In actuality the real issue here is the fact that the guy had to sue to cover his medical expenses, because they are going to be so high for the rest of his life. Regardless of whether or not it was right for him to get the money, the only way for him to get the care he needs is to have money, and I am sure that the majority of people would do the exact same thing this guy did if they were in the same position.

Dan,

Remember, a jury did not award this, King County settled. 

I certainly believe in personal accountability,  but on the other hand, I don’t know what I would do if I was completely f—ked up in an accident that was partly or even mostly my own fault, and happened to occur on a county bike trail, and I hope I never have to find out.  I also hope that none of you have to find out what you would do in that circumstance either.  Here’s what I do know:  I know I’m not going to think badly of this unfortunate guy or his family, and I know these points about Washington law and claims against municipalities.

Point 1:  RCW 4.22.005, entitled “Effect of Contributory Fault reads as follows:

In an action based on fault seeking to recover damages for injury or death to person or harm to property, any contributory fault chargeable to the claimant diminishes proportionately the amount awarded as compensatory damages for an injury attributable to the claimant's contributory fault, but does not bar recovery. This rule applies whether or not under prior law the claimant's contributory fault constituted a defense or was disregarded under applicable legal doctrines, such as last clear chance.

What this means is that contributory negligence by the injured person is not a bar to recovery in this state, but may reduce an award proportionally.  See also RCW 4.22.070.  For example, if the rider was 65% responsible for his accident and the County was 35% responsible due to this maintenance issue with the trail, and everyone agrees that it will take $10 million to care for this relatively young brain injured rider for the rest of his life, the County pays $3.5 million.  If you disagree with this comparative negligence system, you should write to your representatives in Olympia.  Some states have a system whereby if the injured party is 1% contributorily negligent, he or she cannot recover anything.

Point 2:  Municipal entities like King County don’t  just give money away to frivolous claims.  They assess the claim and consult with their attorneys and claim adjustors and weigh the county’s potential exposure.  Perhaps this was a trail section that had caused previous accidents, or they had other reason to be on notice. I don’t know the specifics of this case, but I do know how this sort of claim is vetted.  The case was set for trial soon in front of a pretty good judge, so it obviously wasn’t frivolous, or it would have been dismissed by the judge on summary judgment prior to the trial.

Point 3:  King County either has insurance or is self-insured for this type of risk, and that insurance contemplates the comparative negligence component of Washington law.  State and local governments make decisions and pass legislation that reflect policies about how to handle incidents that involve serious traumatic injuries to their citizens. This is an insured risk.  There are many other insured risks in the county’s policy – some you might agree with, and some you might not, but that is how it works.

  It sounds like this guy’s injuries will outstrip his personal ability, and his family’s ability to pay for his care, and will probably use up his personal insurance.  Then what does the county or state do with him?  He becomes, by virtue of his injuries, what is sometimes called an “indigent ward of the state.”  He is dependent on the state for his medical care and perhaps also housing, food etc.  He cannot work and pay taxes.  So, you can put him in a state facility, or you can give his legal guardian sufficient funds to assist his family in providing his care.  If you are his family, which option do you prefer? Which option is ultimately cheaper for the state?  Limiting it to these two examples is an oversimplification, but you get the idea.  The system is imperfect, but that is how the legislature has decided to deal with this type of situation.

In sum, I don’t fault the guy or his family for filing this lawsuit, and I’m sure they would give back the money in exchange for his pre-accident function.  Do any of you wish to trade places with him?