[SDCBC] [CABO] Bike Path Liability/Prokop case result is in

[Mark Sapiro]

Bob Sutterfield wrote:

>
>Does the Prokop decision on Class I bikeways (separated right-of-way)
>have any bearing on Class II and Class III (on-street) bikeways?
>Specifically, does immunity extend to bike lane stripes?


No. At least not under Prokop.

The Prokop ruling is based on legislation which immunizes local
jurisdictions from liability for "trails". The theory behind this
immunity is it promtes the public good since without immunity, local
jurisdictions would simply close all trails as being too risky.

Los Angeles claimed in the Prokop case that the paved class I bikeway
was a trail and thus LA was immune from liability for not maintaining
it is a safe condition.

It is difficult to see how this argument could be extended to roadways,
however there was a case in Illinois (see e.g.
<http://www.crankmail.com/Fred/Rt2Road.html#Boub>) where a township
was judged not liable for a cyclist's injuries where the township was
doing a maintenance project which made a bridge unsafe for cyclists on
the grounds that bicyclists were not the intended users of the road,
but even this argument would seem to not apply to a bike lane (class
II bikeway).

-- 
Mark Sapiro <msapiro at value.net>       The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan