Vince Murdock vs. City of Folsom

Superior Gottti Of Califomte,
1 Michael R. Kelly (SBN 176085) 12^7/2022

LAW OFFICE OF MINER & K E L L Y , L L P
2 813 F Street
3 Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel.: (916) 325-9010
4 Fax: (916) 325-9014
5
Attomeys for Plaintiffs, VINCE MURDOCK and KIRA MURDOCK
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11 VINCE MURDOCK; KIRA MURDOCK, Case No:
12 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
13
vs. 1. Dangerous Condition of Public Property
14 CITY OF FOLSOM, a public entity; (Govt. Code §§ 830, 835, 830.8/Negligence
Per Se);
15 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a public 2. Liability Pursuant to Govemment Code
entity; ROLLINGWOOD COMMONS
16 APARTMENTS, LLC, a Califomia limited §§ 820(a), 815.2, 815.4 and 840.2;
liability company; NICHOLAS SANTOS, an 3. Negligence/Negligence Per Se;
17 individual; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, 4. Premises Liability/Negligence Per Se;
5. Negligent Hiring/Supervision/Training/
18 Retention;
Defendants.
19 6. Negligence;
7. Negligence Per Se;
20 8. Loss of Consortium.
21
22 COME NOW Plaintiffs VINCE MURDOCK and KIRA MURDOCK and complain of
23 Defendants, and each of them, and allege as follows:
24 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
25 1. This is the Court of proper jurisdiction because the subject matter of this litigation and
26 some or all of the alleged torts and facts, conduct, breaches and/or omissions alleged in this complaint
27 occurred, transpired or were otherwise entered into in the County of Sacramento, State of Califomia
28 and/or the residence and/or principal place of business of one or more of Defendants is the Coimty of
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1
1 Sacramento, and the amount in controversy is in excess of the minimum statutory requirements of
2 this Court.
3 PARTIES
4 2. Plaintiff VINCE MURDOCK is, and was at all times mentioned in this Complaint, a
5 resident of the County of Sacramento, State of Califomia.
6 3. Plaintiff KIRA MURDOCK is, and was at all times mentioned in this Complaint, a
7 resident of the Coimty of Sacramento, State of California, and was and is the lawful spouse of
8 Plaintiff VINCE MURDOCK, and resided and currently resides with Plaintiff VINCE MURDOCK.
9 4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times mentioned in
10 this Complaint, Defendant CITY OF FOLSOM was and is a public entity/California incorporated
11 municipality, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Califomia.
12 5. Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and thereon allege, that at all times mentioned in
13 this Complaint, Defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO was and is a public entity/political
14 subdivision of Califomia, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
15 Califomia.
17 this Complaint, Defendants CITY of FOLSOM and/or COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO owned,
18 controlled, possessed, designed, operated, managed, supervised, inspected, approved, constmcted,
19 repaired, maintained, entmsted and otherwise exercised exclusive control over Greenback Lane and
20 the Class II bike lane on westbound Greenback Lane, including the portion of Greenback Lane and its
21 bike lane in the vicinity of Folsom Ranch Drive, in the City of Folsom, Coimty of Sacramento, State
22 of Califomia.
24 this Complaint, Defendant ROLLINGWOOD COMMONS APARTMENTS, LLC was and is a
25 limited liability company, organized in the State of Delaware with its headquarters and its principal
26 place of business in the County of Los Angeles, State of Califomia, and was and is authorized to do
27 and is doing business throughout Califomia, and has regularly conducted and continues to conduct
28 business in the City of Folsom, County of Sacramento, State of Califomia.

2
2 this Complaint, Defendant ROLLINGWOOD COMMONS APARTMENTS, LLC owned, controlled,
3 possessed, designed, operated, managed, supervised, inspected, approved, constmcted, repaired,
4 maintained, entmsted and otherwise exercised exclusive control over the apartment complex known
5 as Folsom Ranch Apartments, located at or near 1000 Folsom Ranch Drive in the City of Folsom,
6 County of Sacramento, State of Califomia, including, but not limited to, Folsom Ranch Drive, which
7 intersects with Greenback Lane, and the areas within the Folsom Ranch Apartment complex adjacent
8 thereto.
10 this Complaint, Defendant NICHOLAS SANTOS (hereinafter "SANTOS") was and is a resident of
11 the County of Sacramento, State of California, and owned, maintained, leased, possessed, inspected,
12 entmsted and otherwise controlled and was operating a 2012 Honda Civic bearing Califomia license
13 plate no. 8XDK718, and was operating said vehicle the vehicle stmck and seriously injured Plaintiff
14 VINCE MURDOCK as described herein.
15 10. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the tme names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,
16 associate, govemmental or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, whose tme names and
17 capacities are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, who therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious
18 names. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 474, et seq.. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to
19 show the tme names, capacities, and/or relationships when the same have been ascertained.
20 11. Plaintiffs allege some or all of said fictitiously-named Defendants were the principals,
21 agents, joint venturers, partners, co-conspirators, employers, employees, contractors, subcontractors,
22 independent contractors, alter egos, successors in interest and/or predecessors in interest and are
23 responsible for the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs, as more fully set forth below, and are
24 residents of the County of Sacramento, State of Califomia, are doing business in the County of
25 Sacramento and State of Califomia and/or committed acts pursuant to which they are under the
26 jurisdiction of the State of California, and/or partners of each and the other and as such are either joint
27 tortfeasors and/or jointly and severally liable and legally responsible in some manner for the events
28 and happenings herein, and proximately caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiffs as set forth

3
1 herein.
2 12. At all times in this Complaint, each Defendant was an agent, servant, partner, aider
3 and abettor, co-conspirator and/or joint venturer of each of the other Defendants herein and were at
4 all times operating and acting within the purpose and scope of said agency, service, employment,
5 partnership, conspiracy and/or joint venture and rendered substantial assistance and encouragement to
6 the other Defendants, knowing that their conduct constituted a breach of duty owed to Plaintiffs.
7 13. Plaintiffs have complied with all applicable claims statutes under the laws of the State
8 of Califomia, including Govemment Code §§810, etseq. and 910, etseq.
9 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO A L L CAUSES OF ACTION
10 Brief Description of the Accident
11 14. On or about Febmary 8,2022, at approximately 1:33 p.m.. Plaintiff VINCE
12 MURDOCK (hereinafter "Plaintiff' unless otherwise indicated) was riding his road bike entirely
13 within the designated Class II bike lane of westbound Greenback Lane, at or near its intersection with
14 Folsom Ranch Drive, in the City of Folsom, Coimty of Sacramento, State of Califomia (Folsom
15 Ranch Drive and westbound Greenback Lane in the vicinity of Folsom Ranch Drive Eind all areas
16 adjacent thereto are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "subject premises").
17 15. At all times mentioned herein. Plaintiff was riding in a safe, pmdent manner, obeying
18 all traffic and bike laws and wearing an approved safety helmet, riding at a safe and pmdent speed,
19 watching where he was going, and was not distracted in any manner while he was riding in the
20 designated Class II public bike lane on the subject premises.
21 16. While riding entirely within the designated Class II bike lane on Greenback Lane and
22 crossing in front of the "on-ramp" (exit) portion of Folsom Ranch Drive where it intersects with
23 Greenback Lane, a vehicle operated by Defendant SANTOS that was entering westbound Greenback
24 Lane from southbound Folsom Ranch Drive suddenly and without waming crossed into and across
25 the bike path already occupied by Plaintiff, causing the vehicle to violently strike Plaintiff and his
26 bicycle while Plaintiff was fully in the bike lane, causing Plaintiff to be propelled violently to the
27 groimd and suffer serious injuries as a result.
28 ///

