Judge falls from bicycle

[Chalo]

Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
>
> Just an aside comment: the legal requirement in my state is to have a brake
> that skids the rear wheel. No front brake requirement.

I really hate laws that are written this way. The implication is that
a legal bike could become illegal as the riding position became more
upright, or that a short-wheelbase racing bike could be legal while a
chopper or a 'bent with a more effective brake would be illegal.

Stopping distance from a given speed is the only accurate and relevant
measure of braking that can be simply assessed. And no, that doesn't
make spot inpections by police easy to do. But why should that be the
driving factor?

Chalo Colina

 

[Steve Kirkendall]

Jasper Janssen wrote:

> On 21 Oct 2005 14:09:21 -0700, "amakyonin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
>>designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike. Maybe
>
> How does a second brake help you when the first on jams between the tyre
> and fork, locking the front wheel?

Right now I'm trying to envision how a front brake could jam between
the tire and the fork. Were the front brakes mounted on the rear of
the fork? Or did the brake caliper somehow snap off the front, hold
on to the rim for a full revolution, and thus be carried to the rear
of the fork? (I'm kind of ruling out the possiblities that the judge
was riding backward, or did an unsuccessful 360 handlebar spin during
a jump. Most judges just aren't that cool.)

I can easily imagine how a defective rear brake caliper could get
wedged between the seat stay and the tire/rim, causing the rear wheel
to lock up... but locking a rear wheel is no big deal. In fact, if
my rear brake ever fails, I hope it fails that way.

 

[meb]

I have not been able to find more on this:

http://tinyurl.com/csgfq

Jobst Brandt

Alhonga Enterprises AND Promax USA? Whose brakes were on this bike? Or does one buy components from the other?

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Steve Kirkendall <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
> > On 21 Oct 2005 14:09:21 -0700, "amakyonin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
> >>designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike. Maybe
> >
> > How does a second brake help you when the first on jams between the tyre
> > and fork, locking the front wheel?
>
> Right now I'm trying to envision how a front brake could jam between
> the tire and the fork. Were the front brakes mounted on the rear of
> the fork? Or did the brake caliper somehow snap off the front, hold
> on to the rim for a full revolution, and thus be carried to the rear
> of the fork? (I'm kind of ruling out the possiblities that the judge
> was riding backward, or did an unsuccessful 360 handlebar spin during
> a jump. Most judges just aren't that cool.)
>
> I can easily imagine how a defective rear brake caliper could get
> wedged between the seat stay and the tire/rim, causing the rear wheel
> to lock up... but locking a rear wheel is no big deal. In fact, if
> my rear brake ever fails, I hope it fails that way.

V-brake pads wear.

V-brake contact patches move rapidly toward the hub as the
pads wears because of the geometry.

Owner does not re-adjust brake to shift the contact patch
back to where it belongs, nor take it to a shop for
maintenance where the brakes would be adjusted.

One fine day the rider hauls on the front brake, a pad
slips all the way off the rim and into the spokes.

Carnage transpires.

--
gmscchemist

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Steve Kirkendall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>>
>>> On 21 Oct 2005 14:09:21 -0700, "amakyonin" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
>>>> designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike. Maybe
>>>
>>> How does a second brake help you when the first on jams between the
>>> tyre and fork, locking the front wheel?
>>
>> Right now I'm trying to envision how a front brake could jam between
>> the tire and the fork. Were the front brakes mounted on the rear of
>> the fork? Or did the brake caliper somehow snap off the front, hold
>> on to the rim for a full revolution, and thus be carried to the rear
>> of the fork? (I'm kind of ruling out the possiblities that the judge
>> was riding backward, or did an unsuccessful 360 handlebar spin during
>> a jump. Most judges just aren't that cool.)
>>
>> I can easily imagine how a defective rear brake caliper could get
>> wedged between the seat stay and the tire/rim, causing the rear wheel
>> to lock up... but locking a rear wheel is no big deal. In fact, if
>> my rear brake ever fails, I hope it fails that way.
>
> V-brake pads wear.
>
> V-brake contact patches move rapidly toward the hub as the
> pads wears because of the geometry.
>
> Owner does not re-adjust brake to shift the contact patch
> back to where it belongs, nor take it to a shop for
> maintenance where the brakes would be adjusted.
>
> One fine day the rider hauls on the front brake, a pad
> slips all the way off the rim and into the spokes.

