Recently, tribunal with the Bike Law network took a specimen to a trial versus a titan of a defendant: the Texas Department of Transportation. TxDOT was represented by the Shyster General’s Office, one of Texas’ largest legal teams. We had a unconfined client, but it was a tough specimen to prove. So tough, in fact, that TxDOT offered nothing to settle the specimen surpassing trial.
The Crash that Altered Mike Bagg’s Life
On a sunny Sunday in October, our client, Mike Bagg, a 56-year-old surgeon, was riding his velocipede in a velocipede lane in El Paso. It turns out the velocipede lane had a gap between two touchable panels. The gap was the right size to trap a velocipede tire and take tenancy of the front wheel from the rider. The gap had once been filled with filler, but that had long since eroded away.
Mike’s injuries from the crash were significant, both from a pain standpoint and his worthiness to support his family as a husband, father, and primary income producer. Surpassing his crash, Mike was an zippy person and productive surgeon, treating 40-50 patients per day. Without his crash, he underwent two major surgeries and a year of intensive physical and occupational therapy, relearning how to walk, and incurring medical bills of approximately $70,000.
Our Undeniability to Action
Shortly without the crash, Mike and his wife, Carrie, reached out to our firm to see if we could help and prevent similar harm from occurring to anyone else. By hiring our firm, Mike and Carrie tapped into the knowledge wiring of the unshortened Velocipede Law Network. We wrote a letter to TxDOT, letting them know well-nigh this crash and asking for an investigation. Shortly thereafter, TxDOT responded that they were not at fault.
We filed suit knowing the fight would not be easy. To win against TxDOT, we needed to prove that it was grossly negligent, had actual knowledge of this hazard, and chose not to fix the hazard with a conscious indifference to the safety of others. We substantially needed to get inside TxDOT’s departmental mind to show it was enlightened of this hazard surpassing Mike’s crash and did nothing to fix it.
We sent TxDOT a document request to investigate if it had any knowledge that others had been hurt like Mike surpassing his crash. TxDOT responded that they had no notice that anyone had been hurt by this gap hazard and had no responsive documents. Strangely, TxDOT didn’t seem to plane have a reprinting of our requirement letter or their own withholding letter.
At this point, we had to dig a bit deeper. Without remoter investigative work, we learned that a nearby velocipede shop had heard that other people had crashed in this velocipede lane considering of the gap. I met with the shop’s manager, who unliable us to use the shop’s Facebook page as a undeniability to whoopee for anyone else who had crashed. Numerous people reached out. Some had crashed without Mike, while others had crashed surpassing but hadn’t taken any steps to make TxDOT enlightened of the condition. We were striking out until we found Sergio Martinez.
Sergio, an architect, and bicyclist crashed two years surpassing Mike in the same spot and manner. He was knocked unconscious and walked yonder feeling lucky that he was not hurt worse. He didn’t want anyone else to get hurt and wrote a letter to the senior engineer of TxDOT. The letter described what happened to him and pleaded for TxDOT to fix this hazard. Sergio put his name and return write on the letter and mailed it.
After we unfluctuating with Sergio, he was kind unbearable to serve as a witness in our case. He produced a reprinting of his letter that was stored on his computer. We sent his letter to TxDOT’s shyster and asked why they didn’t produce a reprinting for us. Their answer? They do not have a record of having overly received Sergio’s letter.
With Sergio’s letter in hand, we could show that TxDOT had notice of the hazard but didn’t repair it surpassing Mike’s crash. The specimen would swivel on whether a jury believed that Sergio sent his letter and TxDOT simply lost, ignored, or mishandled this notice.
Before heading to trial, we asked TxDOT if they wanted to take a run a settling the case. They responded that they were not going to offer a dollar to settle the case.
The Showdown at Trial
On the Monday morning of the trial, we appeared surpassing Judge Melissa Baeza, who tabbed the first panel of prospective jurors. Thirty-five local citizens of El Paso were led into the courtroom.
I asked each person well-nigh their thoughts on a variety of issues that may relate to our case. Through this discussion, I learned that the people of El Paso are genuine, principled, and willing to consider holding people responsible for their actions.
