A Battle Every Step of the Way

Ben Boncella has been a State Farm customer for years. When he was hit by a driver whose insurance company was also State Farm, he thought the insurance company would be more willing to “take care of their own.” He realized how off-base his thinking was a week or two into the process of trying to handle his own claim.

Additionally, Ben feels that the insurance company/claims adjuster will give you zero respect if you are trying to resolve a claim on your own. “Although they try to come across as being nice and friendly, they are trying to take advantage of you by getting you to admit fault or partial responsibility for the crash.”  

Ben thought his case was clear cut, and that he would be successful in handling the claim himself; a police officer had witnessed the crash and the driver, who admitted that she was in the wrong, was cited at the scene. Yet State Farm denied responsibility to pay out his claim for bike repairs, property damage, and medical bills. “I was extremely surprised by how unwilling the insurance company was to pay my claim. I thought it would be very straightforward – they would pay for the damage to my bike and kit and cover the medical expenses I incurred as a result of the collision,” he says. “I wish I would’ve known how much of a pain the entire process of battling the driver’s auto insurance was going to be.”

When State Farm outright denied liability after months of working at it himself, Ben decided to contact and hire our firm. “As soon as Megan got involved, their tone changed immediately, they became more responsive, more cooperative, and the process of getting this resolved was expedited,” he says. 

The big takeaway from the whole process for Ben? It doesn’t matter how obvious the case/incident, the cyclist will always have to fight every step of the way. He was in a bike lane, riding below the posted speed limit, wearing brightly colored clothing, at a safe time of day, traveling on a route commonly used by local cyclists, had lights on his bike, a police officer witnessed the crash, the driver was cited on the scene, etc. “It doesn’t matter that you do everything right, and it’s extremely obvious. Insurance companies are out to make money, so they make you fight for everything. Do not give up!”

It was the morning of June 8, 2018, around 6:30 am when Ben was riding his bike to work heading north in the bike lane on Garrison Street in Lakewood, CO, and was coming up along vehicles that were stopped at a red light. Ben was wearing a cycling kit, a helmet, and sunglasses along with a backpack full of work clothes.

As he was riding through the intersection at Garrison and West 1st Avenue, the driver of a Ford Ranger pick-up truck failed to yield to Ben while making a right-hand turn, causing a front to side collision. Officer Arellano, who witnessed the crash, stated that Ben was not speeding and was riding properly in the bike lane with safety attire/equipment. Ben was not able to stop quickly enough to avoid the collision since the vehicle turned right in front of him.  He crashed into the front right side of the vehicle. 

The driver stopped immediately after hitting Ben and told the officer that she saw Ben but did not think he would be at the point of the turn. Officer Arellano stated that the driver was clearly at fault and that she needed to be better aware of the road and her surroundings to include checking the bike lane before turning. There were no obstructions, weather, or road conditions that would have affected her view of Ben or her ability to wait for him before turning according to Officer Arellano.

Ben was treated at the West Metro Fire Station, which is located directly across the street, where his injuries were cleaned up and bandaged. Ben finished his ride into work, but he went to St. Anthony's Hospital to get treated when his symptoms worsened after a few hours.  He had road rash on the left side of his body and had a CT of his head and spine done as well as x-rays of his chest and wrist.

Citation:  Careless driving, pleaded down to an unsafe vehicle charge.

Fines/Penalties: Two points assessed to the driver’s license and $134 in fines.The driver has two past convictions in 2004 in Lakewood and Denver, where she was also charged for driving an unsafe or defective vehicle.

Ben feels like it is way too easy for drivers to get charges reduced.

“She should have pleaded guilty to the charge the police officer cited her with because that’s what actually happened. If we keep letting people off easy, they’re never going to get any better and cyclists aren’t going to be any safer.”

— Ben Boncella

Eventually, Ben was back on his bike, but it was painful and he obviously wasn’t 100% healed physically. It took awhile before the swelling, bruising, road rash, and soreness went away, but he was eventually back to his normal riding and workouts. 

He was nervous to get back on the roads after the crash and rode a lot more bike paths afterwards.  Gradually, Ben transitioned back to more and more road riding, but even to this day (a year and a half later), he is still nervous riding through intersections. “Drivers don’t use their turn signals enough or check their passenger side mirrors before making right hand turns,” he says. 

If he could wave a magic wand, Ben would make the punishment for drivers who hit cyclists much more severe.  “All it takes is a quick Google search and you can read hundreds of stories and articles about drivers hitting and killing cyclists yet only having to pay a small fine or do some community service. It’s sad to see how little the life of a cyclist is valued in these situations.”

Ben recommends that every cyclist get educated about local cycling laws/regulations and follow them when riding. Ride defensively when you need to, but also be courteous and respectful to drivers as much as possible.

Although Ben initially tried to deal with State Farm on his own, he was glad that he handed over the case to our team. “When I spoke with Megan about having her take over my case, she was extremely up front and honest about what would be involved, the timeline, the outcome, the financial side of things, etc. In the end, things worked out almost exactly as she had initially described them to me. The whole team was incredibly well organized and thorough. I’m not happy to have gone through this, but I’m glad that I had such a great team of people on my side fighting for me.”

Arizona Legal System Failing Injured Cyclists

No consequences = No Changes.

With its natural landscapes, bike infrastructure, and perfect weather for year-round cycling, Arizona is considered by many as a cycling paradise. Every year, cyclists head to Arizona to cities such as Scottsdale, Phoenix, or Tucson to enjoy miles of cycling routes and open roads. It is also home to many professional cyclists, endurance athletes, and bike commuters. The conditions are honestly, ideal.

Yet, law enforcement and city attorneys are dropping the ball when it comes to protecting cyclists and holding motorists who injure them accountable. Several of our Arizona-based clients saw the at-fault drivers minimally charged and even more minimally punished with paltry five-hour classes. Some even got the charges against them dismissed!  Drivers are simply not punished severely enough for causing injury to cyclists. 

In 2017, 32 bicyclist fatalities were reported in Arizona with 1,371 cyclists injured. That made Arizona the 5th most dangerous state for cyclists. According to the People Powered Movement, Tucson ranked second and Phoenix fourth as the most dangerous cities nationwide for cyclists in 2015. People For Bikes gives Scottsdale a low score of 1.7, and gives Phoenix a score of 1.5.

Based on our recent experiences, it seems that traffic violations involving cyclists in Phoenix and Scottsdale rarely make it to court, and the fines/penalties are minimal. Drivers may end up getting off with a $250 fine and no jail time. If a motorist seriously injures or kills a cyclist when violating Arizona's 3-foot passing rule (§28-735), the financial penalty would increase to $500 and $1,000 respectively. 

There is no specific statute in Arizona that addresses vehicular manslaughter, and only certain traffic violations may lead to a manslaughter charge if they involve the death of a person while driving. These include driving under the influence, excessive speed, aggressive driving, and racing. (See Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) §13-1103).

Currently, Arizona does not have any laws to protect vulnerable road users (VRU), which in addition to cyclists also include pedestrians, motorcyclists, children, elderly and disabled people.  VRU applies to those groups most at risk in traffic. Additionally, “Arizona is still one of two states that has failed, yet to adopt any prohibition on texting while driving,” according to Arizona-Look Save a Life.

Arizona as a touted cycling mecca, needs to do a LOT more to protect its resident cyclists and the hundreds of cyclists who flock there in the winter for warm riding. Cycling is a profitable subset of tourism for this state, and while bike lanes are very common and prevalent (which is a good start), the state needs stronger, harsher laws and intentional enforcement. It is time for law enforcement, city/district attorneys, and lawmakers to cite drivers properly, enforce harsher penalties, and enact legislation to make cycling safer and protect all VRUs.

Despite serious bodily injuries to our clients, two of the drivers were allowed to take a five-hour defensive driving class, had their tickets dismissed, and received no points or fines. In one case, the driver's ticket was dismissed even before the class was required. None of these drivers even had to appear in court! 

Scottsdale - Our client Ryan Hardy (above) was riding in a marked bike lane around 7:30 pm on February 26, 2019 when he was right-hooked at a T intersection where he had the right of way. He was riding with a bright front light and a flashing rear light and was wearing a helmet and a kit with reflective bands. The driver told police that he “didn’t see the man on the bike” when he turned.

Instead of waiting behind Ryan to safely make it across the intersection, the driver accelerated, passed Ryan, and then made a right-hand turn directly in front of him. The impact of the collision threw Ryan in front of the car into the intersection. He was transported to the hospital for his injuries.

Citation: 

Violation of 28-754 - Unsafe Turning Movement to the Right 

Fines/Penalties:  

A minor traffic violation in which the driver took online traffic school ($200), and all charges were dropped. 

How does Ryan feel about the outcome? In no way, shape, or form does he feel that the outcome was just or fair. “It’s pathetic and insulting because about six months later, I still have several problems on a daily basis and still cannot work out in almost any capacity. I still have to see physical therapists, concussion specialists, neurologists, a therapist, and have never taken so many prescription drugs to control problems in my entire life,” he says.

Ryan believes that a law similar to the strictest DUI laws in the country, applied to making any and all contact with a person/cyclist while driving, could change a lot. Like those extreme DUI laws, major monetary consequences, a very high level of culpability, and, maybe most importantly, the highest/strictest level of enforcement of this law and its consequences would help to bring about change.

If he had the chance to talk to the driver about cyclists and safety, Ryan would point out that the majority of outcomes when hitting a person/cyclist with a car is that a human being is killed. He believes that most collisions with cyclists could be avoided by simply slowing down and or waiting a mere 1-30 seconds. “I ask people who think those few seconds are so important, ‘Are you willing to knowingly kill somebody to save that time or just drive faster?’”

Scottsdale again - Our client Eric Marcotte (above) was knocked unconscious on November 20, 2018, when a driver failed to yield the right of way at an intersection and drove straight into him. He was thrown from his bike and landed on the roadway. Eric was also riding in the bike lane and had the right of way. 

Eric is a professional cyclist who rides between 350-500 miles per week. He knows this stretch of road and area very well, having ridden it thousands of times over the last decade of living in Arizona. At the time of the collision, he was wearing his team sponsor’s kit, which is a blue and white combination, and was riding with blinking lights. The driver claimed that Eric “just came out of nowhere.”  Eric maintains that the driver had a visible line of sight looking south well over a mile with the road being straight.

Citation: 

Violation of 28-773, Failure to Yield Right of Way

Fines/Penalties:  

$250 fine and defensive driving class for the driver, which he and his lawyer argued against for months before accepting.

Eric wants motorists to understand how important it is to be aware and attentive while taking the responsibility of driving a vehicle and believes that the system enables motorists to be negligent. “Drivers will have someone fighting for them to not be responsible. So that enables poor drivers and doesn’t help change actions,” says Eric. 

