but, I worry that lawsuits like this WILL have an impact on future access rights...not just at WH res. either!!! Other sites/land managers will hear this news and think twice before granting access and possibly causing their employer serious money.


----------



## o3jeff (May 10, 2010)

Ruins it for everyone else.


----------



## RENO (May 10, 2010)

That's a ridiculous lawsuit! She hit a gate? What an idiot! Had to be a large gate too to stop cars, trucks, atv's, etc...


----------



## bvibert (May 10, 2010)

Someone on another site said that she tried to duck under a gate, instead of riding around it, and that's when the injury occurred.  Without more details it definitely sounds like pilot error and a frivolous lawsuit, apparently the jury disagreed.  The only way I could see this being even somewhat valid is if the MDC had camouflaged the gate so that one couldn't see it until it was too late, or something along those lines.  I seriously doubt that was the case.

And yes, shit like this will just make it harder on mountain biking anywhere.  People who sue property owners for mountain bike accidents should be shot, it's just as bad as those who sue ski areas. :roll:


----------



## severine (May 10, 2010)

Ridiculous! Can't believe the jury found MDC even partially at fault for that! There are access ways around the gates--she's the moron who thought she could duck it!


----------



## TheBEast (May 10, 2010)

Wow is about all I can say.  Obviously more to the story.  Just sad that things like this have to ruin it for everyone.


----------



## drjeff (May 10, 2010)

This has to be the biggest WTF part of the article IMHO

"It took eight years to resolve the case because of a dispute about whether the MDC was immune from responsibility, Stratton said. After a four-day trial before Judge Edward Domnarski, the jury decided the authority was not immune in this instance, and also found that Blonski was partially responsible."

Imagine what the award would have been if the jury thought she wasn't responsible at all  :smash:


----------



## powpig2002 (May 11, 2010)

gotta be more to it


----------



## skidmarks (May 11, 2010)

*Lawyer wins 2.9 million*

This is not good news. Her lawyer wins 2.9 million is what the article should say. Must be more to the story but I agree unless the gate was painted in camo or motion activated no one is at fault. 

Didn't she have insurance?


----------



## o3jeff (May 11, 2010)

Some more on this
http://http://blogs.courant.com/rick_green/2010/05/lawsuit-verdict-may-shut-mdc-r.html


----------



## severine (May 11, 2010)

o3jeff said:


> Some more on this
> http://blogs.courant.com/rick_green/2010/05/lawsuit-verdict-may-shut-mdc-r.html


:angry: The comments only add fuel to the fire though. Is she really out riding still, selling gym memberships to other cyclists? :angry:


----------



## skidmarks (May 12, 2010)

*Better than Lotto*

What a case for Tort reform! This lawyer is going to make another bundle. I still would like to know what was wrong with the gate.


----------



## bvibert (May 12, 2010)

skidmarks said:


> I still would like to know what was wrong with the gate.



Same here.  It probably wasn't the correct hue of yellow or something...


----------



## drjeff (May 12, 2010)

bvibert said:


> Same here.  It probably wasn't the correct hue of yellow or something...



Probably more like it wasn't an issue with the object between the metal posts, but the object between the ears :smash:


----------



## bvibert (May 28, 2010)

The more I hear about this the angrier I get...

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-green-0528-20100528-16,0,6325795.column?page=1


----------



## MR. evil (May 28, 2010)

bvibert said:


> The more I hear about this the angrier I get...
> 
> http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-green-0528-20100528-16,0,6325795.column?page=1



read that in the paper during lunch...really pissed me off! :angry:


----------



## drjeff (May 29, 2010)

Saw that article yesterday - atleast the guy who wrote that REALLY called out the *cough*victim*cough* for what she appears to be!  Somehow I bet that he also has a version of that article with a bunch of words that the Courrant COULDN'T print!


----------



## riverc0il (May 30, 2010)

Wow.  This smacks of the same bull crap we see in the ski industry. I don't mountain bike myself, but how do you ride right into a gate? It might as well have been a tree or a granite cliff face. Mountain biking by definition is all about riding with obstacles and either avoiding them or riding them. Even more scary is that article suggests the rider is an "experienced mountain biker" -- you might expect this type of thing from someone that is inexperienced but experienced people usually know and accept the risks. Wonder how she will feel knowing that she shut the place down for other riders?  I hope this gets resolved for you guys! Hate seeing this type of thing.


----------



## bvibert (May 30, 2010)

It does really suck, and echos what goes on in the ski industry.  I fear that not only will this suit result in the closure of the Rez to mountain bikers (and perhaps all others), but that it will also affect access in other areas.


----------



## Trev (Jun 1, 2010)

We should do something, write something, say something.

Not sure what exactly.. or what forum/venue.. but.. geesh..