On a Cypress LX, the brake arms most certainly would hit the tire long
before the brake pads would hit the spokes.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[Art Harris]

Mark Janeba wrote:

> Interesting that you mention that - there was a time (~25-30 years ago IIRC) that children's bikes in the US, formerly equipped with only a coaster brake, started showing up in stores with the coaster AND a front caliper. I doubted then and now that this change was in response to customer demand, and suspect it was in response to either "safety" regulations of the US CPSC or some litigation. Does anybody else remember this and know what the actual cause was?


I remember around 1960 one kid I knew had exactly what you describe
(coaster brake + front caliper). I doubt it had anything to do with
CPSC back then. Probably had more to do with easing the transition from
a coaster brake bike to hand brakes. Or just marketing.

Art Harris

 

[Jay Beattie]

"meb" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> Jay Beattie Wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > I have not been able to find more on this:
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/csgfq
> >
> > Not a terribly smart judge. He did not even bother joining
the
> > LBS to avoid removal to federal court. He also has to be
asking
> > for more than $75K to get it removed. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> An Illinois LBS would be the converse of World Wide Volkswagon.
The
> manufacturers' right to diversity jurisdiction is not
diminished merely
> because the plaintiff joins a secondary or trivial codefendant
in the
> case. If the LBS is out of state (a distinct possibility from
accross
> the river given the Quad Cities' story and surgery location)
the LBS
> would have had the right to diversity jurisdiction in Federal
Court.
> Else, plaintiffs would join trivial defendants to preclude
removal to
> Federal Court.

The seller of a good is hardly trivial in a products action, and
the local seller is always added in the District of Oregon and
Western Washington to avoid removal. In fact, in the asbestos
cases, the little local sellers are getting hit hard because many
of the manufacturers are bankrupt. Maybe Illinois law skips over
the local seller in products cases, but I doubt it. I represent
two large bicycle manufacturers, and the LBSs are always added,
except in the rare case that the plaintiff has a close
relationship with the shop. Then they leave the shop out, and I
remove. I agree though that we do not know if the seller was in
Illinois -- or whether it had some defense that would justify not
naming it.

I looked at the complaint in this case and the notice of removal
just for kicks -- the allegations are typically vague (I'd cut
and paste, but its .pdf) and did not plead a dollar amount for
damages. To establish the $75K jurisdictional minimum,
defendants attached a press release indicating that the judge's
injuries were severe (broken hip and shoulder among other
things). The press release also quotes the judge as saying "he
is uncertain what caused the accident, perhaps a bump or pothole
or loose stones on the roadway." I bet you that statement ******
off his attorney. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:45:21 -0700, Art Harris wrote:

> Mark Janeba wrote:
>
>> Interesting that you mention that - there was a time (~25-30 years ago
>> IIRC) that children's bikes in the US, formerly equipped with only a
>> coaster brake, started showing up in stores with the coaster AND a
>> front caliper. I doubted then and now that this change was in response
>> to customer demand, and suspect it was in response to either "safety"
>> regulations of the US CPSC or some litigation. Does anybody else
>> remember this and know what the actual cause was?
>
>
> I remember around 1960 one kid I knew had exactly what you describe
> (coaster brake + front caliper). I doubt it had anything to do with CPSC
> back then. Probably had more to do with easing the transition from a
> coaster brake bike to hand brakes. Or just marketing.