He wishes he knew how important it is that police officers and district attorneys do their job as well. He says they need to step up and set a precedent by setting the consequences for negligent/inattentive/distracted drivers in a way that has consequences great enough to change actions. Suspending licenses, implementing substantial fines, as well as raising insurance rates will make motorists more aware—a $250 fine will not.

Eric recommends riding with a camera because it can keep everyone accountable. “Then you will see how drivers treat cyclists—you can keep compiling those clips and send/share to law enforcement to show them what’s happening—and will also show you, as a cyclist, are following the law.”  

---

Phoenix - Our client Melissa Lemke, was out for a ride on her bike on March 10, 2019, around 11:30 am when she was struck by a driver who failed to yield to her at a four-way stop. She was wearing a white helmet and her cycling kit which was green, white, and black. It had high-visibility striping on the legs and high-vis patches on the front and back of her jersey. 

Melissa had stopped at the intersection, yielded to the driver on her right and then proceeded into the intersection once that car had passed through. This is when she was struck by a second vehicle also coming from the right who failed to yield. Melissa’s injuries included a broken elbow and a broken left wrist that required surgery. A large plate was put in her left wrist, and she had to wear a splint for her broken elbow. At first,  Melissa was dependent on her husband for almost everything: getting dressed, bathing, personal hygiene, preparing food, etc. Even now, nearly six months later, her left wrist often aches and many actions of daily living incite burning and pain in her right wrist. Melissa ordered a new bicycle but had thoughts about returning it and not riding again.

Citation: 

Violation of 28-773, Failure to Yield Right of Way

Fines/Penalties:  

Driver's ticket was dismissed by going to traffic school.

That’s right! The ticket was dismissed because of the type of ticket he was given: Failure to Yield Right of Way.  The driver now has a clean driving record while Melissa continues to deal with the physical impact of the crash. Even though the police officer came to the hospital and eventually learned that Melissa needed surgery, the driver was given a ticket that could be dismissed by attending traffic school, not a ticket that indicated he had caused serious bodily injury to Melissa from which she has not yet completely recovered.  

When she first learned of the ticket dismissal, about a month after the crash, Melissa was truly devastated.  Up to that point, she had taken a small comfort in knowing that the driver incurred a serious consequence for his actions. Finding out that the driver was able to wipe his driving record clean, while she was still seeing a surgeon and a physical therapist for her injuries, was shocking. 

“This dismissal speaks to the lack of protection we cyclists have on the road. If drivers are not penalized in a meaningful way for running down a cyclist, we are simply moving targets out there. I really don’t know when or if I will fully recover, and the driver does not even have a black mark against his driving record,” says Melissa.

She wishes cyclists knew how they may have to start fighting for their rights at the scene of the crash and that they need to know the laws so they can ask the right questions. She also wishes that she had been able to take photos and had thought to record the driver saying over and over that he did not see her. “I wish I would have questioned the officer about the type of ticket, but I did not know he had choices to make.  I thought he was at the hospital verifying my injuries so he would have evidence to support a serious charge against the driver,” says Melissa.

She thought she could depend on the police. Although she was conscious after her crash, many cyclists are not or are so injured that they cannot not possibly stand up for themselves at the scene.  “We should be able to depend on law enforcement to protect both drivers and cyclists,” she says. 

So, what can you do to bring about change? Here are some suggestions:

• Get involved with a bicycle advocacy group (PeopleForBikes, either at the national, state, or local level).

• Contact your local state legislator to advocate for laws to make cycling safer.

• Know the laws in your state, especially those pertaining to Vulnerable Road Users.

• Support cyclists who have been injured by showing up at the driver’s sentencing hearing.

• Talk to your friends, family, and cyclists about your experiences or close encounters with motorists. Spread the word about how to make cycling safer.

For more information about cycling laws in Arizona and municipal codes for Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tucson, visit our website. Would you like to get involved in Arizona bike advocacy, specifically? Then please consider joining local groups working hard to make positive changes, like the Rob Dollar Foundation, and Look Save a Life Arizona.

Jefferson County Taking A Tough Stand Against Drivers Who Injure Cyclists

A collaborative blog by Hottman Law Office, Steven Lykens and the Jefferson County DA’s office

Steven Lykens—husband, engineer, competitive cyclist—made a point of attending and speaking at the sentencing hearing of a driver who caused him serious bodily injury.  He wanted to emphasize to the court, the district attorney’s office, and to the driver that the outcome of the case mattered to him and to the cycling community as a whole. 

On May 16, 2019, Steven addressed Jefferson County Court Judge Mark Randall and asked him to order 200 hours of community service as part of the driver’s sentencing. Considering the time that he spent in the hospital, at appointments with doctors, as well as time spent working to heal his injuries, Steven felt 200 hours was fair.

The driver, Miranda Lewin, was sentenced to 120 hours of community service to be completed in 120 days on the charge of careless driving. Her public defender argued for fewer hours, but Judge Randall did not back down. In fact, he told Lewin she is a terrible driver based on her previous (and subsequent) traffic convictions and warned her that she would be back in court if she did not serve her community service. Judge Randall reminded Lewin that drivers have a responsibility to their community, including cyclists. 

Lewin, who was 20 years old at the time of the collision with Steven, was previously convicted of driving a vehicle while impaired by alcohol/drugs in 2016, careless driving, and operating a motor vehicle as a minor driver with an unauthorized passenger in 2014. Her driver's license was revoked in 2016 due to the alcohol offense, but it had been reinstated prior to this collision.

On the morning of September 2, 2018, Steven was riding in a bike lane in Lakewood when Lewin turned right, directly in front of him, into a 7-11 parking lot. Steven collided with Lewin’s vehicle and was thrown from his bicycle, landing in the 7-11 parking lot. He was unable to move and yelled for someone to call 911. Lewin remained at the scene and was later cited by Lakewood Police for careless driving causing bodily injury. Steven considers himself “lucky” that he went over the hood of the vehicle instead of under it or into oncoming traffic.

He was transported by ambulance to St. Anthony’s Hospital with lacerations to his right ankle and right elbow, road rash, and an abrasion to his right cheek. Officer Barefoot of the Lakewood Police Department, who responded to the scene, was advised by the emergency room doctor that Steven had sustained a lumbar spine fracture.

As a result, Steven was in a back brace for eight weeks. He now suffers from permanent scoliosis from two fractured vertebrae and is one inch shorter than before the crash. His life and physical body are forever altered, and he is in constant pain. The collision has altered his mental state as well. Driving and cycling are still difficult for him, and he is worried it could happen again. 

During the sentencing hearing, Steven also thanked the Lakewood Police Department, the Jefferson County DA, and the court for holding drivers accountable when cyclists are injured. Often cases involving bodily injury are pled down to minor infractions, leaving victims to feel doubly wronged. 

The Jefferson County DA’s office did a fantastic job handling this case. Jefferson County DA Pete Weir wants the driving public to recognize their obligation to share the road with cyclists.

“We take these cases of careless driving with injury involving cyclists very seriously and treat the victims with the same respect and dignity we treat victims who are covered under Colorado’s Victims’ Rights Amendment (VRA) which protects the rights of victims in violent crimes. Often these injuries are life-changing for victims and their families, and we do everything we can to help them through the criminal justice process.”

— - Pete Weir, Jefferson County DA

In Jefferson County, careless driving/cycling cases causing serious bodily injury are generally treated as VRA cases by the DA’s office, thereby involving the victims throughout the process. Deputy DA Kate Rhodes, who handled this case, believes that the appropriate outcome was reached, and justice was served. 

Steven shown with Deputy DA Kate Rhodes (L), Megan Hottman, and Tracy Drake (R)

“My goal for this case was to get the defendant to realize the impact she has had on Mr. Lykens’ life and the gravity of his injuries. Mr. Lykens showed incredible patience and professionalism throughout the process.”

— Deputy DA Kate Rhodes

A newly passed law, sponsored by Senator Mike Foote of Boulder and Representative Dylan Roberts of Eagle and Routt Counties, is aimed at making Colorado’s roadways safer for vulnerable road users (VRU), including cyclists, pedestrians, construction workers, scooter riders, and peace officers. Governor Jared Polis signed SB 19-175 into law on May 29, 2019. 

Careless driving that leads to seriously injuring a VRU is now a class 1 traffic misdemeanor. Convicted drivers could face restitution and a one-year suspension of their license. Courts could require drivers to attend a driver improvement course and perform community service.

Many of Steven’s friends have been injured while riding their bikes due to the neglect of a driver of a motor vehicle. He hopes that someday cyclists can ride safely on public roads without having to worry about being injured by a driver. 

“Given the nature and extent of our clients’ injuries, I have always advocated to District Attorneys and City Attorneys that the FULL “careless driving causing SBI” charge needs to stick. NO plea deals, not when the injuries are so serious. Careless causing SBI is only a 4-point violation, with minimal fines. We need the FULL Charge in order to ask the Judge for serious community service hours, restitution, (and now with SB 19-175, for the driver’s license, as well). My request to all DAs and CAs we encounter: Be like Jeffco and Boulder DAs. Treat these cases as VRA cases and please, stop offering plea bargains. ”

— Megan Hottman, The Cyclist Lawyer

Please remember to be cautious around cyclists, or any vulnerable road user, and look for cyclists before turning—whether they are riding in a bike lane or not! 

To read more about the Jeffco DA’s office, click here.

To read more about Judge Randall, click here.

Justice for Cyclists: Boulder County DAs Push for Results in Cycling Cases

By Maureen & Megan

Vehicular assault - Leaving the scene of a crash involving serious bodily injury - Failure to notify police of a crash. These are some of the initial charges brought against two drivers in collisions with cyclists in Boulder County. In both cases, the cyclists were seriously injured and required surgery.

Boulder cyclist Travis Lechner was on a group training ride in Longmont, CO in December 2017 when he was struck by a pick-up truck going at least 45 mph. Travis was making a left-hand turn when the driver attempted to pass him on the left, crossing a double yellow line.

A witness told police that Travis had signaled before turning left.

The collision sent Travis flipping up over the truck, landing in a ditch approximately 50 feet down the road. He was transported by ambulance with multiple injuries including a broken clavicle and wrist, a concussion, fractured ribs and multiple abrasions.

His left shoulder was completely shattered.

Travis shown with DA Adrian VanNice, fellow cyclist (L), and Megan (R)

An off-duty police officer riding in the group of cyclists canvassed the area following the crash. He happened to find the truck that met a witness’ description and called police. The driver, who was drunk at 10 am, neither had a valid driver’s license nor insurance. He was arrested and taken to jail. This was his second DUI.