----------



## o3jeff (Jun 2, 2010)

Links to the court docshttp://blogs.courant.com/rick_green/2010/06/more-on-possible-ban-of-bikes.html


----------



## severine (Jun 2, 2010)

o3jeff said:


> Links to the court docshttp://blogs.courant.com/rick_green/2010/06/more-on-possible-ban-of-bikes.html



Thanks. My lawyer cousin will love the new documents that he can peruse to his heart's content. :lol:


----------



## o3jeff (Jun 2, 2010)

severine said:


> Thanks. My lawyer cousin will love the new documents that he can peruse to his heart's content. :lol:



I don't see how she won this after reading them. They admitted she was going the wrong way(on a well marked trail) with her head down and hit a bright yellow gate that has been locked shut for about 6 months(since 9/11). Said MDC should of had signs for people going the wrong way and also have a "barricade" in front of the gate to keep people from hitting it and getting hurt while riding the trail the wrong way? wtf

And then in another document the referred to the mountain bike show she was on and had a tip about always riding with your head up so you don't hit something:-D

Someone on FB should plan a rally in front of her house.


----------



## severine (Jun 2, 2010)

o3jeff said:


> I don't see how she won this after reading them. They admitted she was going the wrong way(on a well marked trail) with her head down and hit a bright yellow gate that has been locked shut for about 6 months(since 9/11). Said MDC should of had signs for people going the wrong way and also have a "barricade" in front of the gate to keep people from hitting it and getting hurt while riding the trail the wrong way? wtf
> 
> And then in another document the referred to the mountain bike show she was on and had a tip about always riding with your head up so you don't hit something:-D
> 
> Someone on FB should plan a rally in front of her house.



Clearly whomever was on the jury has no clue about MTBing...or outdoor activities in general. I imagine when they picked the jury, that may have been somewhat intentional. Don't they get to ask leading questions to help them determine a certain sort of jury? Or is that just TV?

I could *almost* understand her wanting her medical bills covered, if it weren't for the fact that it's an at-your-own-risk kind of sport and she should have been aware of the risks when she got on that bike and owned up to the fact that she was an idiot for riding the wrong way and trying to duck a locked gate that in no way, shape, or form would have allowed a person of her stature to sneak underneath it. 

But what she was awarded is far excessive, especially for someone who is out there participating in MTBing again, apparently running, selling fitness memberships, etc. How has her quality of life been affected so greatly as to require an extra $70K/yr for the rest of her life? Seems like she's still out there enjoying the stuff she did before...

Meanwhile, her stupidity may lead to the end of enjoying MDC for the rest of us. Boo.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 2, 2010)

severine said:


> Clearly whomever was on the jury has no clue about MTBing...or outdoor activities in general. I imagine when they picked the jury, that may have been somewhat intentional. Don't they get to ask leading questions to help them determine a certain sort of jury? Or is that just TV?
> 
> I could *almost* understand her wanting her medical bills covered, if it weren't for the fact that it's an at-your-own-risk kind of sport and she should have been aware of the risks when she got on that bike and owned up to the fact that she was an idiot for riding the wrong way and trying to duck a locked gate that in no way, shape, or form would have allowed a person of her stature to sneak underneath it.
> 
> ...



This so plain and simple seems to be a case of "well lets just sue them (the MDC) they're a big enough company that a couple of million judgement won't effect anything" :smash: :smash: :smash: :smash:  What the heck has happened to personal accountability these days???  If *YOU* do something stupid, the consequences of *YOUR* actions should be *YOURS*!


----------



## Paul (Jun 2, 2010)

My favorite part:



> 9. The jury’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s negligence was not greater than
> fifty (50) per cent of the total negligence was not consistent with the evidence
> presented.
> Among the *undisputed facts *presented at trial were the following:
> ...


----------



## bvibert (Jun 2, 2010)

Paul said:


> My favorite part:



I didn't read far enough to catch that part.  Good stuff.  It further makes one wonder WTF the jury was smoking when they reached their decision??  Maybe they were paid off???  There's not much about this case that makes sense.


----------



## o3jeff (Jun 5, 2010)

From the lawyers web site
http://www.strattonfaxon.com/news/2010-news/cyclist-brokenneck5.2010.pdf


----------



## Paul (Jun 5, 2010)

o3jeff said:


> From the lawyers web site
> http://www.strattonfaxon.com/news/2010-news/cyclist-brokenneck5.2010.pdf



I read it.

Bullshit.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 5, 2010)

Feel free to join the Facebook page againt this ridiculous award!

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=122890587737245


----------



## bvibert (Jun 6, 2010)

o3jeff said:


> From the lawyers web site
> http://www.strattonfaxon.com/news/2010-news/cyclist-brokenneck5.2010.pdf



Gee, thanks for sharing that wonderful piece of shit.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jun 6, 2010)

This is why the majority of liability lawsuits get settled before they goes to trial. Since in this case " that ship has sailed" I would think the judgement will be appealed and in like many cases like this the award could be overturned. More cost for the defendant tho. 

One time years ago a lady sued the JH resort cause she slipped on some ice and injured her hip. She sued for big bucks, we wanted to fight the case but managedment decided the settle out of court and she was paid $30,000. We thought it sucked but looking at the big picture it probably wasn't a bad choice.