4
1 17. At the time of the collision. Defendant SANTOS was accelerating and traveling at an
2 unsafe speed for the conditions at the time he crossed into and across the bike lane occupied by
3 Plaintiff and stmck Plaintiff.
4 18. Following the accident. Defendant SANTOS stated to the investigating officer that he
5 "looked left to see if any cars were coming" and "didn't see the cyclist when [he] pulled out and
6 made the right" and "ran into the back of him." Mr. Santos reiterated that he "didn't even see
7 [Plaintiff]" before he stmck Plaintiff with his vehicle.
8 19. Folsom Ranch Drive is the main road that serves the expansive Folsom Ranch
9 Apartments, located at 1000 Folsom Ranch Drive in the City of Folsom (constmcted in
10 approximately 1989), that occupies approximately 29 acres of land and includes approximately 344
11 individual apartment units, and is the only road the directly connects the Folsom Ranch Apartment
12 complex with Greenback Lane.
13 20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that at the time of the aforementioned accident,
14 Defendant SANTOS was not a resident of the Folsom Ranch Apartments and resided in Orangevale,
15 Califomia.
16 Vicinity of Folsom Rancli Drive and Greenback Lane
17 21. The configuration and conditions of Greenback Lane and Folsom Ranch Drive, as
18 described below, existed at the time of the aforementioned accident that is the subject of this
19 Complaint, and continue to exist at the time of the filing of this Complaint.
20 22. Greenback Lane is a major east-west arterial with high traffic speeds and high traffic
21 volume that runs from the City of Folsom all the way to Interstate 80, a significant distance to the
22 west.
23 23. In the vicinity of Folsom Ranch Drive, Greenback Lane is a four-lane highway, with
24 opposing lanes of traffic (two in each direction) separated by a concrete median.
25 24. Greenback Lane also has designated Class II or Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes in
26 each direction (both Class II and Class IIB bike lanes are used at different locations along
27 Greenback).
28 ///

5
1 25. Approximately 100 yards to the east of the intersection of Greenback Lane and Folsom
2 Ranch Drive, Greenback intersects with Folsom-Aubum Road, also a major arterial with high traffic
3 volumes, that runs in a north-south direction and connects the City of Folsom with the City of Aubum
4 all communities between those two cities to the north of Folsom.
5 26. Folsom-Aubum Road later becomes Folsom Boulevard to the south, and connects the
6 City of Folsom with numerous heavily populated communities, including the City of Sacramento and
7 surrounding cities.
8 27. Less than 250 yards to east of the Greenback/Folsom-Aubum intersection, the very
9 heavily traveled American River Bike Trail (aka Jedediah Smith Memorial Trail) and East Lake
10 Natoma Bike Trails intersect with and funnel bicyclists onto westbound Greenback Lane (a total
11 distance of less than 1/4 milefromthe where Plaintiff was stmck by the aforementioned vehicle).
12 28. The American River Bike Trail is a two-lane Class I bike trail that runs 32 miles
13 between Discovery Park in Sacramento and Beal's Point on Folsom Lake. It is completely paved for
14 its entire distance and has numerous features and facilities, such as mile markers,frailsidemaps,
15 water fountains, restrooms and telephones, along the way.
16 29. The American River Bike Trail, along with and extensive network of other bike trails
17 and on-street bike routes that connect the City of Folsom with numerous communities and bike trails
18 and bike routes that run throughout the City of Folsom itself, atfract many millions of users each year,
19 many of whom are avid cyclists who use thefrailsand bike routes on Folsom's public sfreets for both
20 conmiute and recreational purposes on a daily basis.
21 30. The Class II bike lane on westbound Greenback Lane in the vicinity of Folsom Ranch
22 Drive is delineated by a single solid white line that extends for approximately 80 feet to the east of
23 the first enfrance of Folsom Ranch Drive, and double white solid lines (some form of modified Type
24 II buffered lines) extending westward of the exit portion of Folsom Ranch Drive.
25 31. In late 2017 and early 2018, the City of Folsom performed constmction work on
26 Greenback Lane in the vicinity of Folsom Ranch Drive, which included excavation of a part of the
27 sfreet and repaving of that entire portion of westbound Greenback Lane, directly infrontof Folsom
28 Ranch Drive where it intersects with Greenback Lane.

6
1 32. At some point between August and October 2018, after that section of Greenback
2 Lane had been repaved, the City of Folsom installed/painted and/or hired a contractor to install/paint
3 the white line that delineates the boundary of the Class II bike lane that extends across the two
4 northbound entrances and the southbound exit portion of Folsom Ranch Drive, which included
5 installation/application of dashed white lines directly in front of the enfrances and the exit lane of
6 Folsom Ranch Drive where each intersects with Greenback Lane.
7 Configuration of Folsom Rancli Drive and Its Intersection with Greenback Lane
8 33. Folsom Ranch Drive is a two-lane road that runs north-south that terminates on its
9 south end at Greenback Lane, and at its north end Garden Oaks Lane, approximately 1/2 mile away.
10 Garden Oaks Lane intersects with Burma Road, which connects to Oaks Avenue, a public sfreet
11 owned and controlled by the City of Folsom, that intersects with Folsom-Aubum Road.
12 34. The most populated area of the Folsom Ranch Apartments complex and the complex's
13 adminisfrative, rental and business offices, along with a number of large parking lots that serve those
14 units and offices, are located on a hill above Greenback Lane and are accessed using Folsom Ranch
15 Drive. Folsom Ranch Drive consists of a relatively steep downgrade that begins to level off only
16 where it meets Greenback Lane at the bottom of the hill.
17 35. Folsom Ranch Drive is an asphalt sfreet that was and is designed, constmcted,
18 configured, maintained, operated and open for use by both residents and the general public, and open
19 to publicfravelin a marmer that was and is identical to any public sfreet in the City of Folsom in
20 function and appearance, with a white painted line dividing opposing fraffic, standard lane widths and
21 standard concrete curbs on each side of the road.
22 36. Folsom Ranch Drive is uniquely constmcted in that it branches into three separate
23 roadways approximately 150 feet to the north of where Folsom Ranch Drive meets Greenback Lane,
24 all of which intersect with westbound Greenback at three separate and distinct locations. A small
25 stmcture is located approximately 100 feet north of Greenback Lane, just south of the
26 convergence/separation point of northbound and southbound Folsom Ranch Drive.
27 37. Two of these three branches serve as northbound enfrances to Folsom Ranch Drive
28 from Greenback Lane.

