In May of 2002 Maribeth Blonski and a friend went mountain biking on trails around West Hartford Reservoirs in Connecticut. An avid cyclist, Maribeth was familiar with the trail and had no problem maneuvering through narrow paths, rocks, and woodlands. As she was finishing her ride, Maribeth put her head down and accelerated. She appeared to be racing her friend to the finish line.
Unfortunately, the finish line turned out to be a 15-foot yellow gate at the entrance to the reservoirs. Although the steel gate had been there for decades, Maribeth had never seen it closed. When she finally looked up, it was too late to avoid impact; her bike skidded under the gate, her head smashed into the barrier, and she broke several vertebrae in her neck.
The Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), a nonprofit water utility company, owns the West Hartford Reservoirs. Although they are used for water filtration, many joggers, walkers, and cyclists also enjoy the 3,000 acres of wooded trails.
Maribeth sued the MDC for negligence, claiming that it had failed to protect mountain bikers by not warning them that the gate, which was usually open, was now closed.
The MDC, a municipal corporation, argued that it was immune from liability under the common law and statutory doctrine of government. It also claimed that the Recreational Land Use Act barred Blonski recovering for injuries incurred while engaged in the dangerous adventure sport of mountain biking. Finally, the MDC maintained that even if the utility was not immune from liability, Blonski’s negligence had caused her injuries.
The utility said that after the 9/11 attacks it had decided to close the gate as a security measure against terrorists and contamination. Despite the change in policy, the MDC maintained that the gate was clearly visible—and that, in this case, Blonski wasn’t paying enough attention as she rode the well-marked trails.
At the trial witnesses stated that when they first saw the closed gate they had no difficulty going around it. A police report stated that the trail was straight and level for 500 feet away and that the gate was clearly visible.
Decision:
Blonski was awarded $2.9 million, less 30 percent. The jury found her 30 percent responsible for the collision, with the MDC primarily negligent for not posting a sign declaring the gate closed.
4 Comments
She should have never been awarded any money. She should have been paying more attention to what she was doing. People do not take personal responsibility anymore.
I am not surprised. These days, one is no longer responsible for his/her own actions. The recent Saw-Stop-related power saw liability verdict is similar in nature: “SOMEONE should have stopped me from being SO STUPID! Pay me!” 500 feet is nearly 2 football fields, yet she did not look ahead for all that distance? She would not have seen a warning sign either, unless someone was running alongside her dragging a sign on a stick on the pavement. Does she drive her car that way? I hope it’s in Connecticut, not here in Texas.
This is a perfect example of why there should be an intelligence test or at least one based on common sense and logic that must be passed before one is eligible to sit on a jury! (As I tear my hair out in frustration!) With 500 feet of straight and level road with an unobstructed view of the closed 15 foot yellow gate, the only reason that Maribeth Blonski drove her bike into the gate is that she simply WASN’T LOOKING where she was going!!! Anyone who operates a vehicle of any sort knows that they need to keep their eyes on the road in front of them, if they are not aware of that fact, they do not need to be operating the vehicle, period! The responsibility for Ms. Blonski’s injuries lies solely upon her and that a jury would place the majority of blame on the MDC is reprehensible. Where was the judge’s judgement in even hearing this case? I remember when judges would have the backbone to refuse to hear frivolous lawsuits like this one. But that was before our courts were a laughingstock.
With awards like this I question the legitimacy of our court system. It is truly a dangerous time for all property owners when a person can be negligent on someone else’s property, and the property owner be subject to damages.
We need to be very careful about the kinds of people that are entrusted with judicial powers in this country. We must not allow people that think it is their job to legislate from the bench.
Furthermore I hope that Karma has the final judgment in this woman’s life going forward.Lets hope this woman doesn’t run into the back of a stopped car while riding her bike in the future.