Former Baseball Manager Closes out Victory in Cyclist's Negligence Suit
The Arizona Court of Appeals recently affirmed the lower court's decision in Else v. La Russa, thereby ending an injury suit that arose from an unfortunate cycling accident. On one fateful Friday afternoon, the plaintiff Seth Else ("Else") rode his bicycle through paths in the Arizona woods and hit a fence on the property of Elaine La Russa and Anthony "Tony" La Russa, the former St. Louis Cardinals and Oakland Athletics Hall of Fame manager ("La Russa"). Else alleged he had ridden his bike down a system of trails that he believed he had previously run on.
Still believing that he was on a public trail, he proceeded down an unfamiliar path, which he claimed had bike tracks in the dirt, until he unexpectedly collided with a cable fence that the La Russas had erected on their property. Having sustained serious injuries, Else filed suit in September 2016 against the La Russas alleging, among other things, negligence for the erection of the fence on what Else claimed was a public easement.
Stepping to the plate, in August 2017 La Russa moved for partial summary judgment, asking the lower court to rule that Else was a trespasser when he crashed into the fence. La Russa also moved to dismiss Else's claims for negligence per se, gross negligence and punitive damages. La Russa's argument focused on the location of the accident. Put simply, La Russa claimed that Else was riding in foul territory and there was no bike trail or public access that ran through La Russa's land. With the contest still in the early innings, the lower court granted the motion in La Russa's favor as to punitive damages but denied all other motions, finding genuine issues of material fact and setting the case for trial. With the close of Else's presentation of evidence after a four-day jury trial, La Russa renewed his motion for judgment as a matter of law. Before the case went to the jury, the court dismissed the negligence per se claim (i.e., negligence based on a statute enacted for public safety) and ruled that Else was a trespasser at the time of the accident, leaving the issue of gross negligence to the jury (i.e., whether La Russa willfully or wantonly caused Else's injuries).
The jury ruled in La Russa's favor on the remaining claim and, in November 2018, Else filed a notice of appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Else's appeal rested on two principal arguments: (1) that the lower court erred in holding that he was a trespasser at the time of the accident because there was a public easement on that portion of the La Russa property where the accident occurred; and that (2) the court erred in dismissing the negligence per se claim because the La Russas allegedly violated two state statutes in erecting the fence. In January 2020, the Arizona appellate court refused to overturn the lower court's rulings on the trespass and negligence issues and affirmed the judgment in favor of the La Russas. (Else v. La Russa, No. 18-0764 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2020) (unpublished), as amended on denial of reconsideration (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2020)).
The first issue turned solely on Else's contention that a public easement for water purposes and a bike trail existed on the La Russa property. Else based his argument on an expert witness opinion contending that there was an easement, including evidence that the public had traversed the area around La Russa's property and on the existence of two signs allegedly positioned near La Russa's property that referenced "bicycle path usage." The court concluded that, taken together, the evidence could not support the existence of an easement, not as an express servitude, by dedication, or by prescription. The court held that the alleged easement couldn't have been an express servitude because there was no record or writing, and could not be a public dedication because there was no evidence that La Russa ever offered or otherwise dedicated his land to the general public.
Else also failed to prevail in the argument for an easement by prescription under Arizona law, which, according to the court, requires, among other things, open and adverse use for a period of ten years. Given that testimony at trial merely pointed to some use of the area around the fence as a trail perhaps around four years before Else's accident, the argument fell well short of the bleachers. The court also rejected the portion of expert opinion that argued that two signs positioned in the general area of the bike accident designated the area as a public bike trail. In doing so, the court stated that the signs were not located on La Russa's property and the signs were not near the path where Else was riding before the accident. The court similarly rejected the argument that the area was a public easement because it was located on a drainage easement owned by the town because such an easement does not provide any right of access to the public. Ultimately, the court stated that "an expert's opinion cannot create an easement where the legal requirements for such an easement have not been proven."
On appeal on the issue of negligence per se, Else argued that La Russa's purported negligence flowed from violations of certain local codes and Arizona state statutes when the fence was erected. Specifically, Else claimed that La Russa violated Scottsdale Revised Code §18-5, a public-nuisance ordinance intended to protect the public from harm caused by "a condition" that causes obstruction to water flowing down stream channels. The court rejected the argument, holding that the statute was not applicable to the accident and injury. Else also relied on A.R.S. § 33-1551, which provides for a remedy for recreational or educational users when a property owner is "willful, malicious, or grossly negligent" and directly caused the injury suffered by the recreational or educational user. In ruling that the lower court properly granted judgment as a matter of law on the negligence per se claim, the appellate court stated that, even if the statute applied to the incident in question, the superior court had properly instructed the jury on the gross negligence issue and that Else's mention of a different statute with a similar standard was of no consequence.
Following the decision, in February 2020, the appellate court denied Else's subsequent motion for reconsideration, effectively vindicating La Russa's litigation strategy and game plan and closing out this two-game series