I agree. Hand brakes were trendy and upscale, back when everyone had
coaster brakes. If you had a real BMX bike with hand brakes you were hot
stuff, when everyone else was riding converted Stingrays.

Coaster brake only bikes continued to be sold for a long time. Where I
lived they continued to be dominant until MTBs took over.

Matt O.

 

[[email protected]]

Jay Beattie writes:

> The seller of a good is hardly trivial in a products action, and the
> local seller is always added in the District of Oregon and Western
> Washington to avoid removal. In fact, in the asbestos cases, the
> little local sellers are getting hit hard because many of the
> manufacturers are bankrupt. Maybe Illinois law skips over the local
> seller in products cases, but I doubt it. I represent two large
> bicycle manufacturers, and the LBSs are always added, except in the
> rare case that the plaintiff has a close relationship with the shop.
> Then they leave the shop out, and I remove. I agree though that we
> do not know if the seller was in Illinois -- or whether it had some
> defense that would justify not naming it.

> I looked at the complaint in this case and the notice of removal
> just for kicks -- the allegations are typically vague (I'd cut and
> paste, but its .pdf) and did not plead a dollar amount for damages.
> To establish the $75K jurisdictional minimum, defendants attached a
> press release indicating that the judge's injuries were severe
> (broken hip and shoulder among other things). The press release
> also quotes the judge as saying "he is uncertain what caused the
> accident, perhaps a bump or pothole or loose stones on the roadway."
> I bet you that statement ****** off his attorney.

Thanks for the pdf's which contained:

12 Oct 03

# JUSTICE THOMAS KILBRIDE RELEASED FROM MEDICAL CENTER
#
# On June 25, 2003 Justice Thomas L. Kilbride of the Supreme Court of
# Illinois was released from Trinity Medical Center in Rock Island
# where he was undergoing an extensive inpatient rehabilitation
# program following a bicycle accident.
#
# He is uncertain what caused the accident, perhaps a bump or a
# pothole or loose stones on the roadway. A passing unidentified
# motorist summoned help and Justice Kilbride was taken to the medical
# center where he underwent eight hours of surgery performed by
# Dr. Thomas VonGillern of Orthopedic and Rheumatology Associates of
# Moline. He suffered a fractured left hip, left shoulder and
# left elbow. Justice Kilbride was released from a treatment care unit
# of the hospital and was transferred to the rehabilitation unit or
# the medical center several days after surgery.

======================================================================

The essence of his claims against the manufacturer of the bicycle are
summarized here. I saw no claims against anyone else.

# ...
#
# 6) At the time the bicycle and its component parts left the
# possession of [the Manufacturer], and the time the bicycle
# entered the stream of commerce, this bicycle was in an
# unreasonably dangerous and defective condition. These defects
# included but were not limited to the following:

# a) The bicycle contained a manufacturing and design defect which
# caused the brake coupling to fail and render the bicycle
# uncontrollable, and inoperable for normal use;
#
# b) The design of the brake coupling and brake cable predisposed
# it to bending and breaking, causing the brake to fail;
#
# c) The bicycle and its components were not fit for the particular
# purpose for which they were intended and for which they were
# used;
#
# d) The bicycle contained a braking mechanism which was otherwise
# improperly constructed, unreasonably dangerous, and defective.
#
# 7) As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing
# wrongful acts or omissions, the braking system on the bicycle
# failed and rendered the bicycle uncontrollable and inoperable for
# its intended use. The bicycle became uncontrollable and
# Plaintiff KILBRIDE fell to the ground in the roadway, thereby
# causing him to sustain injuries, both internally and externally,
# of a permanent and lasting nature.

Although greater in length the document contains no other significant
information, mainly being repetitions of the same claims in different
contexts.
======================================================================

The vagueness and faulty technical description of the claimed fault of
the bicycle are typical of such cases as I have encountered them. The
wording could be intentional so that a defense is difficult without
studying the evidence. Surprisingly, what at first inspection seems
like an open and shut case turns out to not be so. Careful inspection
of the hardware often reveals things that the author of the scenario
failed to recognize and disprove what was claimed. Obviously the
judge did not concoct this claim and it contains nothing that refers
to the development of the crash.

