Mills Reservation MTB death lawsuit

The loss of life is tragic. I doubt this case will get anywhere. For those interested, google "NJ landowner liability act." Essex County would seem to have a nearly infallible defense based on precedence set in other cases. Of particular interest, Somerset County was not held liable for injuries a man sustained when he fell off a bridge without railings while walking a dog within one of the county golf courses.
 
so i requested this thread deleted on FB cause it turned into a shit-show.

this is turning into the same -

I'll give you the opposite - someone got hurt climbing over the closed rope, in winter, at the alexandria pump track -
the one with the closed sign on it. now there is no more pump track in alexandria.

Alexandria Pump Track
The Alexandria Pump Track is now permanently closed.
JORBA is saddened to report that the Alexandria Pump Track, the first of its kind in New Jersey, is permanently closed.
Many factors have led to the closure, not the least of which being the rising cost of insurance and the litigious nature of our state. We put forth our best effort to reopen the track this spring, but unfortunately we were unsuccessful. We would like to thank the Township of Alexandria, the Alexandria Park Commission, and the Alexandria Department of Public Works for all of their support over the years.
Most of all we would like to send a special thank you to all of the volunteers who made the project a reality. Through hard work and dedication, we were able to provide a wonderful place to ride for 4 years. Though we were unable to come to an agreement with the township, which would keep the track open, we are extremely proud of what we accomplished. We will move forward with a few more advocacy tools in our backpacks, and 4 years of lessons learned both on and off the track. Happy trails, and keep digging.
Click to expand...
 
pooriggy said:
Really?
Click to expand...

yes.

do we want to talk about who is to blame? how they can get off?
The legal strategy of blaming someone else as a technical move to limit liability?

there is going to be a settlement. make the plaintiff (is that the right word in a tort case) put up a bond
to pay the defense fees if they lose. That will change the litigious nature of NJ substantially.
right or wrong, the county needs to defend, and that costs money - the insurance co will decide the
num$ber that minimizes cost to litigate vs settle.

now i'm doing it. f..k
 
Last edited:
Patrick said:
yes.

do we want to talk about who is to blame? how they can get off?
The legal strategy of blaming someone else as a technical move to limit liability?

there is going to be a settlement. make the plaintiff (is that the right word in a tort case) put up a bond
to pay the defense fees if they lose. That will change the litigious nature of NJ substantially.
right or wrong, the county needs to defend, and that costs money - the insurance co will decide the
num$ber that minimizes cost to litigate vs settle.

now i'm doing it. f..k
Click to expand...
As long as no one is being rude or disrespectful I don't see a problem... Your honor.
 
Patrick said:
yes.

do we want to talk about who is to blame? how they can get off?
The legal strategy of blaming someone else as a technical move to limit liability?

there is going to be a settlement. make the plaintiff (is that the right word in a tort case) put up a bond
to pay the defense fees if they lose. That will change the litigious nature of NJ substantially.
right or wrong, the county needs to defend, and that costs money - the insurance co will decide the
num$ber that minimizes cost to litigate vs settle.

now i'm doing it. f..k
Click to expand...
399uop.jpg
 
Patrick said:
yes.

do we want to talk about who is to blame? how they can get off?
The legal strategy of blaming someone else as a technical move to limit liability?

there is going to be a settlement. make the plaintiff (is that the right word in a tort case) put up a bond
to pay the defense fees if they lose. That will change the litigious nature of NJ substantially.
right or wrong, the county needs to defend, and that costs money - the insurance co will decide the
num$ber that minimizes cost to litigate vs settle.

now i'm doing it. f..k
Click to expand...

I don't think this thread is a shit show at all. In fact this is healthy dialogue about the potential risks in our sport both physically and related to access.

I'm not trying to stir the pot nor place technical blame on anyone. The Landowner Liability Act is meant to prevent this very situation i.e litigation and possible closing of land/facilities. The core principal behind it is to protect access to land for recreational purposes. I think that is a good thing.

The business of insurance and lawyers (settlements) is a very different issue.
 
