Woman suing TriMet over accidental death

Posted by Christian in TriMet on Jun 19th, 2008 | 6 comments

Even after it was found that Austin Miller ran a red light on his bike through the intersection of Southwest Murray Blvd & Farmington Rd and collided with a TriMet bus, ending his life; Miller’s Mom is now suing Trimet for two million dollars.  From OregonLive:

“The suit seeks $1 million in actual damages and $1 million for Austin Miller’s pain and suffering and his parents’ loss of companionship.”

The lawsuit claims that the TriMet driver was “negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout for bicycle traffic.”  Again, the police report back in April found that the TriMet bus driver could not do anything to avoid the collision.

I do understand that losing a child has to be one of, if not the most heartbreaking feeling for any parent.  It really was a tragic mishap.

But suing after it was found that the bus driver couldn’t do anything to avoid the situation along with the circumstance that the victim proceeded through a red light?

I’m sorry, that’s a little selfish.

Does someone’s guardian have the right to sue TriMet if they ran a car through a red light and died from a resulting crash?  Sure, they have the right to do anything… but is it a little absurd?  Perhaps just a little.

I don’t understand the logic here.  Is it just me?



6 Responses to “ “Woman suing TriMet over accidental death”

  1. Bjorn says:
    June 19, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    It isn’t quite as simple as the oregonian would like to make it out to be. He was in a bike lane at the time of the collision (the bus crosses the lane to get to the stop) Also he didn’t run a red light in the sense of going straight but was making a right turn from a multiuse path near the intersection into the bike lane. A better idea might be to sue the people who thought this intersection design was anything but an accident waiting to happen…

    Reply
  2. Erik H. says:
    June 19, 2008 at 9:05 pm

    Actually he was not in a “bike lane”, he was in a separated multi-use bike path/sidewalk that is detached from southbound Murray Boulevard approaching the intersection with Farmington Road.

    At that point, the victim exited the path/sidewalk and entered the intersection against a “don’t walk” pedestrian signal which was a legal signal indication. He then attempted to turn right, at this point entering the bike lane westbound on S.W. Farmington Road, while the TriMet bus proceeding through the intersection on a green aspect was preparing for its stop immediately west of the intersection.

    There was no way for the bus to make a sudden emergency stop to avoid hitting the victim, causing the death.

    Even if, there was a bike lane for which he was on southbound on Murray, it is still illegal (even for a bike) to have entered the intersection and made the right hand turn against a red light, without first coming to a complete stop. So even that theory, if it were physically possible, would still not vindicate the actions of the victim.

    The only way that this victim could have legally and safely completed this turn without stopping would have been for him to turn from the multi-use path parallel to Murray, onto the sidewalk alongside Farmington. This would have allowed him to make the turn without obeying the pedestrian signal/traffic control device, and there is no state law or Washington County ordinance that prohibits the operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk. Further, this movement would have never put him in the path of the bus.

    There is nothing wrong with the intersection; there are many instances where bike lanes do not exist, or bike lanes merge onto streets or sidewalks. These features, while they can be mildly confusing, do not abdicate the need to obey traffic control devices when present. A solid red “hand” symbol is an internationally understood symbol to stop before entering the roadway, and the bike lane that exists on Farmington is part of the roadway.

    It is often the ego of the bicyclist who looks for the “shortcut” that causes a conflict between motorists and bicyclists; a prime example is the split of Barbur Boulevard and Naito Parkway northbound. While there are numerous pavement parkings and signs indicating that bikes are to ride up onto the sidewalk, use a short loop, and yield to traffic entering Naito, many bikes simply ride out into the center lane (often without signalling) in a 35 MPH zone which puts them in immediate danger of a vehicle who may not see them making a sudden lane change, and are expecting to watch for pedestrians (and bikes) at the very well signed and marked crosswalk.

    Reply
  3. Christian says:
    June 20, 2008 at 8:29 am

    Erik – thanks for the explanation – very insightful.

    Reply
  4. Blunderplank says:
    June 20, 2008 at 10:33 am

    Yes, Erik, thank you for that. You’re a lot more level-headed then I would be.

    And I biked through that Naito split intersection for two years every day. That’s a good example of design that’s just not working. But that didn’t mean that I forced cars to slam on their brakes and nearly cause accidents just to make a point.

    Reply
  5. Christian says:
    June 20, 2008 at 11:06 am

    I think:

    If you’re going to sue TriMet, suing them and asking for a in-depth analysis of how to fix intersections like that one to make it safer for bikes is a LOT BETTER of an idea than suing for 2 million bucks.

    Then again, I think the whole idea TO SUE is pretty unfounded.

    Reply
  6. Adron says:
    September 14, 2008 at 8:50 pm

    There is a problem with this, “suing trimet” idea. She isn’t suing trimet, she’s suing the fare payers and taxpayers of the county. It is a completely illigetimate lawsuit and should be thrown out and an affront to any taxpayer in the county.

    I.E. – If you look at it funcitonallity and literally for what it is, the lawsuit is against every citizen in the TriMet service area. The parent is being selfish, misguided, absurd, and causing afront to everyone in the area.

    I personally, as usual with these types of lawsuit, am somewhat offended and think the person should be dealt with in a reasonable way, like a firm smack in the face and some educational material on common sense, reason, and logical.

    Bt what can I really expect… blagh.

    Reply

Leave a Reply