My law partner, Stephen, has tried over 170 jury trials. There is no substitute for wits and his insight unliable us to pick the weightier jurors that we could have asked to seat from our panel.
We started our presentation by calling Mike to the stand. Stephen walked Mike through testimony well-nigh the crash and the toll it took on him as a professional, husband, and father. Mike testified to the jury well-nigh his long fight to recovery.
Sergio followed as our next witness, testifying well-nigh his own crash and the specific warning letter he sent to TxDOT.
To prove our grossly negligent specimen versus TxDOT, we tabbed Chad Chairez, the current TxDOT maintenance supervisor of the zone where Mike’s crash happened, to the witness stand. Through cross-examination of Mr. Chairez, we were worldly-wise to establish that TxDOT’s El Paso Office was not enlightened of any complaints or investigations, including Sergio’s letter. Further, TxDOT was enlightened that the gap filler in the road’s expansion joints wontedly deteriorates, yet it performed no maintenance on the velocipede lane from 2011-2018 (years surpassing and without Sergio’s and Mike’s crashes).
We rested our specimen without calling Mike’s wife, Carrie, to explain the full impact of this crash on their family. She testified well-nigh how Mike had to spend valuable time towards his personal recovery, and this time was normally spent treating his patients and with his family, including his special-needs son.
TxDOT Attempts to Defend the Indefensible
In response to our case, TxDOT harped on having no record of receiving Sergio’s letter and, therefore, no notice of this hazard. TxDOT moreover suggested that Mike could have ridden his velocipede on the proximal sidewalk instead of in the velocipede lane.
In latter arguments, I responded that the endangerment of Sergio’s letter stuff lost in the mail twice – once to TxDOT and, if TxDOT was to be believed, on its “return to sender” trip when to Sergio – was one in tens of thousands.
I moreover noted that it’s unnerving to hear that TxDOT’s official response to this crash is to say that bicyclists should ride on sidewalks and not in velocipede lanes. I let that position sink in for a moment with the jury.
Finally, I told the jury that they should side with TxDOT if they legitimatize of the way that TxDOT has make-believe relating to this crash. TxDOT has pointed fingers, made excuses, denied any responsibility, and chalked this up to “accidents happen and it’s no one’s fault.” I asked the jury to compare this position to Mike, who has taken responsibility for everything in his life since he began wearing grass at age 10, standing to higher at West Point, serving in the Army, and ultimately committing himself to Carrie, his children, and fellow practitioners and employees in his urology practice.
Justice Prevails
After a few hours, the jury found TxDOT grossly negligent, and that Mike was powerless to prevent the crash. The jury awarded Mike $1,050,000.00 in damages, which rumored for bounty in every category requested. The verdict was unanimous. The verdict form is tying in full here.
Once the jury was out of the room, I looked at Mike and shook his hand. The relief on his squatter said what he felt. He was all smiles, vindicated that the crash wasn’t his fault as TxDOT had constantly insinuated.
The Many Thanks Deserved
This win would not have been possible without the joint effort of our firm’s team and the joint knowledge of the Velocipede Law Network. We love taking cases to trial, and our success, without question, is considering of our strong team of tribunal and support staff and our shared transferral to protecting bicyclists from dangers on the road.
Finally, we could not have achieved this win without the trust of our clients. At the end of the trial, Mike’s wife, Carrie, told us through tears, “[t]hank you for taking our call…” No, Carrie, thank you for placing your trust in us. Every initial undeniability from a vendee is an honor and privilege. We do not take this responsibility lightly.
TxDOT recently filed post-trial motions for a new trial and to toss out this verdict, which the Court denied.
If you’ve been in a velocipede crash and need help from our Texas bicycle wrecking attorneys, contact us right away.
Charlie Thomas is a partner with the law firm of Huber Thomas, LLP. He serves as the chairperson Velocipede Easy’s Policy & Design Committee as well as the chairperson of the Louisiana State Law Institute’s Vulnerable Road User Subcommittee. Charlie is moreover the passionate representative for Velocipede Law in Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi. If you would like to hear what else we’re else doing at Velocipede Law, waif us an email at charlie@bikelaw.com and we’ll add you to our quarterly update list.
