Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P sought to recover damages resulting from a bicycle accident that occurred while he was participating in a tour organized by D. P alleged that his bike's right-front tire became locked in a groove on a public roadway. P's bicycle was trapped and P was unable to steer, causing him to fall from his bicycle. P suffered injuries including a central dislocation of his right pelvis and a loss of cartilage in that joint. P claims negligence as D represented that the route was safe when in fact there was a hidden danger, consisting of a curved groove on the roadway. P also claimed that D failed to inspect the route, or failed to notice the defect in the road during its inspection, and thus failed to provide a safe route. P alleged that D assured P that it had inspected the route and that it was safe. Prior to the tour P was provided a cue sheet and route description, which noted cautions at certain locations where there were dangers. A caution was not noted at the intersection where the incident occurred. P also alleged that the Department of Transportation was negligent with respect to construction of the road in the area where the fall occurred. D asserted that the claims were abrogated by a release that P signed. D claimed it owed D no duty and that P had voluntarily assumed the risk. Ds moved for summary judgment based on the release. The trial court determined the release was valid and noted that the inspection of the route was not part of the agreement. The motion was granted for P but not the Department. The trial court did not address the issue of whether P's claim was barred under the voluntary assumption of the risk/no duty rule, which was raised in D's motion for summary judgment. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.