I am skeptical!

Jobst Brandt

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

Art Harris wrote:
> Mark Janeba wrote:
>
>> Interesting that you mention that - there was a time (~25-30 years
>> ago IIRC) that children's bikes in the US, formerly equipped with
>> only a coaster brake, started showing up in stores with the coaster
>> AND a front caliper. I doubted then and now that this change was in
>> response to customer demand, and suspect it was in response to
>> either "safety" regulations of the US CPSC or some litigation. Does
>> anybody else remember this and know what the actual cause was?
>
>
> I remember around 1960 one kid I knew had exactly what you describe
> (coaster brake + front caliper). I doubt it had anything to do with
> CPSC back then. Probably had more to do with easing the transition
> from a coaster brake bike to hand brakes. Or just marketing.

Most current-year LBS children's bikes have this combination of brakes, too.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[StaceyJ]

[email protected] wrote:
> AND THIS IS THE STATE OF...?

Fantasy. A quick search of Westlaw (instead of doing my reading for
tomorrow's classes) reveals no statute currently on the books in any
state mandating brakes on both wheels. If ever such a statute did
exist, it has been repealed.

SYJ (litigious ******* in training)

 

[Matt O'Toole]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:41:40 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:

> The vagueness and faulty technical description of the claimed fault of
> the bicycle are typical of such cases as I have encountered them. The
> wording could be intentional so that a defense is difficult without
> studying the evidence. Surprisingly, what at first inspection seems
> like an open and shut case turns out to not be so. Careful inspection
> of the hardware often reveals things that the author of the scenario
> failed to recognize and disprove what was claimed. Obviously the
> judge did not concoct this claim and it contains nothing that refers
> to the development of the crash.
>
> I am skeptical!

Firstly, what's a "brake coupling?"

Matt O.

 

[Doug Huffman]

My take-down, folding tandem recumbent has many 'couplings', among them are
a brake coupling, two shifter couplings and quite a number of tube couplings
(not S&S BTCs).


"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:41:40 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:
>
>> The vagueness and faulty technical description of the claimed fault of
>> the bicycle are typical of such cases as I have encountered them. The
>> wording could be intentional so that a defense is difficult without
>> studying the evidence. Surprisingly, what at first inspection seems
>> like an open and shut case turns out to not be so. Careful inspection
>> of the hardware often reveals things that the author of the scenario
>> failed to recognize and disprove what was claimed. Obviously the
>> judge did not concoct this claim and it contains nothing that refers
>> to the development of the crash.
>>
>> I am skeptical!
>
> Firstly, what's a "brake coupling?"
>
> Matt O.
>

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:33:48 -0400, "Doug Huffman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>My take-down, folding tandem recumbent has many 'couplings', among them are
>a brake coupling, two shifter couplings and quite a number of tube couplings
>(not S&S BTCs).

Any photos around?

Jasper

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

Doug Huffman wrote:
> My take-down, folding tandem recumbent has many 'couplings', among
> them are a brake coupling, two shifter couplings and quite a number
> of tube couplings (not S&S BTCs).

This is an upright bike that we're talking about.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[meb]

[email protected] wrote:
> AND THIS IS THE STATE OF...?

Fantasy. A quick search of Westlaw (instead of doing my reading for
tomorrow's classes) reveals no statute currently on the books in any
state mandating brakes on both wheels. If ever such a statute did
exist, it has been repealed.

SYJ (litigious ******* in training)

Virginia has a requirement for front and rear brakes on electric bikes/trikes.

