This article is for our active readers who spend their leisure time on bike paths, either walking, jogging or biking, and is prompted by a recent Illinois Appellate Court decision.
The plaintiff, Elizabeth, was swiftly riding her bike on the Green Bay Trail near Winnetka listening to music with headphones on. Five persons, the defendants, were walking side by side on the same path, occupying most of the path but with sufficient room for her to go around them. When approaching the defendants, Elizabeth thought she had plenty of room to go around them on the gravel shoulder to the west side of the bike path. She did not signal and said nothing. Similarly, the defendants said nothing, nor did they change their configuration. Elizabeth swerved to avoid the defendants and collided with the defendant closest to the west side of the bike path. As a result of the collision, Elizabeth broke her arm and suffered a hairline fracture of her pelvis.
Elizabeth filed suit against all of the defendants, contending that they owed her a duty of care and their violation of that duty was the proximate cause of her injury. The defendants responded by denying they owed such duty and, thus, there was no proximate cause.
The Illinois Appellate Court noted that a duty of care arises when parties stand in such a relationship to one another that the law imposes upon a defendant an obligation of reasonable conduct for the benefit of the plaintiff. Proximate cause encompasses two distinct requirements: cause in fact and legal cause. To determine cause in fact where there are multiple factors that may have caused an injury, courts ask whether a defendant’s conduct was a material element and a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. Legal cause is established only if the defendant’s conduct is so closely tied to the plaintiff’s injury that he should be held legally responsible for it. An assessment of legal cause requires an inquiry into foreseeability – whether the injury is of a type that a reasonable person would see as a likely result of his conduct.
The Appellate Court noted that whether there is a duty of care that depends upon foreseeability of injury, likelihood of injury, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against injury, the consequence of placing the burden on the defendant and the magnitude of likely injury. The trial and Appellate courts both found the circumstances of this case were such that the defendants owed no legal duty of care to Elizabeth. As Elizabeth approached defendants, she and they thought she had enough room to go around them and neither she nor they signaled a warning to the other. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that defendants owed no legal duty of care to Elizabeth and decided that it was not necessary to address the issue of proximate cause.
The result in this case may have been different if Elizabeth or the defendants had shouted a warning to the other or if either of them altered their conduct in some material way to give rise to a foreseeable injury. If a cyclist asks for our advice before getting onto the bike paths and expects to confront multiple pedestrians, skaters and pets we would say: be aware of any circumstances surrounding you that would likely give rise to serious injury to you or others, forewarn others of dangerous conditions and, always protect yourself. Lastly, take off the headphones.