4 ms·

For sure, the question is should it be this way? I mean, someone trespassing on your property trips on a root and sues you. That (in CA at least) does result in

For sure, the question is should it be this way? I mean, someone trespassing on your property trips on a root and sues you. That (in CA at least) does result in potential liability. Should it be this way? The article is written from the point of view that Pena is a victim of a great injustice. It's not clear that is the case, though he may get millions from LA. And heads up, when the city fights things like planting trees (which I'm a big fan of) this is why.

cudgy 5y ago
I think for the reality of this case it has to do with the law as it existed at the time of the accident. As for dangerous conditions (at least by common, reasonable expectations) being allowed on private property, that is something to be quibbled over in state legislatures. For me, the question is whether it is reasonable to expect someone to be injured and a dangerous public sidewalk which is used by people meets that expectation. If the city zones or builds a strip of concrete so people can use it for transportation, it should be maintained properly for that purpose.
- tempnow987 5y ago
  Or we can say one should exercise reasonable care, and recognize that with 11,000 miles of sidewalk some bumps are not out of the ordinary. Because this is why someone tells you that for legal reasons sidewalks can't exist. Because someone may sue you. We used to walk through the woods, filled with roots. Now a largely flat surface is so hazardous with a small uplift that it deserves massive litigation? Could we offer a sidewalk walking pass to folks who signed a waiver? Anyone unable to walk on a sidewalk safely is cocooned at home or in a car?
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I agree. The problem is when laws leave things up to being "reasonable" we end up with arguments like in this case where they claim the city failed to take reasonable care of the sidewalk, or that the rider failed to exercise reasonable care, etc. So we leave it mostly up to a few jury members, who's opinions and views can vary wildly from case to case.
  - cudgy 5y ago
    > We used to walk through the woods, filled with roots. Now a largely flat surface is so hazardous with a small uplift that it deserves massive litigation? Big difference is that one expects to encounter roots in the woods. Don’t think that people expect to trip on roots in a sidewalk. My guess is that a root that caused a scooter to flip is more than a small uplift, but I am, of course, not privy to the details of the case.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "I think for the reality of this case it has to do with the law as it existed at the time of the accident." I agree, that's true. However, for us on here, it can be beneficial to discuss the merits and potential changes of the law. It makes for interesting conversation about the law and how it could be better. After all, if we're strictly limited to the case there's no point in any of this discussion since we aren't the ones involved in it or deciding it. You mention "dangerous" several times. We would need to define that. I'm sure there's some case law on that somewhere. My guess is it's highly debated and variable based on the circumstances of the case and opinions of the judge/jury. Especially when it comes to where the line is drawn on acceptable level of danger. This would also need to investigate contributory negligence. For example, the sidewalk may have been safe for the legal uses of the sidewalk but dangerous for the illegal use of scooters. You also mentioned zoning. This is great! Most city codes require specific upkeep and allow for some variance. For example, some localities allow for a half inch difference in height of two adjacent pavings. I didn't see any pictures or measurements in the article, nor mention of the city's sidewalk code. But this is a highly pertinent area to investigate.
  - cudgy 5y ago
    > This would also need to investigate contributory negligence. For example, the sidewalk may have been safe for the legal uses of the sidewalk but dangerous for the illegal use of scooters. One could argue that it is not about legal use, but the expectations of use. Is it reasonable to expect people to ride scooters and bicycles on sidewalks regardless of legality? In this case, the rider could sue the city and the city could then sue the manufacturer of the scooter for making a dangerous product and causing the city harm. However, Did the city approve use of and leasing of scooters? If so, why did they do this knowing that they may not be able to maintain the sidewalks and roads to a level that is safe for these types of vehicles? Personally, I do not allow my children to ride scooters because the wheels are too small in diameter to handle basic potholes, concrete heaving, roots etc.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "Is it reasonable to expect people to ride scooters and bicycles on sidewalks regardless of legality?" Can I tresspass at your house and practice diving for a basketball on your concrete driveway? Would you gladly pay my medical bills and pain and suffering? If this is the way the world works, we have a serious problem. At some point people need to exercise reasonable care over themselves and not expect to be babied. One could also argue that the rider should have a reasonable expectation that bumps exist on sidewalks (even if bumps over a certain size aren't legal - the same argument you're making).
adolph 5y ago
The tree in question: An Indian laurel fig tree, is considered a major invasive species in Hawaii, Florida, Bermuda, Central America, and South America. F. microcarpa is widely used as a street and ornamental tree in areas of coastal California that are free of regular frost. Its strong roots can lift sidewalks and pavements, and many California cities no longer recommend planting them. In Southern California, a population of the symbiotic fig wasp is now established, which allows the ornamental trees to produce fertile fruit. Seeds are spread by fruit-eating birds, and F. microcarpa can now spread without direct human help. Naturalized populations have been found in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and Ventura counties, including on buildings, bridges, and other structures, and as an epiphyte on other trees, especially palm trees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficus_microcarpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficus_microcarpa

cudgy 5y ago

I think for the reality of this case it has to do with the law as it existed at the time of the accident. As for dangerous conditions (at least by common, reasonable expectations) being allowed on private property, that is something to be quibbled over in state legislatures. For me, the question is whether it is reasonable to expect someone to be injured and a dangerous public sidewalk which is used by people meets that expectation. If the city zones or builds a strip of concrete so people can use it for transportation, it should be maintained properly for that purpose.

