HikeArizona.COM

No comment necessary...

Pima OKs $1M for kin of victim in ATV crash
By Andrea Kelly
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 09.02.2009

Pima County has agreed to pay $1 million to the family of a man who died after he hit a washed-out section of Redington Road on an all-terrain vehicle three years ago. The Pima County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the settlement Tuesday. Gary L. Gardella, 53, was riding on Redington Road with a friend when they hit the washed-out section in August 2006. The crash followed massive flooding throughout Pima County from storms in late July.

Gardella, who was thrown from his ATV when it slid off the road and into the ditch, was not wearing a helmet and died at the scene, according to Arizona Daily Star archives. The settlement is a relief for the close-knit family, which was traumatized by the accident, said Jim Marner, the family's lawyer. The kids were all younger than 20 when Gardella died, he said.

Gardella was driving below the advisory speed limit and was not being reckless, Marner said. The road had been closed after the flooding from monsoon storms in late July, Marner said. It had been reopened by the time Gardella was using it, which is why the county should have known the road was in bad shape. "You have an expectancy that the county, if they're going to maintain the roads, there won't be a hole there that's 4 feet deep that's going to kill you," Marner said.

Gardella's wife, Susan, and his three kids, Michael, Kelly and Tony, asked for $10 million in a claim and civil suit against Pima County. The family said the county had "actual or constructive knowledge" of the "deep, hazardous, latent and unreasonably dangerous ditch" on the road. The amount broke down to $4 million for Susan Gardella and $2 million for each of the children.

The county denied the claim years ago but agreed to the $1 million Tuesday. The settlement is not an admission of fault, said Tom Dugal, deputy Pima county attorney. The settlement, which will be paid from the county's self-insurance fund, puts the lawsuit to rest, Dugal said.

pfffft....hissssssssss......

Welcome to America 2009. Sue for anything and you will be rewarded. Its cheaper to pay a settlement than it is to fight, regardless of how wrong it is.

The only award he should have been given is a Darwin Award

Does that mean the state is liable the next time I biff mountain biking?! ROCK ON!

If allowing ATV use incurs this level of liability on a road such as that, it should be banned. There are enough people willing to be stupid for free, we don't have to pay them for it.

It's a county maintained road.. in AZ ATV's are street legal if equipped with lights, mirrors and a plate.

I'm curious, does ATV still stand for All Terrain Vehicle, or have they changed it? Just wondering, since it seems maybe they should have sued the people who claimed it could handle "all" terrain...

matt gilbert wrote:I'm curious, does ATV still stand for All Terrain Vehicle, or have they changed it? Just wondering, since it seems maybe they should have sued the people who claimed it could handle "all" terrain...

Agreed; but the manufacturer would (Maybe correctly) cry: "Operator error."

I am usually anti-ATV, but I gotta say in this case I'm on their side here (just based on what we see from this one article). If you are driving a street-legal vehicle at a safe and legal speed, and not driving recklessly, and the road is supposed to be maintained, you shouldn't encounter some road defect that can kill you. If you were driving down Baseline and ran into a pothole that broke the axles off your car, do you think you might be a bit irate?

Yeah, but this isn't Baseline, it's Redington Road. I'd be surprised if it didn't have life-threatening obstacles.

Well, I (possessing a motorcycle endorsement) look at riding helmetless as optional suicide. I'm probably the wrong person to ask for sympathy.. Riding motorcycles, ATV's, even bicycles is inherently somewhat dangerous and you really need to take responsibility when you're doing so for your own safety... and I'm just talking basic things.. like a brain bucket (even a seatbelt in a car). BTW I've never had a problem on Reddington in a CAR, assuming I've paid attention and gone slowly enough to safely traverse it.

Anyone who is intimately familiar with that area will agree that there is absolutely no way that this guy was the diligent, choir boy ATV-enthusiast that his family and his attorney were making him out to be. No way. Even supposing he was, he either understood the risks of riding in that area post storm with no armor or helmet, in which case he was negligent; or he failed to comprehend those risks and account for them before purchasing and using an ATV on public land, in which case he was a danger to the public at large and a reckless fool. One more thing, I wonder what his B.A.C was?

Does anyone else remember that kid that fell off Windy about seven years ago and his family tried to sue the Forest Service and Summit Hut? I was ready to picket outside of the courts if that one went to trial.

I'm tired of paying for other people's stupidity while the county can't even afford to empty the trash cans at the trail heads it maintains.

What I'm tired of is our system making it cheaper to settle out of court and reward bad lawsuits than to defend against people who expect to be paid for their own clumsiness/poor decisions/stupidity (or in this case, that of their loved ones). It creates a destructive precedent that is killing our society and making lawyers and insurance companies very rich...

writelots wrote:What I'm tired of is our system making it cheaper to settle out of court and reward bad lawsuits than to defend against people who expect to be paid for their own clumsiness/poor decisions/stupidity (or in this case, that of their loved ones). It creates a destructive precedent that is killing our society and making lawyers and insurance companies very rich...

Absolutely.

There's a website called "The Stella Awards" about frivolous lawsuits http://www.stellaawards.com/

Named after the lady who sued McDonalds after spilling hot coffee on herself.

sirena wrote:There's a website called "The Stella Awards" about frivolous lawsuits http://www.stellaawards.com/

Named after the lady who sued McDonalds after spilling hot coffee on herself.

Good stuff

Blame the fact that lawyers are allowed to work for contingency fees. A contingency fee is where a laywer takes a plaintiff's case with the understanding that he only gets paid if he wins money in a settlement or a lawsuit.
The moto-clown who killed himself's family obviously got a lawyer to work on a contingency fee basis. The county had two options:
1) Settle out of court
or
2) Take the moto-clown's family to court, win, and then try to recoup their own costs. Good luck.

Making plaintiffs responsible for costs in all situations would obviously deprive a lot of people of justice. However, situations like this one are too common and negative to the public good. How about making plaintiff's attorneys pay defendants' costs when they lose in court, and are working on a contingency basis? Hmmmm...

I say make the loser in civil cases responsible for any and all costs accrued for both sides. Might be an incentive to think through that lawsuit before you filed it...