homeWelcome, sign in or click here to subscribe.login
     


 

 

Opinion


print  email to a friend  reprints add to mydjc  
Andrew Bergh
Andrew Bergh

June 4, 1999

Another roadside distraction

By ANDREW BERGH
Special to the Journal

Keep your eyes on the road.

Even driver's ed dropouts should know this basic safety rule.

But nowadays, motorists are routinely exposed to various off-road distractions.

It seems as if there's always something to divert one's attention, whether it be an accident, a low-flying jet, a colorful billboard, or even a scantily clad pedestrian.

And let's not leave out bungee jumpers.

That's right, I'm referring to those less-than-sane individuals who jump from ridiculous heights with harnesses and elastic cords that keep them from going splat on the ground. Because as shown by Largosa v. Arizona Bungee, Inc., it's not the smartest thing in the world to conduct a bungee-jumping business right next to a busy highway.

Despite its reference to the Land of Enchantment, the Largosa case comes from the Midwest, and Illinois in particular.

One day in late May 1992, Rita and Dennis Largosa were driving northbound on Interstate 294 on the outskirts of Chicago.

Unfortunately, the Largosas never made it to their intended destination. The Cook County residents instead were seriously injured when Rita lost control of her car and smashed into a median barrier.

Just before the accident occurred, northbound traffic had slowed to watch an activity taking place on certain property immediately adjacent to the southbound lanes. That's where Bungee over Chicago happened to do business. For a small tariff, the bungee-jumping enterprise allowed customers to jump from the top of a crane to a waiting swimming pool. As they took turns plummeting to the ground, the bungee jumpers would approach, but not actually touch, the surface of the pool.

Among the gawking people that day were the occupants of a black Honda. While watching a particular bungee jumper, its driver inadvertently veered into the Largosas' lane. That's when Rita, while trying to avoid a collision with the Honda, lost control of her car and crashed into the median wall.

Although clearly at fault, the driver of the Honda failed to stop at the scene of the accident. Since his identity was neither known nor ascertainable, the Largosas couldn't sue him to recover damages for their injuries.

So Rita and Dennis instead pursued another option.

In July 1993, the couple brought suit against Arizona Bungee, Inc., the owner of Bungee over Chicago. The defendant had acted negligently, the Largosas claimed, by operating a bungee-jumping business in close proximity to a busy highway without any warning to the public.

Begging to differ, Arizona Bungee eventually moved to dismiss the Largosas' suit. The main issue before the court was whether the company owed any legal duty to travelers using the adjacent highway.

For two reasons, the Largosas argued that such a duty should be found. First of all, they said the proximity of Arizona Bungee's business to a busy highway increased the likelihood of serious injury to motorists using Interstate 294. The couple further claimed that locating the bungee-jumping business in a less conspicuous spot would impose only a small burden on the defendant.

But Arizona Bungee disagreed. The company pointed out that before its doors were ever opened, it had obtained all necessary permits and licenses from the local authorities. While empathizing with the Largosas, the defendant essentially argued that the sole cause of the accident was the Honda driver's carelessness.

So the Largosas lost round one -- and they ultimately fared no better in their appeal.

At the outset, the appeals court noted that the bungee jumping business posed no direct danger to motorists. Although it might have been a different story had the bungee jumpers launched themselves out onto the highway or even over it, that just wasn't the case, the court said.

Moreover, the court expressed doubt about whether the defendant, as a licensed and authorized business, reasonably could have taken any measures to avoid distracting motorists. Even a small burden, such as a warning sign at the side of the highway, might have only increased the number of gaping travelers, the court said. And since the jumping platform was approximately 180 feet in the air, there was no feasible way to block the bungee jumping from view by erecting a wall or curtain.

In short, the court concluded that Arizona Bungee, and other business owners who create distractions near busy highways, owe no legal duty to passing motorists.

Although that's not what the Largosas wanted to hear, the court obviously felt it would've been too much of a stretch to hold the bungee-jumping business liable for their injuries.


Seattle lawyer Andrew Bergh, a former prosecutor and insurance defense attorney, now limits his practice to plaintiff's personal injury cases. He fields questions via email at andy@berghlaw.com.


Previous columns:



Email or user name:
Password:
 
Forgot password? Click here.