Injured cyclist may sue Oakland for damages after hitting pothole, court rules
Ty Whitehead of San Francisco was on a training ride in preparation for an AIDS fundraising bike trip to Los Angeles in March 2017 when his bicycle struck a pothole while going downhill on Skyline Boulevard in Oakland. His lawyers said Whitehead was thrown over the handlebars, suffered brain damage, was in a coma for two weeks and remains disabled.
When he sued for his injuries, the city cited a release Whitehead and other riders were required to sign on the morning of the ride, releasing the trip's organizers and government agencies from liability for any negligence that caused them harm.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Richard Seabolt and the state's 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that the release required dismissal of the suit, but the state Supreme Court unanimously reinstated it Thursday.
Such agreements may be enforceable if they do not violate a city's obligations under state law, Justice Kelli Evans said in the 7-0 decision. But in this case, she said, Whitehead's lawsuit relies on a California law requiring a city 'to maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition for travel by the public.'
'An agreement to exculpate a party for future violations of a statutory duty designed to protect public safety is against the policy of the law … and is not enforceable,' Evans wrote. 'To hold otherwise would substantially undermine the Legislature's ability to protect the public.'
That doesn't necessarily mean Oakland was negligent in maintaining its streets, but it could allow the claim to go to a jury, Evans said. She said Oakland might still seek dismissal of the suit if it can show Whitehead knowingly 'assumed the risk' of such an accident.
In a filing with the court, the city attorney's office said allowing such lawsuits would have 'dire consequences for public entities, inevitably increasing their liability.' But Evans said Oakland's warning that such liability would lead cities to make recreational use of their property prohibitively expensive — or even illegal — 'seems exaggerated.'
'The city already owes a duty to the public to maintain its public roadways in a safe condition,' and even before the ruling it could have been sued by any cyclist who was injured while on a personal trip and had not signed a waiver of liability, the justice said.
Anthony Label, a lawyer for Whitehead and his family, said the ruling 'emphasizes that California cities must proactively maintain public roads and facilities, rather than relying on overreaching waivers to escape accountability. This outcome is not only crucial for public safety but also sets a new statewide precedent that will compel cities to prioritize infrastructure repairs to prevent injuries.'
The case is Whitehead v., City of Oakland, S284303.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
a minute ago
- USA Today
California Supreme Court denies resentencing bid by former NFL star Kellen Winslow II
The former Cleveland Browns tight end had claimed his football head trauma and previous sex abuse should be considered as part of a resentencing for him. The California Supreme Court has rejected a bid by former NFL tight end Kellen Winslow II to get his 14-year prison sentence reduced after he was convicted of sex crimes against five women in San Diego County, including the rape of a homeless woman in 2018. Winslow's attorney had filed the habeas corpus petition in March, arguing that recent criminal justice reform laws in California allowed for him to be resentenced to account for his history of head trauma in football and the alleged sex abuse he suffered as a minor. But the petition was denied by the Supreme Court July 23 with only a brief explanation. The court cited precedent and said a habeas corpus petition 'must include copies of reasonably available documentary evidence.' It also said that 'courts will not entertain habeas corpus claims that could have been, but were not, raised on appeal.' The latter reason was why his petition also was rejected by a state appeals court in January. Winslow, 42, currently is incarcerated at a prison in Chino, California, and is not eligible for parole until August 2028, according to state records. He played football at the University of Miami and was the No. 6 overall draft pick of the Cleveland Browns in 2004. What was Kellen Winslow II's argument? His attorney, Patrick Morgan Ford, asked the court to grant the petition or order an evidentiary hearing so that he may be returned to be returned for resentencing under the new sentencing laws. He ultimately sought a two-year reduction in his 14-year sentence, which was issued in 2021. 'Petitioner (Winslow) is not asking to be released from prison at this time, but he does meet the criteria for relief under (state law) AB 124, given the trauma (brain damage) he received in his life of football, physical and sexual abuse he was subjected to as a child, and the impact of his debilitating motorcycle accident' in 2005, Winslow's petition stated. The attorney argued the new laws would have changed the sentencing analysis and led to a more favorable sentence. He also noted Winslow was given neuropsychological testing 'which showed deficits caused by decreased blood flow in his frontal, temporal and occipital lobes, which is typical of traumatic brain injury.' The Supreme Court still found a procedural problem with the petition. Winslow previously filed an appeal of his sentence in 2021, when he sought 233 days of custody credit for time he spent on electronic monitoring. That appeal was pending when the new state laws went into effect, but Winslow's attorney didn't raise those issues at the time. The state appeals court previously said he should have raised those issues then and rejected his petition. Winslow's life in prison described Winslow agreed to a plea deal for his crimes, which included the rape of a woman who was unconscious in 2003. In a previous bid to get resentenced, Winslow said in a declaration filed with the court that 'I will always feel remorse for what I did to the victims in my case.' 'Since entering prison, he has devoted himself to the teachings of the Bible, to helping others, to self-improvement and a productive life outside of prison, a plan that will include ongoing therapy,' Winslow's petition to the state Supreme Court stated. 'He is actively programming in prison, and is described by the director of his Anger Management class as a role model to other participants in the group. He is on a strict running program training for marathons, and has other inmates in the program as well. Inmates have sent letters expressing their gratitude for his support during their dark and difficult struggles in prison.' Winslow's father Kellen, a Pro Football Hall of Famer, attended his son's trial in San Diego County and also claimed injuries from head trauma in football. Kellen Winslow II's attorney didn't immediately respond to a message seeking comment. Follow reporter Brent Schrotenboer @Schrotenboer. Email: bschrotenb@
