 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
For Immediate Release
May 24, 2006
May 24, 2006
Contact: O’Reilly & Danko
(650) 358-5901
(650) 358-5901
Judge Awards Injured Bicyclist $2.2 Million
Ruling against the State of Hawai’i in unusual bike accident
Honolulu, HI—A
ruling in the case of DUNN vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Case No. 04-1-1330
SSM) in the amount of $2.2 million has been awarded to the plaintiff, Mr. Richard
Dunn. Mr. Dunn, who was represented by the San Mateo, California law firm O’Reilly & Danko, had filed suit against the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation
as a result of the State’s negligent installation and maintenance of a paved
asphalt shoulder of Kalanianaole Highway on the island of Oahu. The case was
tried in the First Circuit Court of Hawai’i, the Honorable Judge Sabrina S. McKenna
presiding.
The accident occurred n the early morning hours of Saturday, August 16, 2003. Mr. Dunn was riding his bicycle along with his friend, Daniel Pollard, to Waimanalo on Kalanianaole Highway at around 5 a.m. As Mr. Dunn began to make a downhill descent, his front tire struck the base of a reflectorized flexible delineator (“RFD”) and he was thrown from his bicycle. He landed on his head with such force that his helmet cracked on the asphalt shoulder of the road. Mr. Dunn suffered serious traumatic head injuries and required two brain surgeries.
The RFDs were installed in February 2003 to alert drivers of a two lane merge. Soon after they were placed on the asphalt shoulder of the road, some of the poles were separated from their base mounts and not replaced. In this instance, the black base mount was missing its RFD pole, and Mr. Dunn was unable to see the mount and did not have sufficient time to avoid hitting it.
Mr. Dunn was an experienced and conservative rider who customarily chose to ride along the shoulder of the road. Messrs. Dunn, Pollard, and another friend, Harrison Kiehm, took regular early morning rides around Oahu and were familiar with the riding conditions. On the morning of the accident, however, Mr. Dunn decided to ride in the wider roadway because of the narrower shoulder and reduced visibility. As he did so, a vehicle approached from behind and forced him to veer to the shoulder, where he subsequently collided with the mount.
The Defendant, the Department of Transportation of the State of Hawai’i, argued that Mr. Dunn had not impacted the base mount but instead had fallen of his own accord. However, the court did not find the State’s version of the accident to be likely in light of the trajectory of Mr. Dunn’s fall and State’s inability to account for the compression flat of the front tube. After the accident several people noticed that the front tire of Mr. Dunn’s bicycle had gone flat but did not notice any puncture marks on the tire that may have occurred from objects on the road. Both tire experts called in the case agreed that the types of flats associated with Mr. Dunn’s are caused by a bicycle tire hitting a stationary object at a high rate of speed.
The court found the state was negligible both in the design and maintenance of the RFDs in the accident area. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”), the “Bible” for traffic engineers, addresses “Delineator Placement and Spacing” in section 3D.04 of the manual: “Delineators should be mounted on suitable supports so that the top of the highest retroreflector is 1.2 m (4 ft) above the near roadway edge. They should be placed 0.6 to 2.4 m (2 to 8 ft) outside the inner edge of the shoulder, or if appropriate, in line with the outside barrier that is 2.4 m (8 ft) or less outside the outer edge of the shoulder.” The RFDs at issue in the case were placed directly on the paved shoulder, two feet from the edge of the merging lane, in contravention of MUTCD guidance. Additionally, the supervisor who in 2002 regularly inspected traffic signage, including delineators, did not make any inspections of the poles in 2003.
Moreover, while the state argued that the hilly embankment adjacent to the road was unsuitable for the placement of RFDs, the court found that accommodations could reasonably have been made to the terrain while still establishing the required distance and height. The court also rejected the state’s contention that the instructions in the MUTCD were just guidelines and not mandatory. Instead, it cited the State’s duty to design and construct its road shoulder in a manner reasonably anticipated for those users who might be utilizing it.