Travis’ injuries required surgery to his wrist and shoulder. Unable to care for himself following surgery, he stayed at his coach’s house for over a month. His wrist was in a cast and he had to wear a sling, which completely immobilized him. The first night following surgery to his shoulder, Travis woke up in the middle of the night in the worst pain he had ever experienced. “It hurt about 10,000 times worse than getting hit by a car. I have never been in so much pain my whole life.”

He missed almost two months of work due to his injuries and suffered financial damages. He was not able to drive, lost fitness and training time on his bike, and could not sleep most nights due to the sling he had to wear as well as sleeping upright at a 45-degree angle. He needed help doing everyday tasks such as showering, getting dressed and cooking.

Like Travis, 17 year-old Riley Sheehan was also struck by a driver in Boulder County who then fled the scene. It was March 7, 2018. Riley, an elite junior cyclist who rides for LUX Cycling Team and USA Cycling, was training in preparation for three international races in Europe at the end of March.

He was riding on the far right of the shoulder on U.S. 36 when he heard the sound of an engine. It was a truck going 45-50 mph. The driver tried to get around two lanes of traffic by passing on the right using the shoulder. That’s when he crashed into Riley, launching him into the air.

The driver then ran over the bike and left the scene of the crash.

Riley hit the ground so hard that his clavicle broke, causing a section of the bone to penetrate into his chest muscle. His helmet broke in five different places when his head slammed into the ground. He suffered a concussion, enduring a headache and nausea and had scrapes and bruises all over his body. “I felt so angry that someone would hit me and then leave me by the roadside.”

Witnesses reported that a red truck had been driving aggressively prior to the crash. One witness followed the driver and attempted to get him to return to the scene. The witness told the driver that he had his license plate number and that police had been called. The driver yelled at the witness and sped away, leaving the scene again.

The license plate traced back to a red Ford F-150 owned by a Greeley resident.  Officers observed damage to the front right side of the truck when they arrived at the driver’s house. He was arrested by Colorado State Patrol on suspicion of vehicular assault, leaving the scene of a crash involving serious bodily injury, failure to notify police of the crash, reckless driving, passing on a shoulder, failure to obtain a valid CO registration within 90 days of becoming a resident and driving with expired plates. The driver had moved from Texas to Colorado in 2014 but still had Texas plates.

“Too often these collisions are treated as ‘just accidents,’ but that diminishes what my family and I have been through.”

— Riley Sheehan addressing the Court, at the driver's sentencing hearing

Riley had to undergo surgery to repair his broken clavicle. In the days leading up to the surgery, he was in extreme pain and could not sleep. Further surgery will be required to remove the stainless steel plate and screws. Riley still does not have full range of motion and can feel the metal plate every time he moves his right shoulder.

The experience has been painful, frustrating, depressing and draining both physically and emotionally. Riley missed school, training and racing opportunities.

His life and physical body are forever altered, leaving him to question his bike racing future.

Riley’s family with Fred Johnson, Chief Trial Deputy, 20th Judicial District Attorney’s Office

When it came time for the drivers’ criminal case sentencing hearings, both Travis and Riley, along with his family, attended and addressed the court. They took part in the process, and it made a difference. Travis and Riley wanted to emphasize to the court, the district attorneys and to the defendants that what happens in these cases matters very much to the victims as well as to the cycling community as a whole.

Riley’s mom spent well over 100 hours filling out paperwork, documentation, getting medical referrals and going to appointments with Riley. His dad had to miss work as well.

Travis felt that it was important to attend, so that people see there is more going on. It is not just a bike that got hit on the road. “I think it’s important we show up and people know that we’re paying attention. We want to be seen and heard,” said Travis.

Fred Johnson, the DA in Riley’s case, believes that community members are an integral part of the criminal justice system:

“One of our most important functions is making sure their voices are heard.  Victims at a sentencing hearing are the persons most affected by the crimes committed, and their input is extremely important to us as prosecutors and to the judge deciding the sentence.  When the crime implicates a specific community’s interest and safety such as the cycling community, it’s important for members of that community to attend sentencing hearings so the court can hear their perspective directly and consider it in reaching a just result.”

— Fred Johnson, Boulder DA

The Boulder DA’s Office took these cases seriously and made very severe punishment recommendations to the judge.

“Boulder County is a unique community and a great place to ride with an avid cycling community. The safety of the cycling community is very important to us as an office and we strive to enforce the laws in a way that maximizes the effectiveness of those laws in ensuring safety on the roads.  We take violations of the law that hurt cyclists extremely seriously, especially when a driver flees the scene in an effort to avoid responsibility. This disregard for the safety and well-being of the victim is especially egregious because it puts the victim’s life and physical safety in further jeopardy,” said Johnson.

The driver in Travis’ case pled guilty to driving under the influence and reckless vehicular assault. He received a suspended sentence of one year in the Boulder County Jail and must complete 200 hours of community service and three years of probation as well as serve nine months of jail-work release.

In Riley’s case, the driver pled guilty to both felony counts - leaving the scene of an accident causing serious bodily injury and vehicular assault. He was sentenced to three years of probation, with 90 days of jail, 120 more days of jail on work release, and 200 hours of community service work.  Conditions of probation included no driving until probation is completed and the court approves it, substance abuse and mental health evaluations with any recommended treatment, and completion of a bicycle driver’s course.

Our office plans to keep showing up at sentencing hearings. It matters. It makes a difference. It counts! #ShowUP. #CrashNOTaccident

Just Do the Right Thing!

Client Story- by Maureen 

Distasteful, despicable and unethical! That is how Scott describes his experience dealing with State Farm after his 15-year old son was involved with one of their drivers.

A competitive mountain biker and road cyclist, Ian, Scott's son, was out on a ride in his neighborhood in Golden, CO trying to get in 100 miles of training that week. It was just a little after 6:00 pm on May 15, 2016 when Ian was heading north on Washington Avenue. As he was coming down the hill, a car on Washington Avenue and 14th St. made a left hand turn right in front of him.                                  

Ian was unable to stop in time to avoid a collision and ran into the rear passenger door of the car. When Officer Austin Beck from the Golden Police Department arrived, Ian was lying on his back on the roadway. He was incoherent and was not able to tell the officer what had happened.

Ian was transported by ambulance to St. Anthony’s Hospital for possible head injuries. It was determined that Ian had suffered a hairline collarbone fracture and a concussion. He also had a cut near his eye and contusions all over his body.

Scott was notified by the hospital... “It’s a sinking feeling when you get a call from the ER to say that your son has been hit by a car.”

The driver was cited for failing to yield the right of way. He was driving his girlfriend’s car; she was riding in the front passenger seat.

Following the collision, Ian experienced memory loss, and his cognitive functions were not as strong as normal.

On behalf of Ian and Scott, we filed a claim with the car owner’s insurance company. GEICO readily paid policy limits (minimal). However, due to Ian’s high medical bills and other costs, we also filed a claim with State Farm, the driver’s insurance.  State Farm refused to take responsibility!

The Fromm family decided to pursue litigation and hired us to represent them. State Farm came up with several reasons for denying the claim:

• They refused to pay because they claimed that the driver was not at fault.

• They claimed that the driver was not insured with them at the time of the collision.

• Attorneys for State Farm even suggested that the crash could have occurred in a different way than was stated in the police report.

They went as far as questioning Officer Beck’s qualifications and experience at investigating traffic crashes. The driver and his girlfriend even pushed responsibility on Ian stating that he was riding too fast.

Scott described his family’s experience in their road to get a recovery from the insurance company as a very stereotypical experience: “What happened is what I expected the experience to be. They are going to deny everything. It’s about enriching themselves, not insuring the insured.”

About a year and a half after the crash, the case went to mediation. Scott said that he was in a very uneasy place at that point. All he wanted to do was to settle for Ian’s sake. Ian had come to him before mediation and told his dad that he just wanted to get it over with. “It was the right decision, but we just wanted to be compensated for our losses,” said Scott.

Scott, also a cyclist, strongly believes that bicyclists are treated like second-class citizens even though they have the same rights as motor vehicles. “Your rights will be less. If my son was in a car, (I believe) State Farm would have paid.”

State Farm used tactics that delayed the Fromm’s claim from being paid out. Over 800 emails were exchanged with the clients/opposing counsel/experts during this case.  DENY. DELAY.  “That’s a dodging tactic to not pay out the claim,” said Scott.

Following mediation, State Farm continued to further delay payment by insisting that Scott and Ian’s Social Security numbers had to be provided before the check would be issued- contrary to the CMS rules and forms, and contrary to standard practice. 

Scott encourages bicyclists who have been injured to hire an attorney when dealing with insurance companies. “You could try to fight it yourself, but you would not be successful in recovering for your loss without an attorney.” “If I didn’t have Megan, we would have a different outcome. We would have been worse off.”

Megan adds some additional advice in situations like this one: "prepare to dig in for a long fight.  Insurance companies will bully and delay and drag on and on.  Treat this as an endurance sport. They will try to wear you out.  We are here to keep you fueled, motivated, and willing to go the distance. Resilience is key."  

What needs to change so that bicyclists are safer on the roads in Scott's opinion?

• More legislation needs to be passed to protect bicyclists and their rights.

• Governments need to make the investment to improve roads for bicyclists.

• Drivers need to be more patient around bicyclists. Our culture is impatient.

The entire experience has left Scott fearful and has him thinking about switching from road to gravel biking. He wants to know where Ian is at all times now.  He and his family will move on from this experience, but he does have a message to insurance companies. “Just do the right thing!”

Lives Forever Changed

A collaborative blog by: Maureen, with special thanks to Chris, Rebecca, Laura, and Wally.

Sharing a passion for the outdoors and spending time with family and friends on a bike ride was how they had planned their day when the unthinkable happened.

Laura Burress and Rebecca Schmidt were on a 53-mile bike ride in Columbia, KY when they were struck by a motor vehicle. The driver, Ronald Franklin, admitted to the use of illegal narcotics. Both women had to be airlifted by helicopter to the University of Louisville for their injuries. Franklin, who was taking Percocet and using cocaine, was not injured.

It was April 17, 2016 when Laura, Rebecca and her husband, Chris Schmidt, were riding their bikes on a beautiful spring day. They had stopped several times along the way to have snacks, rest and take in the beauty around them.

The ride was Laura’s longest to date. She bought her first road bike in March 2015 and had been riding just over a year when the accident happened. Rebecca, not new to cycling, started riding road bikes 15 years ago. Both women were wearing helmets, gloves, glasses and had a phone with them. 