7
1 38. The enfrance farthest to the east serves as the main enfrance for westboundfrafficon
2 Greenback turningright(north) onto Folsom Ranch Drive.
3 39. Approximately 30 feet to the west of that is another enfrance that appears to be
4 primarily for emergency vehiclesfravelingon eastbound Greenback Lane that are permitted to tum
5 left onto Folsom Ranch Drive where there is a special break in the median for emergency vehicle use.
6 40. The two enfrances to Folsom Ranch Drive converge approximately 50 feet north of
7 Greenback, where they form a single northbound lane that continues up the hill.
8 41. Approximately 35 feet to the east of the emergency vehicle enfrance onto Folsom
9 Ranch Drive described above is a special channelized "on-ramp" for trafficfravelingsouth on Folsom
10 Ranch Drive in the direction of Greenback Lane, which serves as the exitfromsouthbound Folsom
11 Ranch Drive onto westbound Greenback Lane.
12 42. All three of these branches of Folsom Ranch Drive ~ the two northbound entrance
13 lanes and the southbound entrance ramp onto Greenback Lane ~ are separatedfromeach other by
14 two triangular-shaped islands, both of which are bordered by standard concrete curbs.
15 43. Both islands are approximately 30 feet wide at their widest points adjacent to
16 Greenback.
17 44. These two islands contain six full grown trees that have very low hanging branches
18 and large canopies of foliage, light poles with lightfixturesaffixed to them and decorative banners
19 hangingfromthem, as well as various plants,flowers,large decorative rocks and grassy areas.
20 45. There were and are also large manyfreesand tall bushes with very thick and heavy
21 foliage along the east side of thefirst(main) enfrancefromGreenback Lane on Folsom Ranch Drive
22 that extend down to a point immediately adjacent to the bike lane on Greenback Lane at that location.
23 46. The channelized southbound enfrance ramp and northbound lane of Folsom Ranch
24 Drive converge/separate on the north side of the islands, approximately 130 feet north of Greenback
25 Lane.
26 47. At all timed mentioned in this herein, all vehicularfrafficentering Greenback Lane
27 from southbound Folsom Ranch Drive directly affected and affects the safe movement of motorized
28 and bicyclefrafficon westbound Greenback Lane, including the safety and well-being of all cyclists

8
1 riding in the Class II bike lane on westbound Greenback Lane at and around the conflict point where
2 vehiclesfravelingsouth of Folsom Ranch Drive cross the bike lane in order to merge onto and enter
3 Greenback Lane.
4 48. Beginning approximately 300 yards at the top of the hill, where Folsom Ranch Drive
5 intersects with and provides ingress and egressfromthe largest parking lot of the complex, all the
6 way down to southbound Folsom Ranch Drive to the point where it intersects with Greenback Lane,
7 there is not a single speed limit sign and no physical speed confrol features such as speed bumps,
8 speed humps or transverse rumble strips designed to slowfrafficproceeding down the hill in any
9 manner.
10 49. There were and are also no "STOP" or "YIELD" signs anywhere at or near the bottom
11 of the hill (including on Greenback) facing vehicles approaching Greenback Lane, and absolutely no
12 other signage that would wam or alert motorists intending to merge onto Greenback of the presence
13 of the bike lane on Greenback and potential cyclistsridingin that bike lane, or of their obligation to
14 stop or yield for cyclists occupying the Class II bike lane and crossing Folsom Ranch Drive.
15 50. In addition, there were and are absolutely nofrafficor waming signals, signs,
16 markings or other devices over the entire 300-yard sfretch of southbound Folsom Ranch Drive,
17 including "SLOW signs or similar signs, that would wam and alert drivers to use caution or maintain
18 a reasonable speed down the hill, and absolutely nothing that would alert or wam motorists fraveling
19 on southbound Folsom Ranch Drive of the presence of a bike lane on westbound Greenback Lane
20 and/or to watch for and yield and/or stop for cyclists crossing infrontof southbound Folsom Ranch
21 Drive where it meets Greenback Lane, or any other waming orfrafficsigns or devices of any kind
22 facing drivers that would alert or wam them of the presence of a bike lane at that location, the
23 presence of cyclistsridingin that area and/or their obligation to yield or stop for cyclists.
24 51. In addition, there were and are no STOP LINES or other any other striping, markings,
25 lines or any other visual markers that would alert drivers proceeding down the hill toward Greenback
26 to the existence of the bike lane, to watch for cyclists, that cyclists have the absoluterightof way at
27 that intersection and/or a motorist's obligation to yield or stop for cyclists in the bike lane.
28 ///

9
1 52. All other portions of Folsom Ranch Drive and all other sfreets throughout the
2 complex, including Garden Oaks Lane and Burma Road, which intersects with Oaks Avenue (public
3 sfreet), are stop-controlled at every intersection, which are very clearly marked with highly visible
4 STOP signs and easily identifiable stop lines alerting drivers where to stop; the unconfroUed
5 intersection where southbound Folsom Ranch Drive meets westbound Greenback Lane is the only
6 intersection in the entire complex that has absolutely no STOP signs and no other traffic confrol
7 signage or lines of any kind.
8 53. In addition, there were and are no bike-related signs of any type or configuration, such
9 as W79 and/or W80 or any other bicycle waming and/or bike crossing signs anywhere at or near the
10 bottom of the hill facing vehicles approaching Greenback Lane alerting and waming motorists
11 approaching Greenback Lane to watch for cyclists or alerting or waming motorists of their obligation
12 to yield or stop for cyclists in the bike lane.
13 54. There were and are absolutely no other traffic or waming signs, markings or devices
14 necessary to give a driver heading southbound on Folsom Ranch Drive toward Greenback Lane any
15 type of waming or notice to slow their speed or of the presence of the bike lane and cyclists using that
16 bike lane on Greenback Lane, or that motorists were and are required to stop for and/or yield to
17 cyclists occupying the bike lane, the absence of which waming signs, markings or devices
18 endangered the safe movement offraffic,including bicyclefrafficat and around that intersection,
19 which would not be reasonably apparent to, and would not have been anticipated by, a person
20 exercising due care whilefravelingin the bike lane on the subject premises.
21 55. In addition to the foregoing hazards and deficiencies, the configuration of the
22 southbound "on-ramp" portion of Folsom Ranch Drive consists of a sweepingrighthand curve that
23 starts approximately 200 yards up the hill, forming a uniform and gradual arc with a very large
24 turning radius that continues unintermpted and unaltered until it reaches Greenback Lane, where it
25 continues unintermpted dfrectiy into, and across, the public bike lane and into the number two lane of
26 Greenback Lane.
27 56. This southbound "on-ramp" portion of Folsom Ranch Drive itself is configured,
28 constmcted andfimctionsin such a manner that it is very similar and almost identical in many ways

10
1 to afreeflow-stylechannelized on-ramp and/or acceleration lane (or some type of unconfroUed,
2 highly elongated, modified slip lane) that is expressly designed and configured to induce and
3 encourage motorists to accelerate through the tum so their vehicle speed approximately matches that
4 of throughfrafficby the time they merge with that faster movingfraffic(speed limit on Greenback at
5 that location is 45 m.p.h.).
6 .57. Without any traffic controls, waming signs or any traffic control lines to eliminate
7 driver ambiguity and confusion as to whether they should speed up or slow down on their approach to
8 Greenback, and no signs or other visual cues to alert them to the presence of a bike lane directly
9 ahead of them, drivers are simply left to guess what they should do in an exfremely short period of
10 time under highly confusing conditions.
11 58. In addition to inducing and encouraging drivers to accelerate, rather than slow their
12 vehicles, as they near Greenback, the radius and angle of this "on-ramp" as it sweeps to therightis
13 such that it requires motorists negotiating and accelerating through the curve to continually look over
14 their left shoulder and focus all of their attention to their left in order to locate a "gap" or break in
15 approaching westbound traffic on Greenback to determine the appropriate speed and location where
16 they can merge with through fraffic.
17 59. The design and configuration of the approach and on-ramp of southbound Folsom
18 Ranch Drive is such that if a motoristfravelingdown the hill and approaching Greenback while
19 looking over his/her left shoulder perceives a break or "gap" infrafficfravelingwest on Greenback
20 Lane, the motorist is encouraged to accelerate and continue accelerating through the sweeping right
21 tum, while still looking to their left, in order to merge onto Greenback Lane at a speed that already
22 matches the speed of oncomingfrafficon Greenback, precisely as Defendant SANTOS did prior to
23 colliding with Plaintiff.
24 60. Furthermore, as southbound vehicles get closer to Greenback and continue through the
25 curve toward the toward theright,and the skew angle between Greenback and Folsom Ranch Drive
26 continues to narrow to less than 45 degrees where it intersects with the bike lane, causing drivers
27 negotiating that sweepingrighttum to increasingly tum their heads to the left and look over and even
28 behind their left shoulder as they accelerate in order to see oncomingfrafficon Greenback.

