BLOG

PLAINTIFF’S BIKE INJURY CASE DISMISSED DUE TO GOVERNMENT’S RECREATIONAL USE IMMUNITY

An appellate court last month in Indiana released a written opinion during a personal injury lawsuit involving a bicyclist who suffered an injury while using a government-owned trail. The court was required to determine if the government was under immunity based on the recreational use statute of the state. In the end, the plaintiff’s case was dismissed, and the state was entitled to immunity.

What Are The Facts?

The victim was traveling on his bike via a mixed-use trail owned and run by the department of the state park. As the plaintiff passed a pedestrian, his bike tire was caught in a medium sized dent on the pavement. This made the plaintiff lose control of his bike and fall leading to a serious slip and fall injury to his shoulder. He ultimately filed a personal injury case against the state government.

The victim presented evidence against the state’s park department that it was aware of the crack but didn’t care to fix as at the time of the incident. But the parks department made a repair order to fix the crack although it wasn’t completed as at the time of the accident.

The state claimed that it was covered by immunity because the plaintiff’s injuries happened on a “road that provides access to hunting, fishing, or recreational areas or primitive camping which isn’t a town, city, or village street. The state government also claimed that it was under immunity based on a different statute, which gives immunity to landowners in situations where a plaintiff’s injuries come as a result of engaging in recreation on a defendant’s land.

Although, the court rejected the state government’s first argument but agreed that it was entitled to exercise recreational use immunity. According to the court, under the immunity to landowners statute, it was a certainty that the plaintiff was engaged in recreational activity as at the time the accident occurred. The only question here is whether the government’s conduct was wanton or willful, in which case immunity wouldn’t be applicable.

The court concluded that the state government’s conduct didn’t rise to willful or wanton because a repair order had already been made before the incident. The court noted that the government couldn’t be expected to repair every crack in the pavement immediately, considering the weather in the region and the constant rate of freezing temperatures.

Have You Suffered Injury on Government Property?

In the event that you or one of your loved ones has been recently injured in a slip-and-fall accident in Florida while on government property, it is essential to state that you may be entitled to compensation. A dedicated personal injury lawyer Orlando has extensive experience when it comes to handling Florida personal injury cases. The personal injury lawyer Orlando work to ensure that you get the monetary compensation you are due.


TAGS