Laura remembers coming back into Columbia and riding around the square. Her last memory is turning onto Fairground Street and starting up a small hill. Rebecca, who was riding out front, has no memory of what happened before the accident. They were riding on or close to the fog line, which is the white line painted on the right side of the road and had the right of way. It was around 1:30 p.m. when Franklin, traveling at an estimated speed of 45 – 55 MPH slammed into Laura and then Rebecca. The impact sent Laura and Rebecca ‘flying.’ Laura landed 34 ft from where she was hit while Rebecca landed 24 ft away. Laura’s body took the brunt of the hit. Rebecca’s helmet shattered.

At the time of the accident, Chris was up the road about 100 feet waiting for Laura and Rebecca. He did not see the accident happen but he definitely heard it. He knew something was wrong and immediately turned around and headed back. He rode up to Franklin, who he described as slow to react, disoriented and very distant, and knew that he was impaired when he saw his eyes. “He had the look of a person who was under something,” said Chris. “When he looked at me, he didn’t even know what he had done.” Franklin said that he did not see the bicyclists and asked if he had caused the accident. Chris told Franklin to stay there and then asked a football player, who was practicing nearby, not to let Franklin leave. Franklin had gone back to his vehicle and was attempting to change his front right tire, which had been punctured by one of the bicycles. Chris suspects that Franklin was trying to leave the scene. According to the accident report, Franklin claimed that the bikes swerved out in front of him. This was disputed by witnesses.

Franklin, who has prior convictions, was arrested, charged with the following and tested for drugs:

1. Operating a motor vehicle under the influence

2. Two counts of assault in the 1st degree

3. Disregard/failure to yield right of way to a pedestrian or cyclist.

He was booked into the Adair County Regional Jail.

Adair County EMS treated Laura and Rebecca and then transported them by ambulance to the local hospital, T.J. Health Columbia.

Laura’s husband, Wally, was at home at the time of the accident. He had just met Laura, Rebecca and Chris about an hour before to give them some fresh water. After the accident, Chris called Wally and Laura’s neighbor - a colleague of his from work - and asked him to let Wally know about the accident. Wally left for the hospital. He could hear her screaming when he arrived.

Around 4:30 that afternoon, Laura and Rebecca were airlifted to University of Louisville Hospital, a level 1 trauma center, due to the serious nature of their injuries.

To this day, Laura and Rebecca have no memory of the accident itself. Laura remembers waking up to severe and unbearable back pain. She was screaming as she was being moved from one stretcher or bed to another to get scans. The medical providers in Louisville told her that nothing was wrong with her back but the pain was horrible. “I remember it being so bad I just wanted to go back to sleep so I wouldn’t have to feel it,” said Laura. She feels that the University of Louisville did not listen to her and get to the root of her back complaints initially. “They sent me home with a spinal cord injury and fractures. I see pictures of how much road rash, cuts and bruises I had and think that had to have hurt. But I don’t remember the pain from that. I just remember my severe back pain.”

When Rebecca woke up, she had a neck brace on and was disoriented. She wanted to know where Laura was and thought that she had missed her son’s birthday, which they had celebrated three days earlier on April 14th. Rebecca sustained injuries to her head and was diagnosed with a concussion.

Both women were badly bruised, sore and swollen. They were treated for skin cuts and abrasions and were in extreme pain.

Somewhere between midnight and 1:00 a.m. Monday morning, they were released on pain medication from the hospital in Louisville. Rebecca was told to follow up with her local doctor if her symptoms worsened.

Wally, Chris and Rebecca’s son, Cole, had come up from Columbia and were there to drive them home. It was about a 1 3/4 hour ride home. Laura has no memory of leaving the hospital, the ride, arriving at home or the next few days. People came and went. What Laura remembers more than anything is the pain. It took two people to help her get up and go to the bathroom. She needed help to shower and to change clothes. Her back still hurt so badly and she was miserable.

The next days were filled with doctors’ appointments for Laura. She saw an orthopedic doctor for her back, an eye doctor due to blurry vision and a neurologist. She had to go to the hospital for additional x-rays because she was so bloated and was not able to have a bowel movement. A trip to the ER was necessary after developing a severe headache and feeling sick after drinking Magnesium-Citrate to help with bowel issues. A CT of her head and abdomen were done and she was discharged with an order for Golytely, which is used to clean out the intestines. Laura’s nurse friends came over on the weekend to help her. They tried everything including home remedies and had her walk around until she could not go anymore because of the pain. Needless to say, she was miserable the entire weekend. On Monday, Laura went to the ER in Bowling Green where more scans were done and Laura was given more medication. She was discharged and thought, “I will go home and die and I did not care anymore. My stomach felt like there was so much pressure inside that something could burst anytime.” The combination of pain and medications started taking a toll on her. By this time, she began thinking that maybe she was crazy and it was all in her head.

There were more doctors’ appointments that week. Laura saw a gastroenterologist and followed up with the neurologist on Thursday. She had not eaten anything since Sunday. The neurologist took one look at her and called an ambulance to her office. Laura went back to the University of Louisville ER. It was about a two-hour ride. “It was a bad ride. My back hurt so bad and my stomach had pressure. I was strapped to the board and could not move. I prayed to just make it through the next ten minutes. Then the next ten minutes,” said Laura.

It had been 11 days since the accident. That night, Laura had an MRI and neurosurgery was consulted. A neurosurgery resident told her that the MRI was abnormal. He would review the results the next morning with the attending physician. On Friday morning, the neurosurgery team came in and told Laura that surgery on her back was necessary in the next 2-3 days. She had an unstable fracture at L1-L2 with torn ligaments and the disc was protruding into her spinal cord. Laura did not want to have surgery and asked about her options. The attending physician responded, “Your back is not stable. We can put you in a brace but you will be paralyzed in less than three months.” Laura requested a second opinion by a neurosurgeon. He agreed that there was no other option but surgery.

The following Monday, Laura underwent a 6-hour back surgery in which two rods and seven screws were placed. She was in severe pain after surgery and although on IV pain medication, it was difficult to keep it controlled. On Tuesday, therapists helped her get out of bed. Moving was painful. She would get light headed and dizzy every time she got out of bed. The pain was always worse at night. “I would cry and cry in pain every night. I hated nighttime,” said Laura. It seemed like the pain was getting worse after surgery. The pain, dizziness and bowel problems continued. The pain medication caused Laura to hallucinate.

After two weeks at U of L, Laura was moved to Frazier Rehab. Here she began to get a sense of independence back. She learned how to get out of bed by herself, how to put on socks and shoes and a bowel program was started. It was determined at Frazier that Laura had suffered a mild traumatic brain injury. She had daily cognitive therapy along with physical and occupational therapy. The therapy made her so tired that she would sleep after every session. Laura was sensitive to noise and movement. The first time her therapist took her outside, she wanted to scream. She covered her face and then her ears with her hands. It was too much stimulation. After two weeks at Frazier, Laura went home.

Wally was able to get time off from work and stay with Laura from the moment she was readmitted to U of L until she was released from Frazier. “My employer let me take off work as much as I needed,” said Wally. “I often felt helpless, but I stayed as much as I could.” Each room at Frazier had an extra bed for a family member. Wally, a friend or family member stayed with her. She was alone only one night during the entire time. Once Laura came home, Wally did the laundry for months because the washer and dryer were in the basement and he helped out with housework more than usually.

Although Rebecca’s injuries did not require surgery, her recovery at home following the accident was difficult and painful. She had bruising up and down her leg and swelling of her arm. The cog from her bicycle left a bruise on her backside. Chris remembers that she did not move very much. She would lie on the couch and sleep a lot. There was not a lot of light in the room and no noise. The TV was never on. Rebecca was very sore and stiff. After about a month, she started therapy. She went through cognitive rehab therapy, physical therapy, saw a neurologist and went to a chiropractor and mental health counselor. She describes herself as tough country girl and a ‘badass’ who has always been able to cope and handle situations on her own, so it is hard turning to others for help.

The accident has been life-changing for Laura, Rebecca and their families. By now, the visible injuries have healed. It is the emotional and physical pain, which no one can see, that they struggle with every day. Rebecca lives with the frustration of others not understanding what she is going through because she looks ok. “People expect I should be normal again but I am not.”

• Rebecca receives 20-30 Botox shots in her head, neck and shoulders every three months. Some headaches are so severe that she has to sit or lie down in a dark, quiet room just to get her “head to calm down.”

• As a result of the brain trauma, she takes daily naps to function, suffers from fatigue, confusion, memory and concentration problems.

• She is irritable, anxious and sensitive to noise and light.

• She has been diagnosed with PTSD.

• She gets angry and frustrated. “The simplest things I used to enjoy from life are now points of deep frustration and pain.”

• She has gained weight, suffers from depression and has noticed changes in her personality.

• She does not have the energy for activities that used to make her happy.

• Being involved in her family’s life is important but she can still only spend a limited amount of time with her niece and nephews.

• Before the accident, Rebecca describes herself as happy, outgoing and fun to be around. She enjoyed socializing. Now, she does not want to be around anyone and is struggling to try to find happy things in life. “She is still not the same. She’s been in a dark place. She’s very reclusive. This accident has taken away her will,” said Chris when asked about how Rebecca had changed since the accident.

• She used to exercise and enjoyed flipping houses.

• Rebecca has tried riding a bike again but is fearful. Chris, who is supportive of Rebecca getting back on a bike, took her and Laura to a parking lot to get them riding again. Rebecca explained that within minutes of getting on a bike, she started vomiting and broke down crying. “No medicine fixes that,” she said.

• Rebecca’s short term memory is severely challenged. She has to write everything down and set reminders on her phone. The cognitive behavior therapist has been helping her to retrain her brain and teach her techniques to cope.

• Rebecca has missed important family events such as her son’s first college visitation and Chris’ Ironman races. She plans events around taking her medicine so that she can function in a reasonable manner.

• There are financial concerns that cause her stress. For eight months, they depended solely on Chris’ income. They have a son in college and debts.

• She has not been able to work a full day since the accident and wonders if she ever will. Rebecca is the Coordinator of Technical Support Services at Lindsey Wilson College. She works Mondays and Tuesdays until 2 or 3 in the afternoon and takes Wednesdays off to recover. She goes back to work Thursdays and Fridays. Chris explained that repetitive tasks naturally come back to her. However, projects out of the norm cause her brain to fatigue. “When she is rested, she is sharp,” said Chris. She keeps the books on their rental properties, communicates with the renters and does taxes. Rebecca worries that her employer is going to fire her for not being able to complete all of her job responsibilities and requirements. Rebecca has not received a full paycheck since the accident because she is unable to work 40 hours a week.