11
1 61. As vehicles accelerate toward the conflict point between Folsom Ranch Drive and the
2 Class II bike lane on Greenback, it is impossible for drivers looking over their left shoulders to see or
3 detect anything directly infrontof them or to therightfrontarea of their vehicles, including any
4 cyclists occupying the Class II bike lane and crossing infrontof merging/accelerating vehicles at that
5 location.
6 62. These types of intersections have been well-documented in numerous federal, state
7 and local highway design studies and manuals as "high speed, low visibility head tumers" that are.
8 known to be exceedingly dangerous because they directly contribute to the cause of numerous
9 intersection accidents due to their dangerous design and configuration that is highly confusing for
10 drivers and extremely dangerous for cyclists forced to cross directly infrontof accelerating vehicles
11 operated by drivers who are looking in another direction entirely.
12 63. Assuming a driver can or does somehow tum their head back to therightto see what
13 might be directly infrontof his or her vehicle while accelerating toward the bike lane conflict point
14 on Greenback, the only "feature" that would possibly alert a driver to the presence of a bike lane at all
15 on Greenback at the conflict point is a broken white line that indicates where vehicles are to cross that
16 bike lane as they accelerate and merge onto Greenback, and possibly the presence of an actual cyclist
17 in the bike directly infrontof their vehicle, when it is already far too late to slow or stop before
18 colliding with the cyclist.
19 64. Seriously exacerbating an already very dangerous, hazardous and confusing
20 intersection for both cyclists and motorists at and around the above intersection were and are the
21 exfremely obscured sight lines and very limited sight distances for motorists as they approach the
22 conflict point where Folsom Ranch Drive and Greenback Lane converge due to the presence of six
23 full grownfreesthat have very low hanging branches and large canopies of foliage, light poles with
24 lightfixturesaffixed to them and decorative banners hangingfromthem, as well as various plants,
25 flowers and large decorative rocks in the two islands immediately to the east of the southbound
26 Folsom Ranch Drive "on-ramp" as described above, as well as several largefreesand bushes with
27 thick and heavy foliage adjacent to the east side of the Folsom Ranch Drive enfrance road extending
28 all the way to Greenback Lane and a small stmcture just south of the convergence point of the three

12
1 branches of Folsom Ranch Drive.
2 65. All of these obstacles, individually and in combination, significantly limit the ability
3 of any motoristfravelingon southbound Folsom Ranch Drive approaching Greenback Lane to see
4 fraffic moving on Greenback, requiring the motorist to focus even harder to their left, through a series
5 of sight obstmctions, making it virtually impossible to detect cyclists in the bike lane approaching the
6 bike lane conflict point at Greenback and Folsom Ranch Drive.
7 66. In addition to the foregoing, the configuration of the bike lane itself in the area of
8 Folsom Ranch Drive lacked any traffic or waming and/or other signals, signs, markings or other
9 devices that were and are necessary to wam Plaintiff and other cyclists of a dangerous condition and
10 frap which endangered the safe movement of bicycle fraffic and which would not be reasonably
11 apparent to, and would not have been anticipated by, a person exercising due care while riding his or
12 her bike in a designated public bike lane at that location.
13 67. There were and are absolutely no waming signals, signs, markings or other devices
14 that would alert or wam Plaintiff or other cyclists that the drivers of vehicles merging from their right
15 may not be looking for, and would likely not see, cyclists before they entered Greenback Lane from
16 southbound Folsom Ranch Drive, or that those drivers had absolutely no waming or traffic control
17 signs or devices of any kind facing them that would alert or wam them of the presence of a bike lane
18 at that location and/or the presence of cyclists riding in that area and/or their obligation to yield or
19 stop for cyclists.
20 68. In addition, the same obstacles and obstmctions that severely obscured and limited
21 motorists' sight lines as theyfraveledtoward Greenback Lane on southbound Folsom Ranch Drive
22 also obscured and limited Plaintiffs and other cyclists' sight lines that were necessary and required to
23 enable cyclists to have adequate distance to avoid collisions or unexpected vehicle movements.
24 69. At alltimesmentioned herein, the design, configuration, management, confrol,
25 supervision and operation of Folsom Ranch Drive and westbound Greenback Lane combined with
26 Defendant SANTOS' negligent operation of his vehicle, all of which were substantial factors in
27 causing the aforementioned accident and Plaintiffs' injuries, which accident and injuries were entirely
28 foreseeable, inevitable and entirely preventable.

13
1 Violations of Applicable Federal. State and Local Standards. Guidelines, Statutes. Rules. Codes
and Ordinances
2
3 70. Pursuant to section 11.16 of the City of Folsom Design Standards, "Private sfreets
4 shall be designed to the same stmctural and geometric design requirements as those for public
5 sfreets."
6 71. Violations of applicable federal, state and local standards, guidelines, statues, mles,
7 codes and ordinances include, but are not limited to, the following:
8 72. The design, configuration, maintenance and operation of southbound Folsom Ranch
9 Drive on its approach to and where it^ intersects with Greenback Lane and the Class II bike lane on
10 Greenback Lane at that location fail to comply with and violate even the minimum highway design
11 and bike lane standards, guidelines, principles, mles, regulations, ordinances and plans promulgated
12 by all federal, state and local agencies conceming highway, sfreet and bike lane safety.
13 73. These include, but are not limited to, the City of Folsom's own Design Standards,
14 Constmction Standards, Highway Design Standards and Standard Drawings, Master Bike Plan,
15 Master Pedestrian Plan, General Plan, Plan Area Specific Plan, Folsom Active Transportation Plan,
16 County of Sacramento Improvement Standards, the Califomia Department of Transportation
17 (Calfrans) Highway Design Manual, Califomia Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices ("CA
18 MUTCD"), Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstmcting Intersections and Interchanges for
19 Bicyclists and Pedestrians (2010) and other Calfrans publications applicable to highways and bike
20 lanes, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Adminisfration (FWHA) Design
21 Standards, MUTCD, Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015) and numerous other
22 publications and studies, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
23 (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Sfreets ("Green Book"), The National
24 Association of City Transportation Officials' (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2012), Urban
25 Sfreet Design Guide (2013), Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) highway and bike lane
26 design publications, and additional studies and publications conceming highway and bike lane design
27 and safety.
28 ///