tempnow987 5y ago
Or we can say one should exercise reasonable care, and recognize that with 11,000 miles of sidewalk some bumps are not out of the ordinary. Because this is why someone tells you that for legal reasons sidewalks can't exist. Because someone may sue you. We used to walk through the woods, filled with roots. Now a largely flat surface is so hazardous with a small uplift that it deserves massive litigation? Could we offer a sidewalk walking pass to folks who signed a waiver? Anyone unable to walk on a sidewalk safely is cocooned at home or in a car?
- giantg2 5y ago
  I agree. The problem is when laws leave things up to being "reasonable" we end up with arguments like in this case where they claim the city failed to take reasonable care of the sidewalk, or that the rider failed to exercise reasonable care, etc. So we leave it mostly up to a few jury members, who's opinions and views can vary wildly from case to case.
- cudgy 5y ago
  > We used to walk through the woods, filled with roots. Now a largely flat surface is so hazardous with a small uplift that it deserves massive litigation? Big difference is that one expects to encounter roots in the woods. Don’t think that people expect to trip on roots in a sidewalk. My guess is that a root that caused a scooter to flip is more than a small uplift, but I am, of course, not privy to the details of the case.
giantg2 5y ago
"I think for the reality of this case it has to do with the law as it existed at the time of the accident." I agree, that's true. However, for us on here, it can be beneficial to discuss the merits and potential changes of the law. It makes for interesting conversation about the law and how it could be better. After all, if we're strictly limited to the case there's no point in any of this discussion since we aren't the ones involved in it or deciding it. You mention "dangerous" several times. We would need to define that. I'm sure there's some case law on that somewhere. My guess is it's highly debated and variable based on the circumstances of the case and opinions of the judge/jury. Especially when it comes to where the line is drawn on acceptable level of danger. This would also need to investigate contributory negligence. For example, the sidewalk may have been safe for the legal uses of the sidewalk but dangerous for the illegal use of scooters. You also mentioned zoning. This is great! Most city codes require specific upkeep and allow for some variance. For example, some localities allow for a half inch difference in height of two adjacent pavings. I didn't see any pictures or measurements in the article, nor mention of the city's sidewalk code. But this is a highly pertinent area to investigate.
- cudgy 5y ago
  > This would also need to investigate contributory negligence. For example, the sidewalk may have been safe for the legal uses of the sidewalk but dangerous for the illegal use of scooters. One could argue that it is not about legal use, but the expectations of use. Is it reasonable to expect people to ride scooters and bicycles on sidewalks regardless of legality? In this case, the rider could sue the city and the city could then sue the manufacturer of the scooter for making a dangerous product and causing the city harm. However, Did the city approve use of and leasing of scooters? If so, why did they do this knowing that they may not be able to maintain the sidewalks and roads to a level that is safe for these types of vehicles? Personally, I do not allow my children to ride scooters because the wheels are too small in diameter to handle basic potholes, concrete heaving, roots etc.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "Is it reasonable to expect people to ride scooters and bicycles on sidewalks regardless of legality?" Can I tresspass at your house and practice diving for a basketball on your concrete driveway? Would you gladly pay my medical bills and pain and suffering? If this is the way the world works, we have a serious problem. At some point people need to exercise reasonable care over themselves and not expect to be babied. One could also argue that the rider should have a reasonable expectation that bumps exist on sidewalks (even if bumps over a certain size aren't legal - the same argument you're making).

adolph 5y ago

The tree in question: An Indian laurel fig tree, is considered a major invasive species in Hawaii, Florida, Bermuda, Central America, and South America. F. microcarpa is widely used as a street and ornamental tree in areas of coastal California that are free of regular frost. Its strong roots can lift sidewalks and pavements, and many California cities no longer recommend planting them. In Southern California, a population of the symbiotic fig wasp is now established, which allows the ornamental trees to produce fertile fruit. Seeds are spread by fruit-eating birds, and F. microcarpa can now spread without direct human help. Naturalized populations have been found in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and Ventura counties, including on buildings, bridges, and other structures, and as an epiphyte on other trees, especially palm trees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficus_microcarpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficus_microcarpa