Laura, an RN, went back to work six months after the accident. She returned with limited hours and worked her way back to 40 hours per week in one month. In December 2016, the hardware in her back was removed and she was in the hospital for three days. She returned to work two weeks later and took a different position with her company where she could work from home ninety percent of the time. Laura has a standing desk for work and spends much of the day standing. Previously, she had traveled an average of 800 miles a week as a case manager covering Kentucky and Tennessee. She knew it would be difficult as a result of the accident to return to this position. Her employment opportunities in comparison to what they were before the accident are limited. She would have difficulty working as a nurse in many healthcare settings, especially ones that would require lifting and moving patients.

Her back hurts every single day and she believes that she will continue to deal with it the rest of her life. She is down from seven medications to two now for nerve pain and anxiety. Prior to the accident, she was not on any medication. Due to the side effects of opioid use, she has refused to take any such pain medications. Laura worried that she would get dependent. She manages her pain by stretching, exercising, ice, anti-inflammatories and a TENS unit. TENS is an acronym for transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, which is a therapy that uses low-voltage electrical current for pain relief.

Like Rebecca, she struggles with riding a bike again and is anxious the entire time. She really wants to get back to riding because she thoroughly enjoyed it. Wally worries about Laura’s safety. He is scared the same thing will happen again and would like her to ride on trails or places where there are no cars. The accident has put fear in her unlike any experience before and has become a big part of her life. She had several experiences in the hospital from this injury that were unpleasant and potentially could have been life changing. She made her family promise not to leave her alone and to stay with her while she slept. When leaving Frazier, the nurse advised her to wear a large shirt over her back brace so as not to advertise that she was injured. This could potentially lead people to believe that she was on opioid medication, which could result in someone following her home or breaking into her house. This only added to her overwhelming fear.

In addition, Laura and Wally have dealt with the following:

• They have not been to the movies because Laura does not feel that she could comfortably sit through a movie.

• She and Wally missed their annual vacation last year because she had used all her PTO time for her injuries.

• Wally missed over a month of work between the hospital and medical appointments.

• She has missed two funerals and her nephew’s wedding due to travel distance. When she travels now, even relatively short distances, she has to stop frequently to give her back a break.

• Wally has not ridden his motorcycle as much since Laura got hurt.

• Memory loss and trouble focusing as a result of her traumatic brain injury.

On top of all of the medical issues, the Burress and Schmidt families had to deal with legal issues. Chris reached out to our firm just days after the accident. Megan represented Laura and Rebecca in the civil case and she was able to obtain full limits from all applicable insurance policies. While the civil case resolved quite quickly, the criminal case dragged on until September 12, 2017 when Franklin was finally sentenced.

There was lots of frustration for the families during the criminal case. The Commonwealth’s Attorney, Gail Williams, who was prosecuting the case, did not communicate important information and dates to the families. They were not given adequate time to plan for traveling or time off from work.

The Kentucky Crime Victim Bill of Rights Handbook states that victims shall receive prompt notification, if possible, of judicial proceedings relating to their case. It goes on to say that attorneys for the Commonwealth shall make a reasonable effort to insure that victims and witnesses are notified promptly of any scheduled changes that affect their appearances.

Chris said it was embarrassing and frustrating how the case was being handled. Instead of waiting to hear from William’s office, Chris started calling to get updates and information. “It was always like we were in trouble for asking questions,” said Chris. He ended up filing a complaint against Williams. Wally felt like Williams showed no interest in helping the families and was lazy. Megan stepped in and attempted to act as a liaison between the families and William’s office, and as a guide through the criminal matter. When Megan called Williams to obtain information on their behalf and per their request, he hung up on her. Following this phone call, Williams sent Megan a letter stating that he was refusing to discuss the case any further and would not engage in any further conversations with her.  While he claims he was "more than happy to discuss the case with the victims," in truth, the victims were given the same treatment- radio silence, condescending tones, and last minute demands that they appear in court with no advance preparation or discussion. 

Megan continued to remain closely involved with both families until the conclusion of the case. She had no ulterior motive other than to see that the system properly prosecuted Franklin and held him accountable. The victims wanted to ensure justice against the driver who had caused so much harm and needed someone to represent them. Megan reflects, "It was pure teamwork, and while hard and exhausting at times, we all stayed the course until the end. We just kept pushing until we got information and answers.  How awful to have these victims treated like this by the appointed official elected to represent them."  “Mr. Williams was not serving us. He was serving himself. Megan became our best friend. She’s part of our family. She cared about us as individuals. She made us feel like a family member working on a case for a loved one,” said Chris.

Thankfully, Williams retired from his position during the criminal case. Brian Wright, a new, more determined and involved district attorney stepped in and handled the case until resolution. Chris describes him as more thoughtful, attentive to detail and an excellent communicator ... a polar opposite of Williams.

Since Franklin pleaded guilty to two counts of assault in the second degree (a felon), failure to yield right of way and driving under the influence (both misdemeanors), there was no jury trial. As part of the plea agreement, Franklin had to agree to have his identity used in a bicycle safety awareness video. The video would also include his statement at final sentencing. Mr. Wright recommended a nine-year prison sentence.

At the sentencing, Franklin gave his statement in which he apologized to the victims and asked for forgiveness. What he did not do, was take responsibility for driving under the influence that day. Instead, Franklin stated, “Anybody, anybody that rides bicycles and stuff, I mean people needs to be really careful of them ‘cause they are easy to miss.” Following Franklin’s statement, Mr. Wright faulted Franklin for misconstruing the cause of the accident and emphasized that it is not that bicyclists are hard to see on the roadway; it’s that people should not be driving after using cocaine and taking Percocet because it puts everyone in danger. Chris did not feel like it was a heartfelt, sincere apology. Franklin’s words were empty.

Laura and Rebecca were able to address the court during the sentencing hearing. Laura spoke first and read her victim impact statement. “Before the accident, I was active, independent and confident. I ran, swam, biked and worked out at least five days a week. My activity level has changed dramatically because I currently am unable to do the things I once did.” She went on to say, “I have had to learn how to ask for help and accept assistance with things I used to do on my own.” She asked the judge to consider the pain and suffering that she had been through and to remember that the pain was not over.

Chris read his wife’s statement. Rebecca was not able to tell her side of the story herself in court that day because the stress, anxiety and emotions connected with the accident would have gotten her too upset to speak. In her statement, she expressed that her life would never be the same because of Franklin but that she was learning ways to adjust. “It’s sad. I have to adjust my life because of you, because you have problems with drinking, drugs and other things. If you don’t think you have a problem, please look at your list of convictions.” She hopes that Franklin never gets to drive again because his recklessness almost took away two lives. In her final question to Franklin, she asked whether he planned on being part of the solution or whether he would continue being part of the problem.

The court followed the recommendation of the Commonwealth and sentenced Franklin to nine years. Due to the seriousness of the event, probation was denied. Franklin received credit on his sentence since he had already served one year in jail. He is eligible for parole in February 2018.

As the families try to move forward, Chris encourages Rebecca to remain positive. He leaves her thoughtful notes and flowers and even set up a bike on a trainer in the house for her. He reminds her how fortunate they are and kisses and hugs her every day.

Laura and Rebecca do talk about the accident. Sometimes they laugh, sometimes they cry. Rebecca bounces questions off of Laura since she is a nurse. Rebecca says they are both pretty positive and glad they made it out alive.

Did Franklin receive his just sentence?

Rebecca has mixed emotions. “I am a badass but tender hearted too.” He had so many prior convictions that he should not have been on the road. As for Chris, he is pleased that the judge chose the maximum sentence. He also believes in grace in the world and said that if our system says that this is the penalty, then grace should be allowed. He hopes that Franklin changes for the best.

What advice do they have for motorists and bicyclists?

• Motorists need to slow down and share the road.

• Don’t drive distracted. Pay attention while driving.

• Bicyclists should do what they can to be safe and follow road rules.

• Life is too short. There is no reason for motorists and cyclists to hate each other. We can share the road.

• Act friendly and thoughtful.

• Choose roads that are less traveled.

Laura has a final piece of advice; if it’s something you enjoy, don’t give it up. Don’t let fear keep you from riding, myself included. I want to enjoy riding again!

Cheryl's Story: Conquering fears and inspiring others!

We first met Cheryl in 2012. She was hit by a car while riding her bike, and she hired our firm to represent her.  Following the close of her case, she joined our cycling team, and began racing road races and criteriums.  Unfortunately, she suffered a bad crash last season during a race, and her injuries prompted surgery and a lengthy recovery.

Cheryl is the consummate ambassador, teammate, friend, and source of inspiration.  She reminds us that we can let setbacks keep us down, or we can fight back and turn them into sources of motivation and fuel for our fire- in whatever endeavor we pursue.  Please - enjoy her story!

*With huge thanks to Cheryl, Justin Balog, and the Dirty Kanza! (Click on the image below to enjoy the video!).

Cheryl was hit by a car and injured. Then she healed, tackled bike races, and was injured again. Dirty Kanza provided her the perfect come-back story and goal- watch this, and be inspired.

Driver Caught on Dash Cam Gets Deal, "Because Cyclist Was Riding in CrossWalk"

On Saturday, October 15, 2016, at 5:31pm, K.B. and her fiancé were riding bikes in Littleton, near Bowles on the bike path, when they entered a crosswalk.  K.B.’s fiance's bike had a Burly attached, in which their 2-year old child was riding.  K.B. was just behind, following her fiancé and their child in the crosswalk, on a green light/walking signal, with ample crossing time remaining on the digital signal.  Without warning, K.B. was hit by a car. 

The car was in the left-hand turn lane, with a green light.  When it was clear, it accelerated into the crosswalk and t-boned K.B. on her bike.  Notably in this case, another car that sat in the turn lane had its dash cam running, capturing the entire event.  You can hear that driver anticipate what’s about to happen – yet, for some reason the turning motorist never noticed K.B. or her family on their bikes, until it was too late. 

Dash cam footage (forward to 3min in...warning- it's not easy to warch this): 

The motorist was cited by Littleton P.D. for failure to yield right-of-way to pedestrian under violation code 802(1), which is a Class A Traffic Infraction.  A summons was issued for the driver to appear in Littleton Municipal Court.  We contacted the City Attorney (CA) ahead of time and implored her not to offer a plea deal in this case.   Her proposal was to drop the charge to a defective vehicle charge.  We asked that she not do that, given the factual situation, the video showing clear negligence (and failure to yield) by the motorist, the injuries K.B. suffered, and the very real fact that one or two seconds earlier, the car would’ve hit the Burly with the child instead. 

Communication quickly broke down with the City Attorney, who insisted this is how her office “always handles cases like this.”  I informed her that I would be sure to notify the cycling community that this is Littleton's approach to these cycling crashes.  (i.e., this blog, and honorable mention in my cycling education classes).  The City Attorney then spoke with my client directly and criticized my professionalism.  (Yes, you read that right).  We appeared several times in Court; on one occasion appearing, only to learn the case had been rescheduled and no one had bothered to tell us:

Instagram Venting.