----------



## bvibert (Jun 25, 2010)

Public hearing coming up on July 20th:

http://blogs.courant.com/rick_green/2010/06/enjoy-those-walks-and-bike.html

This could affect all MDC land, including swimming at Lake McDonough in Barkhamsted.  It's not just bikers and walkers that are going to lose a resource...


----------



## bvibert (Jun 27, 2010)

Click here to add your name to the list of friends of the MDC, who don't want to see it closed.

http://www.savethemdctrails.org/friends/friends.htm


----------



## bvibert (Jul 1, 2010)

SaveTheMDCTrails.org also has an online petition here:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fixtherecreationliabilitylaw


----------



## drjeff (Jul 1, 2010)

done


----------



## mlctvt (Jul 9, 2010)

I just received this notice from the CT AMC. Public hearing on July 20th....



 July 20th Public Hearing on Closing MDC Lands to Recreational Use

Many of us in metro Hartford use the MDC's fine public lands for walking and cycling.  In May, a Superior Court jury awarded $2.9 million to a mountain biker who was injured at the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) Reservoir property in West Hartford.  In response to this surprising verdict, the MDC is considering a closure of its lands to all recreational activities.  Savethemdctrails.org has taken the position that Connecticut’s Recreational Liability Statute must be fixed in the Legislature to ensure this doesn’t happen again.  Although the Statute provides strong protection for private landowners and utilities, the liability protection for municipalities (MDC is a nonprofit municipal corporation) has been eroded through Court decisions over the past 15 years.  If you share our concerns on this issue and potential chilling effect that it will have on maintaining recreational access to other town facilities, please consider attending this public hearing before the MDC’s Water Bureau that will be held on July 20th in the Auditorium at Town Hall in West Hartford starting at 5:30 p.m.  You can also support this cause through joining the list of Friends and/or through signing an online petition on this matter which can be reached via www.savethemdctrails.org


----------



## bvibert (Jul 9, 2010)

Good to see other organizations and user groups spreading the word!


----------



## drjeff (Jul 13, 2010)

The local Hartford NBC station did a story tonight about the grass roots efforts via the online petition and the FB group page to keep the MDC property open for rec use! They also mentioned about how the city of Hartford and toe of West Hartford councils have passed resolutions essentially asking the state legislature to pass a law éssntially preventing monetary judgements againt public utilities in cases like this


----------



## 2knees (Jul 16, 2010)

o3jeff said:


> From the lawyers web site
> http://www.strattonfaxon.com/news/2010-news/cyclist-brokenneck5.2010.pdf



"“I just don’t want them to tell me it was
all my fault,” Stratton said his client told
him. “I’d take zero right now for someone
to publicly announce it wasn’t all my
fault.” 

I almost fell out of my chair when i read this piece of garbage.  

Not my fault???  riding the wrong way, with your head down at 20 to 30 mph and its NOT YOUR FAULT!!!

what a f$%kin bitch.  and she graduated from my high school, only 3 years ahead of me.


----------



## o3jeff (Jul 16, 2010)

2knees said:


> "“I just don’t want them to tell me it was
> all my fault,” Stratton said his client told
> him. “I’d take zero right now for someone
> to publicly announce it wasn’t all my
> ...



Did the MDC ever send you a new wheel yet? If their tree wasn't in the landing area of the drop you would of rode away.


----------



## 2knees (Jul 16, 2010)

lol, now that was my fault for dropping the rock with basically no place to land.  see how easy that is Maribeth?  my fault.....repeat after me.

I was reading Green's latest article in the courant about this.  basically, he tried to look at if from the "other" side.  anyway, someone made a comment that the MDC is partly responsible because they dont have any "Ride at your own risk" signs.  

seriously.

like that should matter HOW?


----------



## HD333 (Jul 16, 2010)

I just read all of this and I am with most of you it makes my blood boil.

You mean to tell me that this woman with a "high level of fitness" (which I read as an ultra competative jock who probably dominates against all females in whatever physical activity she does so now she get off on beating men) who was racing some guy  (The plaintiff was “racing” John Grim back to the parking lot )  didn't say to herself "ahah I got him, I just need to duck under this gate and I will smoke him"  

C'mon.  YOU hit a HUGE yellow gate that YOU tried to duck under  while YOU were racing someone.

How about a little personal accountability.:angry:


----------



## bvibert (Jul 16, 2010)

2knees said:


> lol, now that was my fault for dropping the rock with basically no place to land.  see how easy that is Maribeth?  my fault.....repeat after me.
> 
> I was reading Green's latest article in the courant about this.  basically, he tried to look at if from the "other" side.  anyway, someone made a comment that the MDC is partly responsible because they dont have any "Ride at your own risk" signs.
> 
> ...



The whole thing is infuriating isn't it??


----------



## severine (Jul 16, 2010)

I especially like the lawyer talking about how they had to damage control for Blonski publicly admitted responsibility prior.


----------