 

[meb]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:45:21 -0700, Art Harris wrote:

> Mark Janeba wrote:
>
>> Interesting that you mention that - there was a time (~25-30 years ago
>> IIRC) that children's bikes in the US, formerly equipped with only a
>> coaster brake, started showing up in stores with the coaster AND a
>> front caliper. I doubted then and now that this change was in response
>> to customer demand, and suspect it was in response to either "safety"
>> regulations of the US CPSC or some litigation. Does anybody else
>> remember this and know what the actual cause was?
>
>
> I remember around 1960 one kid I knew had exactly what you describe
> (coaster brake + front caliper). I doubt it had anything to do with CPSC
> back then. Probably had more to do with easing the transition from a
> coaster brake bike to hand brakes. Or just marketing.

I agree. Hand brakes were trendy and upscale, back when everyone had
coaster brakes. If you had a real BMX bike with hand brakes you were hot
stuff, when everyone else was riding converted Stingrays.

Coaster brake only bikes continued to be sold for a long time. Where I
lived they continued to be dominant until MTBs took over.

Matt O.

I have one 622 and one 559 Nexus-4 with coaster brake. Intending to install studded tires for reliable bad weather braking on commuters. Will continue to use the front handbrake and to the extent feasible the rear caliper.

 

[meb]

wrote
The seller of a good is hardly trivial in a products action, and
the local seller is always added in the District of Oregon and
Western Washington to avoid removal. In fact, in the asbestos
cases, the little local sellers are getting hit hard because many
of the manufacturers are bankrupt. Maybe Illinois law skips over
the local seller in products cases, but I doubt it. I represent
two large bicycle manufacturers, and the LBSs are always added,
except in the rare case that the plaintiff has a close
relationship with the shop. Then they leave the shop out, and I
remove. I agree though that we do not know if the seller was in
Illinois -- or whether it had some defense that would justify not
naming it.

I looked at the complaint in this case and the notice of removal
just for kicks -- the allegations are typically vague (I'd cut
and paste, but its .pdf) and did not plead a dollar amount for
damages. To establish the $75K jurisdictional minimum,
defendants attached a press release indicating that the judge's
injuries were severe (broken hip and shoulder among other
things). The press release also quotes the judge as saying "he
is uncertain what caused the accident, perhaps a bump or pothole
or loose stones on the roadway." I bet you that statement ******
off his attorney. -- Jay Beattie.

I'll concede the general point, complete diversity is generally needed to bring about diversity removal and World Wide Volkswagen vs. Woodson is not particularly relevant to an in state LBS or an Iowa LBS purposefully availing oneself of the Illinois market. Having had an engineering career before going to law school, I became a patent attorney so removal from state to federal jurisdiction is not something I regularly consider and I’m akin to being an owl traveling in an eagle’s daylight. I believe due the supremacy clause it would actually be Seventh Circuit law rather than Illinois law controlling removal, I doubt it is appreciably different from Ninth Circuit law. I haven't seen the complaint, but what limited allegations have been posted and linked suggest there are no allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the bike shop, so without some negligent act on its part its liability would be solely covered by contribution- such limited exposure in the absence of a bankrupt manufacturer would not seem to merit denial of removal.

 

[[email protected]]

consider comedy as an avocation? subpeona internal memos? have you
overviewed the bush approach to torts? shows signs of moving toward a
napoleonic code!

 

[StaceyJ]

>
> Virginia has a requirement for front and rear brakes on electric
> bikes/trikes.
>
>
> --
> meb

The only VA statute making mention of both "brake" and "bicycle" (not
counting the one defining a moped as a bicycle like device with a motor
producing more than two brake-horsepower) reads (in part) as follows:

Every bicycle, electric power-assisted bicycle, and moped, when
operated on a highway, shall be equipped with a brake that will enable
the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean
pavement. Every electric personal assistive mobility device, when
operated on a highway, shall be equipped with a system that, when
activated or engaged, will enable the operator to bring the device to a
controlled stop.

No mention of front AND rear.

God I love Westlaw.

SYJ