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Trump weighs in on Bryan Kohberger's plea deal ahead of crucial Idaho murders sentencing
President Donald Trump waded into the "vicious" Idaho student murders case Monday with a post on Truth Social about Bryan Kohberger's upcoming sentencing, saying he hopes the judge requires some kind of explanation at Wednesday's hearing for the slayings of "four wonderful young souls." When Kohberger pleaded guilty earlier this month, he gave no motive or explanation while admitting to the home invasion stabbing deaths of four college students. "While Life Imprisonment is tough, it's certainly better than receiving the Death Penalty but, before Sentencing, I hope the Judge makes Kohberger, at a minimum, explain why he did these horrible murders," Trump wrote. "There are no explanations, there is no NOTHING." Trump echoed public surprise about the unexpected plea deal, which spares Kohberger from the potential death penalty in exchange for admitting to the crimes. He is expected to receive four consecutive terms of life imprisonment with no chance of parole, plus another 10 years, and has waived his right to appeal and to seek a sentence reduction. Critics have questioned why the deal didn't require him to explain himself. And the appeal waiver does not mean he won't have any chance to appeal, according to Judge Steven Hippler, who cited a Supreme Court case, Garza v. Idaho, that found defendants who waive their rights to appeal may still have a right to appeal. "People were shocked that he was able to plea bargain, but the Judge should make him explain what happened," Trump added. "Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Kohberger pleaded guilty to all charges on July 2, about two months before he would have gone to trial in Boise, Idaho. At the hearing, he admitted to sneaking into the off-campus home at 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho, and killing four University of Idaho students inside, some of whom were asleep. The victims were 21-year-olds Madison Mogen and Kaylee Goncalves, as well as 20-year-olds Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin. They were all killed around 4 a.m. on Nov. 13, 2022. Kohberger was studying for a Ph.D. in criminology at Washington State University, about 10 miles away over the state line. Goncalves' family posted on their Facebook page that the president's remarks left them wowed. "Absolutely shocked," the family wrote. "Kaylee, Maddie, Xana, Ethan – you have always mattered so much. You are so loved & your nature, your light, your entire being is so bright & visible." Kohberger could have faced capital punishment, and Idaho had recently taken steps to bring back the firing squad as a result of difficulties with lethal injection as a viable option. The victims' families were split over the plea deal, with some welcoming a chance to move past the murders. Goncalves' family, notably, had been hoping for the most severe punishment and pleaded with the judge to at least require an explanation before accepting the deal. According to court documents, DNA from a knife sheath left at the crime scene matched Kohberger's, and cellphone data placed him near the victims' house multiple times before the killings. Surveillance footage also captured a white Hyundai Elantra in the area. Kohberger's official sentencing is scheduled for Wednesday morning.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Cleared City traders blame 'purge' as they hit out at rate-rigging prosecutions
The city traders wrongfully convicted in the aftermath of the financial crisis have spoken out about their decade-long battle for justice, claiming they were scapegoats. Tom Hayes was the first of nine traders to prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office. In 2012, he was accused of rigging Libor - an interest rate on loans and financial contracts that was used throughout the financial system. The rate was determined daily, based on submissions from several large banks. Money latest: Mr Hayes was originally sentenced to 14 years in jail, one of the toughest sentences ever handed out for white collar crime. He served more than five years in prison, including at the high security prison Belmarsh. Speaking to Sky News after the Supreme Court overturned the conviction, Mr Hayes said: "I came out [of prison] to a son who was nine years old who I left when he was three. My marriage broke down whilst I was in prison. My mental health broke down while I was in prison." Mr Hayes said he was made responsible for damage caused by the financial crisis. "There was this zeitgeist that existed where they wanted to send bankers to prison... we were unlucky," he said. He was joined by Carlo Palombo, who was convicted in 2019 for rigging Euribor, the Euro Libor rate. Mr Palombo said he spent most of his days in a small cell that he shared with another inmate at Wandsworth Prison. He said he was the victim of a "purge" by banks and regulators as they sought to absolve themselves of the consequences of the crash. "The stuff of which I was accused and convicted was something that was done completely openly by absolutely every single person… it was just a normal business practice of the bank," he said. Supreme Court judges said the two men did not receive fair trials because the juries were misdirected in the original cases. Essentially, they had been told their behaviour was dishonest without reaching that conclusion themselves. Both men are now trying to move on with their lives. Mr Hayes said he wanted to move to the sea and rebuild his family.