The court did find contributory negligence on the part of Mr. Dunn. While Mr. Dunn’s crossing from the road to the shoulder was considered a reasonable action, his lack of illumination in the early morning hours was a factor he should have taken into account. Mr. Dunn’s previous rides had informed him that certain roads lacked proper lighting, and as a result he had prior knowledge of the reduced visibility this would afford him. Accordingly, the court apportioned liability 60% to the state and 40% to Mr. Dunn.
The accident occurred n the early morning hours of Saturday, August 16, 2003. Mr. Dunn was riding his bicycle along with his friend, Daniel Pollard, to Waimanalo on Kalanianaole Highway at around 5 a.m. As Mr. Dunn began to make a downhill descent, his front tire struck the base of a reflectorized flexible delineator (“RFD”) and he was thrown from his bicycle. He landed on his head with such force that his helmet cracked on the asphalt shoulder of the road. Mr. Dunn suffered serious traumatic head injuries and required two brain surgeries.
The RFDs were installed in February 2003 to alert drivers of a two lane merge. Soon after they were placed on the asphalt shoulder of the road, some of the poles were separated from their base mounts and not replaced. In this instance, the black base mount was missing its RFD pole, and Mr. Dunn was unable to see the mount and did not have sufficient time to avoid hitting it.
Mr. Dunn was an experienced and conservative rider who customarily chose to ride along the shoulder of the road. Messrs. Dunn, Pollard, and another friend, Harrison Kiehm, took regular early morning rides around Oahu and were familiar with the riding conditions. On the morning of the accident, however, Mr. Dunn decided to ride in the wider roadway because of the narrower shoulder and reduced visibility. As he did so, a vehicle approached from behind and forced him to veer to the shoulder, where he subsequently collided with the mount.
The Defendant, the Department of Transportation of the State of Hawai’i, argued that Mr. Dunn had not impacted the base mount but instead had fallen of his own accord. However, the court did not find the State’s version of the accident to be likely in light of the trajectory of Mr. Dunn’s fall and State’s inability to account for the compression flat of the front tube. After the accident several people noticed that the front tire of Mr. Dunn’s bicycle had gone flat but did not notice any puncture marks on the tire that may have occurred from objects on the road. Both tire experts called in the case agreed that the types of flats associated with Mr. Dunn’s are caused by a bicycle tire hitting a stationary object at a high rate of speed.
The court found the state was negligible both in the design and maintenance of the RFDs in the accident area. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”), the “Bible” for traffic engineers, addresses “Delineator Placement and Spacing” in section 3D.04 of the manual: “Delineators should be mounted on suitable supports so that the top of the highest retroreflector is 1.2 m (4 ft) above the near roadway edge. They should be placed 0.6 to 2.4 m (2 to 8 ft) outside the inner edge of the shoulder, or if appropriate, in line with the outside barrier that is 2.4 m (8 ft) or less outside the outer edge of the shoulder.” The RFDs at issue in the case were placed directly on the paved shoulder, two feet from the edge of the merging lane, in contravention of MUTCD guidance. Additionally, the supervisor who in 2002 regularly inspected traffic signage, including delineators, did not make any inspections of the poles in 2003.
Moreover, while the state argued that the hilly embankment adjacent to the road was unsuitable for the placement of RFDs, the court found that accommodations could reasonably have been made to the terrain while still establishing the required distance and height. The court also rejected the state’s contention that the instructions in the MUTCD were just guidelines and not mandatory. Instead, it cited the State’s duty to design and construct its road shoulder in a manner reasonably anticipated for those users who might be utilizing it.
The court did find contributory negligence on the part of Mr. Dunn. While Mr. Dunn’s crossing from the road to the shoulder was considered a reasonable action, his lack of illumination in the early morning hours was a factor he should have taken into account. Mr. Dunn’s previous rides had informed him that certain roads lacked proper lighting, and as a result he had prior knowledge of the reduced visibility this would afford him. Accordingly, the court apportioned liability 60% to the state and 40% to Mr. Dunn.