This made me think of how a situation like this can affect a local races (permits, liability, etc), and then realized there isn’t much racing in Essex county. I can only think of branch brook crit in Newark. Pretty sure there isn’t any cross races.
 
Can someone please explain how this is any different than getting hurt/killed on a public road? Either on bike or on foot? Just because it happened in a “mountain bike environment” doesn’t mean all things MTB related are bad.

There’s so many things people do where they get hurt. If we were to ban all of them, then we wouldn’t be left with much. Even sitting at home could have a potential for injury.
 
Last edited:
Xler8 said:
Can someone please explain how his any different than getting hurt/killed on a public road? Either on bike or on foot? Just because it happened in a “mountain bike environment” doesn’t mean all things MTB related are bad.

There’s so many things people do where they get hurt. If we were to ban all of them, then we wouldn’t be left with much. Even sitting at home could have a potential for injury.
Click to expand...
You should really ask that question to the ambulance chasers that make their customer believe they can get rich with a lawsuit...
 
Bike N Gear said:
I just spent a week in Iceland. You can walk off of cliffs and waterfalls all day long if you like.
Click to expand...

They're rapidly changing that, somewhat unfortunately. I was there last summer and you could see that many of the cliffs near popular attractions now have a railing where one didn't previously exist based on the trail remnants. Very happy I went now as it seems like the place is rapidly being overrun by tourists. Still a tremendous amount of space without a soul around, but the popular spots are crazy crowded.
 
goldsbar said:
They're rapidly changing that, somewhat unfortunately. I was there last summer and you could see that many of the cliffs near popular attractions now have a railing where one didn't previously exist based on the trail remnants. Very happy I went now as it seems like the place is rapidly being overrun by tourists. Still a tremendous amount of space without a soul around, but the popular spots are crazy crowded.
Click to expand...

I found the South to be crowded. Not much else. Still a great trip.
 
SmooveP said:
Sorry if already posted, but: https://www.nj.com/essex/2022/03/wi...ll-while-biking-settles-lawsuit-for-375k.html
Click to expand...

Here is what I don't understand when my SIL was hit head on 3 years ago on greenpond rd(btw she just last week started to walk without a cane for the first time since), the insurance company of the driver just said they're no longer our client we can't help you bye since the driver was killed. How the hell can they side step that liability yet someone who is where they shouldn't be can die due to their own fault can have their family sue.

By the same logic the guy is no longer around so there is nothing to sue for.
 
A Potted Plant said:
Here is what I don't understand when my SIL was hit head on 3 years ago on greenpond rd(btw she just last week started to walk without a cane for the first time since), the insurance company of the driver just said they're no longer our client we can't help you bye since the driver was killed. How the hell can they side step that liability yet someone who is where they shouldn't be can die due to their own fault can have their family sue.

By the same logic the guy is no longer around so there is nothing to sue for.
Click to expand...

The insurance co in-place is responsible up to the limits of the insurance, then the estate if there is one.
If there are no deep pockets, then there is no place to attach. Can't get blood from a stone.

Each person should look at their insurance and make sure they have coverage for uninsured/under-insured drivers.
Basically you pay to cover others just in case this happens. This will not cover some magic "pain and suffering, or loss of future wages/happiness"
but it will cover the gaps in insurance current wages - hell, many own bikes worth more than the min auto insurance requirement in NJ.

The deep pockets at Mills happens to be the government, and their large insurance policies, with the high cost to litigate (defend.)
They will settle at some point.
 
Patrick said:
there is going to be a settlement. make the plaintiff (is that the right word in a tort case) put up a bond
to pay the defense fees if they lose. That will change the litigious nature of NJ substantially.
right or wrong, the county needs to defend, and that costs money - the insurance co will decide the
num$ber that minimizes cost to litigate vs settle.
Click to expand...
This is a great idea. I don’t know any of the facts in this particular case, but I’ve seen 2 ridiculous lawsuits in the past that rewarded the plaintiffs in the 5k-10k range, just because that’s the cost of doing business. It was just way cheaper to cave, than to stick to our guns and have to payout 75-100k in lawyers fees, and possibly lose.

NJM is great, they won’t settle, PIP lawyers hate them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom