Judge falls from bicycle

George King writes:

We will just have to wait for the trial, apparently, to find out
what really happened. In the meantime, it is extremely fatuous to
criticize the Judge, since such criticism is not based on fact.

Almost true but not quite. Since the first fact that we are
interested in is "why did the Justice sue?"- which is more than "why
did the Justice fall?"- some relevant facts are "what has the
Justice claimed so far?". In the first report, at the time of the
incident, a press release from his office, June 25 2003, he says "He
is uncertain what caused the accident, perhaps a bump or pothole or
loose stones on the roadway." In the second report, from the time
of his lawsuit, October 21 2005, we learn that "The suit claims his
bicycle contained a manufacturing and design defect which caused the
brake coupling [mounting bolt? cable attachment?] to fail. Because
of the defect the bicycle broke [the frame? the fork?] and became
uncontrollable and inoperable".

From the Giant catalogue we learn that his bicycle, a Sedona LX, is
common enough, with a suspension fork and V-brakes:

http://tinyurl.com/7a3sh

If the second report is accurate, then neither the Justice nor his
lawyers know even the most elementary bicycle terminology, and so it
would be a fair bet they don't know much else of what they are
talking about.

My experience is that when there is real mechanical failure, such
cases are settled rapidly and without doubt. That this has dragged on
for nigh-on three years suggests that the fishing trip for scapegoats
has been hampered by lack of evidence. I hope the defendants get
suitable and credible expert witnesses to counter any false claims.
As I mentioned, I have seen plenty of them and most have a credible
ring to them until analyzed for technical impossibilities on which
they rest.

Jobst Brandt

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

Jasper Janssen wrote:

On 21 Oct 2005 14:09:21 -0700, "amakyonin" 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.

Wrote:
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?


--
meb

In article ,
Steve Kirkendall wrote:

Jasper Janssen wrote:

On 21 Oct 2005 14:09:21 -0700, "amakyonin" 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

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
Steve Kirkendall wrote:

Jasper Janssen wrote:

On 21 Oct 2005 14:09:21 -0700, "amakyonin"
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

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

"meb" wrote in
message ...

Jay Beattie Wrote:
wrote in message
...
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 ****ed
off his attorney. -- Jay Beattie.

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.

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 ****ed 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