Keep in mind K.B. is the victim here.  Yet, she began to feel as though she was the accused, by the way she and her case were being handled.  Curiously, the City Attorney wanted nothing to do with the dash cam footage – although this would have made her case very easy to prove to a jury, she minimized its importance.  She brushed it aside.

At the eventual sentencing hearing for the driver (mid-February!), we learned that in fact, yes, the City Attorney HAD offered the driver a lesser charge in exchange for the plea.  K.B. and I were not informed of this, despite our asking the CA repeatedly what her plan was, and despite our requests that she not reduce the charges, and if necessary, take this case to trial.  (While not technically a Victim Rights Case, DAs and CAs typically involve my clients / my office in these decisions given the severity of the injuries).  At the hearing, the Judge asked to see the dash cam footage and did review it several times on K.B.’s phone.  He seemed apologetic in light of its clear showing of failure to yield to pedestrians/cyclists in the crosswalk, but his hands were tied with this minimal charge/plea agreement.  (We were seeking community service as part of the sentence of the driver-the Judge declined to order it based on the plea agreement reached between the driver and the CA).  The CA then began criticizing K.B. for riding in the crosswalk.  Suddenly she, as the City Attorney, who is tasked with pursuing charges written by law enforcement – argued that the victim of this collision was riding illegally in the crosswalk.  It begs the question: Is this how Littleton feels about its cyclists?   

Let's address the CA's statements to the Court, shall we?  Her representation of the law to the Judge is simply incorrect. 

First- C.R.S. 42-4-1412, does NOT prohibit sidewalk or crosswalk riding, nor does it require dismounting at crosswalks.  The State Law indicates that these behaviors are prohibited/required only where required by local ordinance (i.e. city ordinance) or traffic device (i.e. signage).  In pertinent part, the statute reads,

(10)(a) A person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or pathway or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian. A person riding a bicycle in a crosswalk shall do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians.

(b) A person shall not ride a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or pathway or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk where such use of bicycles or electrical assisted bicycles is prohibited by official traffic control devices or local ordinances. A person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle shall dismount before entering any crosswalk where required by official traffic control devices or local ordinances.

(c) A person riding or walking a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or pathway or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances, including, but not limited to, the rights and duties granted and required by section 42-4-802.

 So –let’s investigate whether the City of Littleton in fact has an ordinance that requires cyclists to dismount?  (Answer: no). The City has adopted the Model Traffic Code.  You can review this on our website here.  The only new/additional sections added by the Littleton City Council to their ordinances, beyond the Model Traffic Code, are posted here.  Of note, one of the ONLY additions concerning bikes in their code, is the one that addresses BIKEWAYS:

9-1-7: BIKEWAYS:

(A) Bikeways Created: Public streets and rights of way or portions thereof may be designated as bikeways. When marked by paint striping, reflective buttons, no parking signs, bikeway signs, or other traffic devices or signs, the portions so marked shall not be used for driving, parking, stopping, standing or turning of motorized vehicles of any kind; and bicycles operated on said streets shall be operated only within the bikeway portions so designated. The City administration shall determine the location of bikeways and the appropriate type of marking on each street or right of way based upon good traffic engineering practice. (Ord. 13, Series of 1985)

(B) Operation Of Motor Vehicles When Necessary To Cross Bikeways: It is recognized that upon occasion such as making of right turn movements, entering driveways and the like, it will be necessary for operators of motor vehicles to drive across designated bikeways, but in such instances the required movements shall be made by the operator of the motor vehicle remaining in the bikeway for as short a distance as possible, and he shall enter the bikeway only after taking due care to ascertain that his movement will not endanger bicycles being operated therein. (1971 Code, sec. 15.21)

In sum, I’m left scratching my head trying to figure out why this City Attorney believed that my client (a) should not have been riding in a crosswalk (which comes off a bike path and re-enters a bike path), and (b) should have dismounted and walked her bike across the crosswalk. 

And in short, this means those “mitigating factors” the CA argued to the Court, were misrepresentations of both State and City law, to the detriment of my client and her case.

My client stood in that courtroom, mouth agape - having been hit by a car while riding legally - she was now being accused of bringing the collision on herself by riding in a crosswalk in broad daylight with her family.  She was on the defensive, having to explain her behavior that day. 

Result: charge ultimately entered: “unsafe vehicle.”  Fines: $391.75.  Our request for community service was denied, based on the plea agreement reached.  However, the judge did order the driver to attend a defense driving school course. 

K.B. spent the time and energy to attend a handful of court settings in this matter from October through February.  She left this process with a very bad taste in her mouth for how it was handled (as you can probably imagine).  You can review/view the entire sentencing hearing here: 

Drunk Driver Hits Cyclist From Behind, Flees Scene - Insurer Asserts Comparative Negligence Defense

On June 9, 2015, Brandon was out for a bike ride.  Having recently moved to Colorado, this was one of his first few rides in the Littleton area.  It was just before 6pm, and he was on his way back home. 

Without warning, Brandon was hit from behind by a motorist, and thrown off his bike into the street. His head, face, hands and knees were bleeding badly.  Despite his obvious injuries, the motorist fled the scene.  Brandon recalls none of this- as his next/first memory was waking up in the emergency room, where he’d been transported by ambulance.

Luckily, a passerby witnessed the event and caught the license plate number of the fleeing motorist.  Police were called and located the driver in her home about an hour after the collision.  She was drinking Schnapps...  The officers conducted a Blood Alcohol Test (BAC). 

We later learned that the motorist worked for police and fire dispatch.  It is believed she thought that if she began drinking at home, perhaps the BAC could not conclusively prove she had been drinking at the time of the crash.  However, when results came back showing her BAC was .317, her theory fell apart.  This level of intoxication meant that she either drank to near-deathly levels in that one hour, or more realistically, she had been drinking before the crash, was intoxicated at the time she hit Brandon, and then continued drinking once home. 

Hit a human.  Leave.  Run home and start slamming shots?  Say what?

The driver was cited with numerous violations.  During the pendency of her criminal case, we learned that her versions of what happened varied drastically;  from, “I thought I hit a pothole,” to “A cyclist darted in front of my car,” to “The Arby’s fell off my passenger seat onto the floor and I reached down to pick it up.” Suffice it to say, these explanations all fell short of accepting responsibility.

Meanwhile, Brandon had hired our office to represent him, and we had begun the process of pursuing the motorist’s insurance – State Farm (SF)–for his injuries and claims.  As in our last blog post, SF’s initial settlement offer was grossly inadequate in light of his injuries, as well as in light of their insured’s/the motorist’s conduct.  At our urging they increased their offers, minimally, $5000 at a time, though ultimately still way outside the realm of possible settlement value.  This, despite their insured’s guilty plea in the traffic/criminal case...  SF seemed to think that they did not owe my client adequate compensation. So, we filed suit.   

In Colorado, when someone commits negligence, but also does so with exacerbating factors, (or what we like to call, willful and wanton conduct), a Plaintiff is permitted to seek leave from the Court to add an additional claim for punitive damages (C.R.S. 13-1-102).  Punitive damages are not based on any damages or claims that the Plaintiff incurred – they are solely intended to punish someone for their misconduct.  A jury may award any amount it chooses for punitive damages – it is solely intended to punish someone with a large monetary verdict.  In Colorado, insurers don’t eventually pay a punitive jury award – the actual wrongdoer does.  Here, our plan was to amend our Complaint to add a claim for punitives, to allow the jury to punish the driver for her conduct with – we hoped – a large monetary sanction. 

However, before we got to this juncture, we noted the content of the Answer filed by State Farm’s defense counsel.  In it, State Farm, on behalf of its insured/at-fault driver, asserted some curious affirmative defenses, including one that claimed Brandon contributed to the collision:

"The proximate cause of Plaintiff's claimed damages and/or injuries, if any, may have been Plaintiff's comparative negligence, which conduct either bars or reduces Plaintiff's recovery, if any, in accordance with Colorado's Comparative Negligence Statute.  C.R.S. 13-21-111 (2015)." 

SF also claimed that it must’ve been someone else that caused Brandon's injuries and damages:

“The proximate cause of Plaintiff’s claimed damages and/or injuries, if any, may have been the act or omissions of a third party or parties whom Defendant has no control, to whom Defendant has no relationship, and for whom Defendant is not legally responsible.”

Interesting.  

Now in the practice of defending law suits, it is fairly common for the Defendant’s Answer to contain some boilerplate language, as well as boilerplate affirmative defenses.  However, under the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, "The signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation."  (C.R.C.P. Rule 11(a)).

Keep in mind that by the time the Answer was filed, the motorist had pled guilty in the criminal case to charges resulting from her careless driving causing injury, her fleeing the scene, and her driving while intoxicated.  While the burdens of proof are different in the criminal and the civil cases, and her plea of guilty in the criminal case would not per se be admissible in Brandon's civil case, her attorneys knew that she had confessed to her actions.  They knew, because we’d provided them the transcript of her sentencing hearing... Where I was present, as was Brandon and his wife and their young son. 

Imagine our surprise then, to see SF take this approach in litigation.  We could not wait to see what they claimed Brandon did, to contribute to him being hit from behind by their drunk driver!  We found this conduct very curious – that the defendant and her counsel would deny her responsibility and negligence, in this pleading filed with the Court.  We wanted very much for the jury in this case to hear about her denials and to compare that to the testimony of the bystander who witnessed the collision, and the testimony of the law enforcement officers who visited her home shortly after.  We wanted the jury to compare her denials of fault with her legally-documented intoxication.  What a trial this would be! 

SF counsel by filing such an Answer, had placed its insured in a very precarious position: punitive damages would not be paid by SF, nor could their insured discharge them in bankruptcy.  If we went to trial and got a large punitive award, this Judgment would follow (and likely financially cripple) the driver for life.  And Jeffco juries are known to punish people who do things like this with large punitive verdicts.  Imagine the jurors' response to hearing that the Answer and legal position adopted by the driver and her counsel, was that Brandon had done something to contribute to this collision!  SF had exposed its insured to this very real possibility, with the Answer it filed.  It made statements in the Answer that arguably violated Colorado Rules regarding pleadings and implicated sanctions. 

We pointed out this interesting scenario to the lawyers at SF.  The case settled shortly thereafter, for the amount we demanded pre-suit.

