Subscribe in a reader
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Another argument against bike paths: in L.A., they've got "absolute immunity" as far as being designed so badly that people injure themselves using them. "Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu granted summary judgment, citing Farnham v. City of Los Angeles, (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097. The court there held that a class I bikeway, as defined in Streets and Highways Code Sec. 890.4, is a “trail” within the meaning of Sec. 831.4(b).
The latter section grants public entities absolute immunity from liability for injuries resulting from a dangerous condition on a “trail used for” certain purposes, “including...all types of vehicular riding,” or on an unpaved road that provides access to such activities. "
Welp, it's pretty clear. It's not a road, it's a trail. They don't have to make it useful or safe. Heavens, why would they want to be responsible for that ?!?
The latter section grants public entities absolute immunity from liability for injuries resulting from a dangerous condition on a “trail used for” certain purposes, “including...all types of vehicular riding,” or on an unpaved road that provides access to such activities. "
Welp, it's pretty clear. It's not a road, it's a trail. They don't have to make it useful or safe. Heavens, why would they want to be responsible for that ?!?