14
1 74. The Calfrans Highway Design Manual and numerous other publications and studies
2 indicate unequivocally that the vast majority of motor vehicle/bicycle collisions occur at
3 intersections. For this reason, intersection design should be accomplished in a manner that will
4 minimize confusion by motorists and cyclists, eliminate ambiguity and induce all road users to
5 operate their vehicles in accordance with the statutory mles of the road, including operating their
6 vehicles at safe speeds and yielding to cyclists crossing infrontof them.
7 75. Virtually every aspect of the configuration of Greenback Lane and Folsom Ranch
8 Drive violates these fundamental design principles by maximizing confusion by motorists and
9 cyclists, causing and creating substantial ambiguity for both drivers and cyclists, inducing and
10 encouraging motorists to operate their vehicles at unsafe speeds as they approach and cross the bike
11 lane on Greenback Lane and inducing and encouraging drivers to not stop or yield for cyclists in the
12 bike lane as they merge onto Greenback.
13 76. The lack of anyfrafficconfrol devices, signs, striping or physical features of any kind
14 (including on Greenback itself) to slow vehicles as they approach Greenback Lane or to alert or wam
15 drivers of the presence of a bike lane and cyclists they are required tp yield and/or stop for violate the
16 most fundamental principles, standards and requirements set forth in the CA MUTCD and numerous
17 other publications, including those cited above, that govem the safe movement of motor vehicle
18 traffic and bicycles.
19 77. Thefreeflow-stylechannelized on-ramp and/or acceleration lane and/or unconfroUed,

20 highly elongated and modified slip lane at an unconfroUed intersection are deemed entirely unsafe,
21 undesirable in all respects and prohibited by all applicable federal, state and local design standards
22 because such configurations are expressly designed to induce and encourage motorists to accelerate
23 through the tum at high speeds in order to merge with faster moving throughfraffic,and put any
24 cyclists crossing that unconfroUed intersection at the conflict point where mergingfrafficcrosses that
25 bike lane at substantialriskof harm.
26 78. The exceptionally large radius of this gradual, sweeping and unintermptedrighthand
27 curve that starts approximately 200 yards up the hill further induces and encourages to drivers
28 accelerate to even higher speeds through the tum, exacerbating an already dangerous configuration of

15
1 this approach to Greenback in violation of applicable federal, state and local design standards.
2 79. The angle of the intersection of southbound Folsom Ranch Drive and Greenback Lane
3 violates federal, state and local standards and guidelines, all which recommend right angle (90°)
4 intersections as providing the safest and most favorable conditions for intersecting and tuming traffic
5 movements because this geometric configuration reduces driver confusion, provides the shortest
6 crossing distance for motor vehicles and bicycles, optimizes comer sight lines sight distances for
7 motorist to see and detect vehicles and bicycles, reduces vehicle tuming speeds so collisions are more
8 easily avoided and the severity of collisions are minimized, and sends a clear message to motorists
9 that they are making a tuming movement and should yield to cyclists and through traffic on the
10 receiving roadway.
11 80. The Calfrans Highway Design Manual and CA MUTCD require that intersections be
12 configured in such a manner that reduces areas of conflict and separates points of conflict,
13 coordinates channelization with effectivefrafficdevices, exposes/confronts motorists and cyclists
14 with only one decision at a time, eliminates complex intersections that present multiple choices to
15 drivers and cyclists and considers all users of the intersection, taking into special consideration the
16 safety of cyclists who must share the intersection with vehicular traffic.
17 81. As set forth in Chapter 400 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, large deviations
18 from right angles decrease visibility, hamper certain tuming operations, encourage high speed tums,
19 reduce yielding by tuming fraffic and increase the size of intersections which increases crossing
20 distances for cyclists and pedestrians.
21 82. Section 11.6 of the City of Folsom Design Standards specifically requires that all
22 centerlines of sfreets shall intersect one another at an angle as near to a right angle as is possible by
23 tangents not less than 100 feet in length, and only in "unusual circumstances" (not present at this
24 intersection) may the City Engineer waive this requirement.
25 83. Section 403.3 of the Calfrans Highway Design Manual states that when a right angle
26 cannot be provided due to physical consfraints, the interior angle should be designed as close to 90
27 degrees as is practical, but should in no case be less than 75 degrees (or special safety measures must
28 be taken, none of which were done here, in the event certain physical characteristics require an

16
1 intersection angle of less than 75 degrees).
2 84. The skew angle between Greenback and Folsom Ranch Drive is less than 45 degrees
3 at the conflict point where vehicles merging onto Greenback cross the bike lane, in direct
4 contravention of the City of Folsom's own design standards, as well as Calfrans, FWHA and
5 numerous other applicable design standards.
6 85. This is precisely the type of "high speed, low visibility head tumer" intersection that
7 all federal, state and local standards prohibit because of the exceedingly dangerous nature of this type
8 of intersection configuration, especially for cyclists and pedestrians.
9 86. In addition, the comer sight triangle on the left (east) side of Folsom Ranch Drive on
10 its approach to and at its intersection with Greenback Lane, mandated by federal, state and local
11 standards, mles, codes, regulations, guidelines and ordinances for all intersections (including all
12 private road coimections), contains numerous obstacles and obstmctions that severely obscure and
13 limit sight lines and sight distances for any driver approaching Greenback Lane on Folsom Ranch
14 Drive.
15 87. The size of required clear sight triangles substantially increases for uncontrolled
16 intersections such as that at Folsom Ranch Drive and Greenback Lane that has nofrafficor waming
17 signals, signs, markings or other devices, where a driver's decision point is set back fartherfromthe
18 intersecting cross sfreet than at intersections which are stop or signal confrolled.
19 88. Chapters 200 and 400 of the Calfrans Highway Design Manual, as well as numerous
20 other federal and state standards and guidelines, require that sight triangles for any intersection must
21 be kept clear of obstacles and obstmctions so drivers are able to readily detect and see approaching
22 vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians prior to reaching an intersection, and prohibit sight obstmctions
23 within the sight triangle that must be kept clear of such obstmctions.
24 89. Section 11.9 of the City of Folsom Design Manual states that the design of all public
25 sfreets, private sfreets, and major non-residential driveways shall provide minimum sight distances
26 provided in that section, and in no case will the City of Folsom allow the sight distance to be less than
27 the minimum sight distances per the State Highway Design Manual, except in very special
28 circumstances are not present here.

17
1 90. Section 20.1 of the City of Folsom Design Manual also requires that any plans
2 conceming private constmction projects submitted to the City of Folsom for approval must show the
3 intersection, approaches and minimum vehicular sight distance triangle that meet the City's
4 requirements.
5 91. In addition, the City of Folsom requires that the owner of any private road or driveway
6 that intersects with a public sfreet keep the sight trianglesfreeof vegetation or obstmctions that in
7 any way obstmct the view of drivers on sfreets, publicrights-of-wayor private driveways, and such
8 sight triangle obstmctions have been deemed a "prohibited activity" pursuant to Folsom Municipal
9 Code section 8.38.030, subject to City enforcement procedures that require the violation be remedied.
10 92. All of the obstacles present in the left side sight triangle for drivers on southbound
11 Folsom Ranch Drive approaching Greenback make it exfremely difficult to see oncomingfrafficon
12 Greenback and nearly impossible to detect and see a cyclistridingin the bike lane at that location.
13 93. All of these obstacles and obstmctions in the required clear sight triangle violate the
14 City's own mles, regulations and standards, as well as state and federal standards mandating clear
15 intersection sight lines and sight distances.
16 94. At all times mentioned herein, the factors identified above, individually and in
17 combination, rendered and currently render the entire configuration of southbound Folsom Ranch
18 Drive on its approach to, and at its intersection with. Greenback Lane exfremely dangerous and
19 hazardous for cyclistsridingin the marked public bike lane on adjoining City of Folsom property that
20 crosses infrontof Folsom Ranch Drive, who were and are highly unlikely to be seen by drivers
21 accelerating through the tum and looking to their left as they cross the bike path and merge onto
22 Greenback Lane at high rates of speed.
23 95. The factors identified above, individually and in combination, caused, created and
24 contributed to the existence of an exfremely dangerous condition of the adjoining public property,
25 which necessarily exposed Plaintiff and other cyclists to substantialriskof injury simply by riding
26 with due care in that designated bike lane.
27 96. In addition, the configuration of the bike lane itself in the area of Folsom Ranch Drive
28 constituted a dangerous condition of public property because of the lack of any traffic or waming