Boilerplate language in a Defendant’s Answer given these facts, was a game changer.  Moral of the story: while multi-billion dollar insurance companies may have large, well-staffed law firms and attorneys at their disposal, failure to pay attention to the actual issues can be devastating.  This is why our firm controls (carefully!) our caseload, and this is why we read Answers and affirmative defenses carefully, and show up at sentencing hearings.  Bottom line: we won’t allow our injured clients to be bullied.  To have a driver drink, hit a cyclist from behind and flee the scene, and then to have the audacity to respond in an Answer that he was in ANY WAY at fault or a contributing factor, is offensive. Sometimes a case resembles a really hard bike ride: It's a slog to the top of the climb, but hanging in there, and continuing to work hard, does pay off.  Once again we had a tenacious client, who was not desperate to settle, and who was game to take this case all the way to trial. It takes courage and fortitude- as I've discussed in previous blog posts.  

Now, what about that driver?  What happened to her?  The day of her sentencing hearing in Judge Enquist’s courtroom (Jeffco) was the Monday following a Friday hearing, in which a young man who’d been drinking, drove up Lookout Mountain on the wrong side of the road and caused cyclist Tom Flanigan’s death.  There, Judge Enquist had sentenced the driver to the max allowed under the terms of his plea: 10 years in the Department of Corrections (DOC).  Now, 3 days later, Judge Enquist was again hearing facts of a drunk driver hitting a cyclist.  She was beyond furious.  Under the terms of the plea reached with the District Attorney’s office, the Judge sentenced this driver to six years - the max she could order under the plea.  Counsel for the Defendant asked for a stay of execution (a few days’ time) so that the driver could get her affairs in order.  The Judge said no – she was remanded immediately and began serving her sentence that day.  Of the 6 year sentence, she will likely only serve 12-15 months total. 

Did we want to see this mother and wife sit in a jail cell?  Did it make Brandon and his wife happy, or feel any better?  Did it feel like justice?  Of course not.  We all wish this had never happened and that this woman had not chosen to drink, drive, hit a cyclist and then intentionally flee the scene.  It impacted everyone's life in a negative way.  Situations like this are exactly the reason why Colorado bike advocates worked with the legislature to make the hit-and-run statute penalties stiffer: because if someone "accidentally hits a cyclist," that’s bad enough, but if they intentionally leave the scene and EMS is not immediately summoned to care for the cyclist, they may (and often do) die from their injuries.   Leaving the scene of a bike crash is an act that deserves to be punished harshly. 

If you’d like to read the sentencing hearing transcript: 

Trial Victory: Denver District Court

On April 4, 2013, D.K. was out riding his bike…straight ahead, in broad daylight, in a bike lane, at well below the speed limit (uphill, in fact).  He had no traffic control device ahead, just the wide open road, as he made his way back towards home following a hospital visit to a friend. 

At a road perpendicular to the one D.K was on, a man sat in his pickup truck, stopped at a stop sign.  D.K., a very experienced cyclist, and law enforcement official as well, glanced at the truck, noted it was stopped, and continued riding. 

Suddenly and without warning, the truck left the stop sign, and t-boned D.K., striking him on his side, causing him to land on the ground.  Immediately, the driver apologized, said he did not see D.K., and that he was at fault for leaving the stop sign and hitting D.K. with his truck.  In fact, the driver, Mr. H., was kind enough to load up D.K.’s bike (damaged and not capable of riding) into his truck bed, and he gave D.K. a ride home.  The driver was so remorseful and felt terribly.  The two stayed in touch, with the driver calling now and then to check on D.K.

D.K. experienced shoulder pain, knee pain and foot pain right away.  He did not feel it warranted a visit to the E.R.  Instead, he made an appointment with his ortho doc (a doc who’d treated him previously for knee issues) at Panorama Orthopedics.  He also saw this doctor for his shoulder injuries, and he visited his Podiatrist for his foot injuries.  Over the course of the next three years, D.K. tried PT, injections, and conservative treatment to heal his injuries.  The two primary ones that persisted were in his foot and shoulder.  Eventually, he required foot surgery and shoulder surgery.  He faces surgery to the other shoulder in the near future. 

Now, D.K. believed, as many people do, that the driver’s insurance company, State Farm (SF), would be reasonable and would work with him on the resolution of his claims.  He negotiated a settlement with them for his damaged bike (which they retrieved from him), and he kept them informed as his medical treatment progressed.  Finally as the end of his three-year Statute of Limitations (SOL) neared, he tried to resolve his bodily injury claims with SF and realized that they had absolutely no interest in being reasonable. 

He contacted our office approximately 6 months before his SOL ran.  In order to preserve his claims, we sent an offer of settlement to SF, to try and resolve the case outside of litigation.  Imagine our joint surprise when they offered a paltry $8,000.  This, when their own driver admitted 100% fault, and where D.K.’s medical expenses at that time exceeded $30,000.  We filed suit. 

During the discovery phase of litigation, depositions were taken.  Again, the driver admitted 100% fault and said there was absolutely nothing D.K. did to contribute to the collision, nor was there anything he could have done to avoid it.  During litigation, D.K.’s shoulder injury and pain deteriorated to such a point that he had to undergo shoulder surgery, which added to his medical bills, and also resulted in several weeks of lost income.  Despite these actual economic damages, SF advanced an offer that was less than 1/3 of his bills and wages.  The case was set for trial. 

Insurance companies will usually file what’s called a “statutory offer of settlement” in situations like this, which means they make a formal offer, which is good for 2 weeks, and if not accepted, it automatically expires.  The bigger effect of this action is that the burden is now on the Plaintiff (and his counsel) to obtain a jury verdict above that amount.  As such, if the jury comes back with a verdict at that offer amount or below, the Plaintiff can be held accountable to pay the defense trial costs.  This can include defense expert fees, such as doctor’s time and deposition costs, and more.  On average, these costs range from $20,000- $25,000.  As you might expect, it has the (intended) effect of placing immense financial pressure on a Plaintiff who is gearing up for trial; as not only is a jury hard to predict, but if the jury comes back at a low number, the Plaintiff can technically “win” the trial, but still end up paying through the nose for defense trial costs. 

Needless to say, the weeks before trial as a Plaintiff, and as a Plaintiff’s attorney, are incredibly stressful.  As trial approaches, the risks of an unknown jury verdict become very real.  It is truly an “all hands on deck” approach to being as prepared as possible. 

Sadly in this case, in the two weeks prior to trial, D.K.’s elderly and ailing mother passed away.  He had difficulty processing all of the emotions, feelings and stressors in his life – while still recovering from his shoulder surgery and being out of work.  It was truly a testament to his moxy and fortitude that he was able to focus and stay in the game as we went to trial. 

Trial was held in Denver District Court at the end of March.  The pro-cyclist jurors were stricken from the panel, as were the anti-cyclist jurors.  We were left – as is usually the case – with a neutral and somewhat unknown jury.  As the trial unfolded, we felt our case gaining momentum.  This became particularly so, when the defense called its client (its State Farm insured) to the stand.  Once again, the driver said he was 100% at fault, and really the only way for D.K. to have avoided the collision would have been to not ride his bike that day or to have taken another route.  Incredibly, defense counsel seemed to argue with his own client/insured, as he insisted that, “well, shouldn’t the cyclist have made eye contact with you?  Don’t you think he was foolish for assuming you’d seen him?  Don’t you think cyclists have a duty to be careful, too?”  To which, the driver repeatedly insisted that he was the sole cause of the collision.  (Keep in mind, State Farm’s answer and position the entire time, was that D.K. had contributed/caused the collision, and they wanted the judge to ask the jury to apportion fault on this issue). 

At this point the jury was clearly frustrated that the issue of fault was being beaten to death.  (We were too).  Sadly outside of the jury’s presence, the judge did ask defense counsel for any proof whatsoever that D.K. had contributed in any way to the collision, and defense counsel again asserted the issue of “Failure to make eye contact.”  The judge correctly pointed out that this was not a legal requirement and finally – for the first time in the 4 years since the crash - put the issue of fault to rest.  The Jury would be tasked only with determining damages. 

As part of their case in chief, defense also called their hired doctor, a physiatrist, to testify that none of our client’s injuries were related to the crash, and that neither surgery was necessitated by the crash.  His position was that our client – a man in his early 60s, who is an active cyclist, swimmer and law enforcement officer – led an active life that caused degeneration in his feet and shoulders.  The jury told us afterwards his testimony was totally disregarded because his positions were so outlandish.  Meanwhile, we called D.K.’s shoulder and foot surgeons to explain the injuries, their causation, and the need for the surgeries. 

In the end, the jury returned a verdict for a large portion of our client’s medical bills and lost wages.  They discounted some of them given the large lapses in time and medical care, which we knew going in was one of our biggest hurdles.  Then again, don’t patients trust their doctors?   If our doctors say, “rest, give it time, give the injections a chance to work, stop swimming, stop riding, stop doing pushups, ice, rest and give it more time,” don’t we typically trust our doctors?  D.K. certainly did. 

Ultimately, D.K. and his wife had several very hard decisions to make, going into litigation and going into trial.  Insured by State Farm themselves, they could not believe an insurance company with a driver/insured claiming total fault, would take such a defensive, denial stance.  D.K. and his wife kept hoping State Farm would do the right thing.  These are honest, hard working people who have saved to eventually retire.  They did not want to gamble their savings on having to possibly pay defense trial costs!  Yet this is the leverage disparity that injured parties find themselves facing when they decide to fight back.  It truly does feel more like a David and Goliath situation than it does a fair judicial fight. 

The final numbers were that D.K.’s verdict was approximately $100,000 above the best offer advanced before trial by State Farm.  Even more so, the defense doctor was exposed for what he is – hired testimony.  He earns millions each year providing “medical opinions” for the insurance industry.  One can only cringe and imagine how many deserving Plaintiffs his testimony has caused to be short-changed or even left hung out to dry with no recovery.  We hope that future juries will disregard him as ours did.

My hat is off to my client D.K. and his wife.  It takes an immense amount of courage to take on the system and a giant like State Farm, as they did.  We asked them to “Trust us” and of course we did all that was in our power to ensure a victory, but every lawyer will tell you that juries are loose cannons and one never knows what they will do during deliberations.  We certainly cannot ever promise a client a “sure victory.”  There is no such thing.  In this case though, our client was served well by the jury and by the process.  We are thankful and grateful for this outcome, and for the opportunity to serve him and his wife – two amazing, incredible humans. 

From L: Co-Counsel Rich Kaudy, Megan Hottman, D.K., and co-counsel Cajardo Lindsey. #TeamWorkMakesTheDreamWork

Denver City Attny: 'Our Policy is to Plead 4pt Careless Charge to a 2Point Violation in bike cases'

On November 11, 2016, our client Brian Starling was riding his bike near S. Ulster Street and E. Technology Way in Denver, when a motorist hit him from behind (the police report described it as a “rear-end” impact).  The motorist told Denver PD, “the sun was in my eyes, I had no idea what I hit.  I thought it was a traffic cone. I pulled over to look at my car and that’s when I noticed the cyclist on the ground.”