18
1 signals, signs, markings or other devices that were and are necessary to wam Plaintiff and other
2 cyclists of a dangerous condition, which endangered the safe movement of bicyclefrafficand which
3 would not be reasonably apparent to, and would not have been anticipated by, a person exercising due
4 care whileridinghis or her bike in a designated public bike lane at that location.
5 97. There were and are absolutely no waming signals, signs, markings or other devices
6 that would alert or wam Plaintiff or other cyclists of vehicles mergingfromtheirrightwhose drivers
7 may not be looking for or see the cyclists before they entered Greenback Lane or that those drivers
8 had absolutely no waming or traffic control signs or devices of any kind facing them that would alert
9 or wam them of the presence of a bike lane at that location and/or the presence of cyclistsridingin
10 that area and/or their obligation to yield or stop for cyclists.
11 98. In addition, the same obstacles and obstmctions that are present in the mandated sight
12 triangle as discussed above that severely obscure and limit motorists' sight lines as theyfraveltoward
13 Greenback on southbound Folsom Ranch Drive, violate the provisions of Chapters 200, 400 and 1000
14 of the Calfrans Highway Design Manual that also require unobstmcted sight distances for cyclists to
15 enable them to have adequate distance to avoid collisions or unexpected vehicle movements.
16 99. Although the City of Folsom had and has at its disposal bright green bike lane conflict
17 zone paint to use, which it hasfrequentlyused at various locations around the City of Folsom in bike
18 lanes to provide highly visible cues to drivers of the presence of a bike lane, especially in intersection
19 conflict areas where such markings are typically used to alert drivers of their obligation to look for
20 and yield to cyclists, there was and is nothing more than a marginally-visible broken white line across
21 thefrontof Folsom Ranch Drive that would have been barely detectable to drivers accelerating onto
22 Greenback, and not detectable at all if they were not looking in that direction as they accelerated
23 through the tum.
24 100. At all times mentioned herein, the public Class II bike on the subject premises
25 constituted a dangerous condition of public property under Govemment Code §§ 830 and 835 in and
26 of itself and by virtue of its adjacency to a portion of Folsom Ranch Drive on the adjoining property
27 that constituted a dangerous condition that was exfremely dangerous and hazardous to cyclists riding
28 in the public bike lane at that location and exposed Plaintiff and other cyclists using the public

19
1 property to a substantialriskof injury.
2 101. At alltimesmentioned herein, the public Class II bike lane at on the subject premises
3 further constituted a dangerous condition of public property under Govemment Code §§ 830, 835 and
4 830.8 due to the existence of a dangerous and hazardous concealedfrapfor unsuspecting cyclists
5 because of the failure to providefrafficor waming signals, signs, markings or devices that were
6 necessary to wam of a dangerous condition, which endangered the safe movement of fraffic,
7 including Plaintiff and other cyclists using the public bike lane, and which would not be reasonably
8 apparent to, and would not have been anticipated by. Plaintiff and other cyclists person exercising due
9 care while using that bike lane.
10 102. At all times mentioned herein, Folsom Ranch Drive was exfremely dangerous and
11 hazardous in design, configuration, maintenance, management, operation and location because it
12 exposed Plaintiff and other members of the cycling public using the bike lane on Greenback Lane,
13 located on the adjacent and adjoining public property at the end of the southbound "on-ramp" portion
14 of Folsom Ranch Drive to a foreseeable, substantial and unreasonableriskof injury.
15 103. The hazardous and dangerous conditions of both the public bike lane on Greenback
16 Lane and of southbound Folsom Ranch Drive as described above combined with and contributed to
17 Defendant SANTOS' negligent acts and omissions while operating his vehicle, who was using
18 southbound Folsom Ranch Drive in an entirely foreseeable manner based on the design, configuration
19 and maintenance of Folsom Ranch Drive, and the dangerous and hazardous features of both the
20 public bike lane and Folsom Ranch Drive as described above substantially increased and intensified
21 theriskof danger and serious injury to Plaintiff as a result of Defendant SANTOS' acceleration
22 through the bike lane occupied by Plaintiff and his failure to yield and/or stop for Plaintiff, also
23 entirely foreseeable and expected based on the dangerous and hazardous conditions of the public bike
24 lane design and adjoining Folsom Ranch Drive.
25 104. At all times mentioned herein, the defects, deficiericies, hazards and exfremely
26 dangerous condition of both the bike lane on Greenback Lane and Folsom Ranch Drive were open,
27 obvious, apparent and easily identifiable and visible to any individual and/or entity employed by
28 and/or working on behalf of any/all of the Defendants observing or performing even a cursory

20
1 inspection of the subject premises, including in 2018 when the City of Folsom performed sfreet
2 repairs and installed/applied Class II bike lane lines on Greenback Lane, which would not have been
3 visible or apparent to Plaintiff or any other bikeriderusing the public bike lane on the subject
4 premises.
5 105. At all times mentioned herein. Plaintiff did not appreciate and could not could not
6 have appreciated or been aware of the dangerous character of the condition said bike lane or the
7 dangerous condition created by the dangerous and defective condition of the adjacent property, which
8 could not and would not have been reasonably apparent to, and would not have been discoverable or
9 anticipated by. Plaintiff or others exercising due care while riding in the bike lane.
10 106. Had Plaintiff known of the dangerous condition of the bike lane and the adjacent
11 property and/or had he realized and understood he was entering a dangerousfrapin the bike lane
12 where it crossed the uncontrolled southbound Folsom Ranch Drive "on-ramp," Plaintiff could have
13 taken adequate precautions to have potentially avoided this collision by being fully aware of the
14 dangers of this dangerousfrapand the fact that vehicles on southbound Folsom Ranch Drive may not
15 and likely would not see him or yield or stop for him.
16 107. As a direct and proximate of Defendants' and each of their wrongful acts, omissions
17 and dangerous condition of the subject premises, as herein alleged. Plaintiff suffered serious and
18 permanent injuries to his mental, physical and emotional well-being.
19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
20 (Dangerous Condition of Public Property [Government Code § 835]/Negligence Per Se)
21 108. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1
22 through 107 of this Complaint as though fiiUy set forth herein. This cause of action is alleged against
23 Defendants CITY OF FOLSOM, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO and DOES 1-25, inclusive.
24 109. At all times mentioned herein. Defendants, and each of them, owned, confrolled,
25 possessed, designed, operated, managed, supervised, inspected, approved, repaired, maintained,
26 constmcted, entmsted and otherwise exercised dominion and confrol over the portion of the subject
27 premises described above that includes the bike lane on westbound Greenback Lane at and in the
28 vicinity Folsom Ranch Drive.

21
1 110. At all times mentioned herein. Defendants and each of their and its employees,
2 servants, agents and/or contractors had a duty to Plaintiff and other members of the cycling public,
3 pursuant to Govemment Code § 835, to own, control, design, constmct, operate, manage, supervise,
4 repair and maintain the subject premises, including the public bike lane on the subject premises, in a
5 reasonably safe condition to prevent injuries to Plaintiff and other cyclists lawfiillyridingin that area,
6 and to not cause, create or allow to exist defective and dangerous or hazardous conditions that created
7 a substantial and foreseeableriskof harm to Plmntiff and other cyclistsridingin the bike lane on the
8 subject premises.
9 111. Defendants and each of their employees, servants, agents and/or contractors further
10 had a duty to Plaintiff and other members of the cycling public to inspect for, discover and remedy
11 and/or wam Plaintiff and other members of the cycling public of any dangerous or hazardous
12 conditions that existed on the subject premises.
13 112. Defendants, and each of them, further had a duty to Plaintiff and other members of the
14 cycling public to inspect the subject premises before opening the bike lane up to the cycling public
15 and to ensure that the bike lane and adjacent sfreets that intersected the bike lane were reasonably safe
16 for cyclists, that the bike lane and all intersecting sfreets complied with all applicable federal, state
17 and local constmction and safety standards and that the bike lane did not create a dangerousfrapfor
18 cyclists using the bike lane with due care.
19 113. Defendants and each of their employees, servants, agents and/or confractors further
20 had a duty to Plaintiff and other members of the cycling public to comply with all applicable local,
21 state and local standards, statues, mles, codes, mandates, regulations, guidelines and ordinances,
22 including, but not limited to. City of Folsom and Calfrans Highway Constmction and Design
23 Manuals, the CA MUTCD and all other standards and requirements set forth in the publications cited
24 above, which were designed expressly for the safe movement of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians
25 and establish minimum standards and specifications regarding the configuration of roads, sfreets,
26 intersections and bike lanes on public sfreets and highways and the proper, necessary and required
27 use offrafficor waming signals, signs, markings or other devices for the safety of Plaintiff and other
28 members of the cycling publicridingin the Class II bike lane on the subject premises.

22
1 114. Defendants and each of their employees, servants, agents and/or confractors further
2 had a duty to Plaintiff and other members of the cycling public under Govemment Code § 830.8 to
3 utilize and installfrafficor waming signals, signs, markings or other devices that were necessary to
4 wam Plaintiff and other cyclists of a dangerous condition and concealedfrapwhich endangered the
5 safe movement of bicyclefrafficand would not be reasonably apparent to, and would not have been
6 anticipated by, a person exercising due care whileridinghis or her bike in a designated public bike
7 lane at that location.
9 had a duty to Plaintiff and other members of the cycling public to not design, locate and constmct the
10 public bike lane on westbound Greenback Lane in a location that was and is adjacent and in close
11 proximity to an improperly configured and constmcted and extremely dangerous portion of Folsom
12 Ranch Drive on the adjoining property that itself constituted a dangerous condition and was
13 extremely dangerous and hazardous for cyclistsridingin the public bike lane at that location, which
14 exposed Plaintiff and other cyclists using the bike lane to a substantialriskof injury.
15 116. Defendants, and each of them, fiirther had a duty to implement and adhere to a
16 reasonable inspection system that was adequate to discover the aforementioned dangerous condition
17 of the subject premises, pursuant to Govemment Code § 835.2(b), which posed an unreasonably high
18 risk of serious injury to Plaintiff.
19 117. Defendants, and each of them, further had a mandatory duty to comply with all
20 applicable laws, statutes, mles, regulations and ordinances imposed by enactment that were designed
21 to protect against theriskof the type of injuries Plaintiff suffered as a result of the aforementioned
22 accident.
23 118. Defendants, and each of them, further had a duty to protect the general public,
24 including Plaintiff and other cyclistsridingon westbound Greenback Lane on the subject premises,
25 by exercising its authority over, compelling and/or seeking the cooperation of the
26 owner(s)/possessor(s) of Folsom Ranch Drive to design, constmct, configure, reconfigure and
27 maintain Folsom Ranch Drive in compliance with all federal, state and local design and constmction
28 standards, statues, mles, codes, regulations, guidelines and ordinances in such a manner that would

23
1 not endanger and/or pose a substantial risk of harm to cyclistsridingin the Class II bike lane on
2 westbound Greenback Lane at that location, to keep and maintain clear and unobstmcted sight lines
3 and distances, to place necessary, required and appropriatefrafficand waming signs, markings and
4 other devices as requfred on Folsom Ranch Drive for the safety of the cycling public and to reduce
5 the substantialriskof harm that existed and currentiy exists for cyclistsridingin the Class II bike lane
6 on westbound Greenback Lane at that location.
7 119. Defendants, and each of them, further had a duty to properly review and consider all
8 plans, permits and other documents applicable to the configuration of Folsom Ranch Drive in the
9 vicinity of Greenback Lane in compliance with its own application, permit and approval process, to
10 ensure conformity and compliance with all applicable federal, state and local standards, statues, mles,
11 codes, regulations, guidelines and ordinances before approving any such plans, to properly inspect the
12 completed constmction and configuration of Folsom Ranch Drive in the vicinity of Greenback Lane
13 to ensure conformity with any approved plans before permitting the general public to enter/travel
14 through the area, to have the proper person and/or body vested with proper authority to approve the
15 design and to ensure the design was approved in conformity with all applicable federal, state and
16 local design and engineering standards, tb fully and adequately consider bicyclist safety before
17 approving the design and plans, to ensure any approved plans were accurate and complete and
18 included all relevant aspects of the proposed design, and to otherwise ensure the reasonableness of
19 the design before approving design and/or opening the area for use by the public.
20 120. Defendants, arid each of them, further had a duty to take into consideration all changed
21 conditions that could or would render any previously approved and/or constmcted configuration of
22 the subject premises hazardous, dangerous and confusing for cyclists and motorists based on those
23 changed conditions.
24 121. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty to Plaintiff and other members of
25 the cycling public under Govemment Code § 835 when they caused, created and permitted to exist a
26 dangerous, defective and hazardous condition of the subject premises, within the meaning of
27 Govemment Code § 830(a), because the subject premises were in a dangerous condition at the time of
28 Plaintiffs injury. Defendants knew or should of known of the dangerous character of the condition of