The motorist was cited (appropriately, I might add –thanks to Denver PD) for careless driving – a four point violation which typically carries fines, the chance for restitution for the victim, (and in some cases we’ve handled, judges have used this charge and ensuing guilty plea to order community service, ranging from 24 hours to 125 hours).  Did I mention it’s JUST 4-points? 

 Denver Traffic Court handled the driver’s ticket.  Prior to the Court date, both my office and my client contacted the City Attorney handling the matter, Linda Lincoln.  She advised us that Denver City Attorney office policy is to “always plead these 4-point careless bicycling cases to a 2-point violation” and that Brian was welcome to attend the hearing so he could give his victim impact statement to the court before the court determined sentence. She also indicated, strangely, that she would not be present at night court.  Hmm.

In Brian’s words,

“When I spoke to Linda, she started off by saying, "I know you are probably upset, but this is the standard plea that we offer in these situations and any judge will accept this. I will not be in court tomorrow night, but you may show up and request that the court not accept the plea."

So – at 6pm, Brian went to Denver Traffic Court with his statement in hand, anxious to speak to the Court and to make his record about the way this collision affected him mentally, emotionally, and physically, as well as the ramifications it had on his family. 

Sadly – at court, Brian was prevented from speaking.  The court clerk told him he would not be heard, and Brian was left with no choice but to sit and observe as the case was called, pled down to a meaningless 2 point fine, and closed out.  The ultimate charge was a “failure to signal for turns,” a 2 point violation which resulted in a fine of just $176.

Brian recalls the conversation with the court clerk as follows:

 “Last night when I showed up and spoke to the clerk, he looked at my like he had no clue what I was talking about and said "I don't know if they'll let you speak, but wait until they call his name and I will see what I can do." I then waited for about 30-45 minutes to speak. Once the judge called his name, I walked to the front and stood by the clerk waiting for him to act. As the clerk continued to ignore me, this is our exchange:

Me: "Hey, shouldn't I be talking right now?"

Court Clerk: "I told you I can't guarantee that you will be able to speak."

Me: "I spoke to the city attorney about this yesterday and she advised me to show up and request that the court not accept the plea."

Clerk: "The city attorney doesn't come to night court."

Me: "I understand that, but she told me that I can request that the court not accept the plea."

Clerk: "This is an arraignment, we can not tell a person that they can not enter a plea."

Needless to say, Brian and I were stunned with the way the City of Denver City Attorney’s office handled this case, and of course outraged that the Court disallowed Brian from speaking.  That a victim would be invited to attend the hearing and then prevented from speaking, is unconscionable.  Talk about re-victimizing someone.

... Had he been given the chance, here is the statement Brian would have made to the Court:

In Mid-November I was hit by a car while riding my bicycle to work. The driver, Ben ____, hit me just 200 feet after the intersection where he turned onto the road I had been travelling and managed to reach a speed of 25 miles per hour despite the fact that he said the sun was blinding him to where he could not see the road in front of him. I was rushed to the ER in an ambulance and the dents on my helmet from hitting a tree stump are signs that this was a time when wearing my helmet could have saved my life. This man who acted so carelessly could not even be bothered to help me off the ground, and instead used our unfortunate time together to blurt out a myriad of excuses for his terrible decision-making.

When my wife, who is 25 weeks pregnant, and I hired our attorney to represent us in this legal matter, we made the assumption that as a citizen protected by a right to share the road peacefully with cars, that justice would be served for my endurance of doctors, appointments, time missed from work, and physical pain from this careless driver’s actions. Until I got word that a 4 point infraction was being lowered to a pathetic 2 point infraction in a plea deal against this driver’s license by the city attorney, who seems both unwilling and uncaring in doing her duty in protecting victims, I was steadfast in my confidence in my city to protect my right to be a citizen cyclist by taking a stance against careless driving. Shockingly, I was wrong.

From the outside looking in, it would appear this city is doing a lot to further cycling rights by adding bike lane mileage, and ensuring that most roads have shared road markers. However, it is in these secretive, almost fly-by-night proceedings that the city makes its true feelings known towards cyclists: that if you are a victim, you cannot depend on justice. That if you are injured by a careless driver, you cannot even count on the faintest hint of punitive action taken. The two point infraction you are levying against this driver is on par with the punishment for failing to use a turn signal. According to the city attorney, my well-being and safety is second rate to a careless driver’s. My suffering means less than his freedom to drive recklessly.

I strongly feel that the city attorney should be ashamed for lowering an already paltry infraction, when she should instead be furthering victim’s rights, making sure their voice is heard and that punitive action is taken against those who deserve it. From the outset, my attorney and I have not sought jail time, we have not sought any penalty that is egregious in any way. However, this driver deserves community service – a time to give back to his community and reflect on his actions when he has taken my safety and sense of peace when biking from me and others who will see this paltry infraction and fear for their own well-being on the road with cars.

I will spend my last words reminding this court and this careless driver that his failure to use common sense when driving almost cost my wife her husband, and our baby its father. Mere inches saved my life. I hope both the city attorney, the judge, and the driver in this case will spend quality time thinking about what I have just stated. As a forgiving person, I certainly hope you never have to encounter the extreme injustice served for me, my wife and our baby today.

Additionally maddening, Brian was prevented from requesting that the Judge hold the case open for restitution pending the outcome of the civil matter/settlement. If the driver’s insurer refuses to pay all of Brian’s damages, he would legally be entitled to seek the remaining out-of-pocket expenses from the driver directly as part of a restitution order in the criminal/traffic case.

If you are a cyclist who lives in Denver and you find this disappointing, please consider the following information:

The City Attorney who handled this matter:

Linda Lincoln

linda.lincoln@denvergov.org

720-913-8081

CA Code Enforcement

Fax: 720-913-8010

The Judge who oversees the traffic court judges is Presiding Judge Marcucci -his info is here: https://www.denvercountycourt.org/honorable-john-marcucci/

We believe it was Judge Callum who heard the case, however it seems to have been the court clerk who made the error in disallowing Brian to speak.

Their contact ph # is here : https://www.denvercountycourt.org/judicial-information/

Or see also: https://www.denvercountycourt.org/judicial-discipline/  ::: 

"Contact the Denver County Court Judicial Discipline Commission, 1437 Bannock Street, Room 108, Denver, CO 80202 (Telephone 720-865-7870) regarding the conduct of Denver County Court Judges or Magistrates.  Complaints regarding the conduct of other County or District Court Judges are handled by the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline." 

Glitch In The System

I posted this to our law firm FB page yesterday (2/23/16) and already, it's received 1,562 views and numerous comments.  I will keep sharing information like this so that people (advocacy groups, policy makers, law enforcement, district/city attorneys, judges, to name a few) understand that once we get Law enforcement citing drivers appropriately (as was done here) we need City and District Attorneys to stick to those charges rather than pleading them down to worthless nothing-ness AND we need judges to render adequate sentences on those charges.  

This is another concerning instance in which the collision was dismissively treated as "just an unfortunate accident."  The driver suffered one driving point and a $174 fine.  

******************************************************************************************************

Broomfield residents/cyclists take note - this is the official position of The Broomfield City and County Attorney-- in response to my complaint that when my cyclist/client was struck by a motorist -and the motorist was appropriately cited with careless driving causing injury by Broomfield Police Department - at the court hearing, the City Attorney decided to give the driver a reduced charge of "defective headlamp" (a 1 point violation with minor fine) and deprived my client of the chance to speak/be present at sentencing AND deprived her of any shot at restitution (often needed if the driver's insurance isn't enough)...

I understand charges and their associated points and penalties was a topic of discussion at the Bicycle Colorado Colorado Bike Summit this year and my commentary remains the same - if DAs and CAs are going to plead down a 4 point to a meaningless 1 point violation, it DOES NOT MATTER what the legislature does to the careless driving causing injury statute.

MORAL OF THE STORY BELOW: so long as the driver has a clean record and stays at the scene and shows remorse, and so long as they have insurance (whether it pays or pays adequately being irrelevant, apparently) then the driver deserves to get off with a puny fine and 1 point violation.

Cyclist: she is a US Veteran - and yes, she suffered severe injury in this collision.

**************************

"Dear Ms. Hottman,

Mr. Frundt forwarded to me your email concerning our office’s disposition of Broomfield Municipal Court case 15T804679 People vs. Mr. ____. Cases are evaluated and pleas determined on an individual basis. Like all prosecutors, lawyers in the City and County Attorney’s Office are invested with prosecutorial discretion as to how a case should be handled.

In review of case 15T804679 the following facts were considered:

- The age and driving record of the individual cited. Mr. ____ is 79 years old and has not had a traffic ticket in 11 years.

- The circumstances contributing to the accident. This was a collision which occurred at a four way stop sign after all parties had made a complete stop. The estimated speed of the vehicle at impact was 5-10 mph. Mr. ____ entered the intersection headed west at approximately 4:15pm on November 2, 2015. Ms. ___ (cyclist) was crossing the intersection on her bicycle from the south to the north. The accident report indicated the weather was clear. Sunset on November 2, 2015 occurred at 4:57pm indicating the sun was likely a contributing factor. 

- The behavior of the parties immediately following the accident. All reports indicate Mr. ____ immediately stopped to assist Ms. ____ and was cooperative in the investigation.

- The availability of liability insurance for the motorist. Mr. _____ had valid insurance at the time of the accident with Twin City Fire expiring on 3/14/2016.

- The injuries to the parties. My understanding is that Ms. _____ broke her leg as a result of the accident.

Although these factors can be weighed differently, I have spoken with Mr. Frundt and believe that appropriate thought and consideration was given to all of the facts and circumstances when the plea disposition was determined.

In motor vehicle accident cases where the cited driver has valid liability insurance, Broomfield’s practice is not to notify the other parties unless the matter is set for trial. As you have correctly stated, careless driving resulting in bodily injury is not a victim’s right case and the law does not require the prosecuting attorney to notify other parties. I believe that our current practices strike an appropriate balance between providing individual attention to the criminal component of each case while maintaining the efficiencies necessary for a court that handles over 5000 cases a year.

With respect to restitution, while you may disagree with the decision, the prosecutor did not seek restitution because there was a policy of insurance in place to compensate the victim. If you and your client felt that the insurance company was not adequately compensating your client for her damages, the civil courts are available to resolve that disagreement. I have evaluated and considered the information you provided, but at this time our office is not inclined to reopen the case. Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.

Sincerely,

Bill Tuthill

City and County Attorney"

btuthill@broomfield.org