24
1 tiie subject premises as described herein. Plaintiffs injuries were proximately caused by the
2 dangerous condition, the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeableriskof the kind of
3 injuries Plaintiff suffered and Defendants had actual and/or constmctive notice of the dangerous
4 condition of the subject premises prior to and at the time of Plaintiffs accident.
5 122. Defendants, and each of them, further breached thefr duty to Plaintiff and other
6 members ofthe cycling public under Govemment Code § 835 when they failed to inspect the subject
7 premises before opening the bike lane up to the cycling public and failed to ensure that the bike lane
8 and adjacent sfreets that intersected the bike lane were reasonably safe for cyclists, that the bike lane
9 and all intersecting sfreets complied with all applicable federal, state and local constmction and safety
10 standards and that the bike lane did not create a dangerous trap for cyclists using the bike lane with
11 due care,
12 123. Defendants, and each of them, further breached their duty to Plaintiff and other
13 members of the cycling public under Govemment Code §§ 835 and 830.8 when they caused, created
14 and permitted to exist a dangerous, defective and hazardous condition of the subject premises as a
15 result of their failure to utilize or install any traffic or waming signals, signs, markings or other
16 devices that were and are necessary to wam Plaintiff and other cyclists of a dangerous condition and
17 frap which existed on the subject premises that endangered the safe movement of bicycle traffic and
18 which would not be reasonably apparent to, and would not have been anticipated by, a person
19 exercising due care whileridinghis or her bike in a designated public bike lane at that location.
21 members ofthe cycling public under Govemment Code § 835 when they failed to comply with all
22 applicable local, state and local standards, statues, mles, codes, mandates, regulations, guidelines and
23 ordinances, including, but not limited to, those set forth in the City of Folsom and Calfrans Highway
24 Design Manuals, the CA MUTCD and all other standards and requirements set forth in the
25 publications cited above (including sections 11.6 and 11.9 of the City of Folsom Design Standards,
26 Folsom Municipal Code section 8.38.030 and Chapters 200,400 and 1000 ofthe Calfrans Highway
27 Design Manual), which were designed expressly for the safe movement of motorists, cyclists and
28 pedestrians and establish minimum standards and specifications regarding the design, configuration

25
1 maintenance of roads, sfreets, intersections and bike lanes on public sfreets and highways and the
2 proper, necessary and required use offrafficor waming signals, signs, markings or other devices for
3 the safety of Plaintiff and other members of the cycling publicridingin the Class II bike lane on the
4 subject premises.
5 125. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was and is a member of the class of persons
6 the standards, statues, mles, codes, regulations, guidelines and ordinances set forth in the publications
7 cited were designed to protect, and the injuries and damages Plaintiff suffered were directly and
8 proximately caused as a result of Defendants' violation of said standards, statues, mles, codes,
9 regulations, guidelines and ordinances and were ofthe nature they were designed to prevent.
10 126. Defendants, and each of them, further breached thefr duty to Plaintiff and other
11 members of the cycling public under Govemment Code § 835 when they designed, located and
12 constmcted the public bike lane on the subject premises in an area that was and is adjacent to an
13 improperly configured and constmcted and extremely dangerous portion of Folsom Ranch Drive on
14 the adjoining property that itself constituted a dangerous condition and was exfremely dangerous and
15 hazardous to cyclistsridingin the public bike lane at that location, at atimewhen Defendants knew
16 or should have known of the exfreme dangers and dangerous condition of the adjacent/adjoining
17 property, which exposed Plaintiff and other cyclists using the public property to a substantialriskof
18 injury.
20 members of the cycling public when they failed to implement and adhere to a reasonable inspection
21 system that was adequate to discover the aforementioned dangerous conditions of the subject
22 premises, pursuant to Govemment Code § 835.2(b), which posed an unreasonably highriskof serious
23 injury to Plaintiff, and thereafter failed to conduct reasonable and adequate inspections of the subject
24 premises, which inspections would have revealed the aforementioned dangerous and hazardous
25 conditions andfrapdescribed above and would have provided Defendants with the opportunity to
26 eliminate and/or wam of said dangerous and hazardous conditions before opening the area up to the
27 cycling public.
28 ///

26
2 members of the cycling public when they failed to discharge thefr mandatory duty to comply with all
3 applicable laws, statutes, mles, regulations and ordinances imposed by enactment that were designed
4 to protect against theriskof the type of injuries Plaintiff suffered as a result of the aforementioned
5 accident.
6 129. Defendants, and each of them,fiirtherbreached their duty to Plaintiff and other
7 members of the cycling public on the subject premises when they failed to exercise their authority
8 over, compel and/or seek the cooperation of the owner(s)/possessor(s) of Folsom Ranch Drive to
9 design, constmct, configure, reconfigure and maintain Folsom Ranch Drive in the vicinity of
10 Greenback Lane in compliance with all federal, state and local standards, statues, mles, codes,
11 regulations, guidelines and ordinances in such a manner that would not endanger and/or pose a
12 substantialriskof harm to cyclistsridingin the Class II bike lane on westbound Greenback Lane at
13 that location, to keep and maintain clear and unobstmcted sight lines and distances, and to place
14 necessary, required and appropriate traffic and waming signs, markings and other devices as required
15 on Folsom Ranch Drive for the safety of the cycling public and to reduce the substantial risk of harm
16 that existed and currently exists for cyclistsridingin the Class II bike lane on westbound Greenback
17 Lane at that location.
18 130. Defendants, and each of them, had actual notice of the exfremely dangerous and
19 hazardous conditions of the public bike lane and adjacent sfreet that intersected with the bike lane on
20 the subject premises because a negligent or wrongfiil act or omission of one or more its employees,
21 agents, servants, confractors and/or subconfractors, acting within the scope of their employment,
22 agency, service and/or pursuant to confract(s) with Defendants, caused and created the dangerous
23 condition that proximately caused Plaintiffs injuries, and therefore notice of the dangerous condition
24 is presumed.
25 131. Defendants, and each of them, had actual notice of the exfremely dangerous and
27 the subject premises because one or more its employees, agents, servants, confractors and/or
28 subconfractors, acting within the scope of their employment, agency, service and/or pursuant to

27
1 confract(s) with Defendants, saw and were fully aware of the presence of the dangerous condition of
2 the subject premises as described herein, including the dangerous and hazardous condition of the
3 adject property, and did nothing to remedy or wam Plaintiff and other cyclists of said condition.
4 132. Defendants, and each of them, had actual notice of the extremely dangerous and
6 the subject premises because they had received prior complaints about the dangerous, defective and
7 hazardous condition of the subject premises, knew or should have known of the dangerous character
8 of the condition, and thereafter failed to correct or wam of the dangerous, defective and hazardous
9 condition at any time prior to Plaintiffs accident.
10 133. Defendants, and each of them, had constmctive notice of the extremely dangerous and
12 the subject premises, within the meaning of Govemment Code §§ 835.2(b), and 840.4(b), because the
13 dangerous and hazardous conditions and dangerous trap described herein existed for such a period of
14 time and was of such an obvious nature that Defendants and their employees, servants, agents and/or
15 contractors should have discovered the condition and its dangerous and hazardous character, which
16 created a reasonably foreseeableriskthat the kind of injuries Plaintiff suffered would resultfromthe
17 dangerous condition, and thereafter failed to take measures to wam of, protect against or remedy said
18 condition.
19 134. Despite said notice of the dangerous, hazardous and defective condition of the subject
20 premises. Defendants and their employees, servants, agents and/or confractors failed to remedy or
21 wam Plaintiff and other cyclists of the dangerous, hazardous and defective condition of said
22 premises.
24 members of the cycling public when they failed to properly review and consider all plans, permits and
25 other documents applicable to the configuration of the public bike lane and Folsom Ranch Drive in
26 the vicinity of Greenback Lane in compliance with its own application, permit and approval process,
27 failed to ensure conformity and compliance with all applicable federal, state and local statutes, codes,
28 regulations, standards and guidelines before approving any such plans, failed to properly inspect the

28
1 completed constmction and configuration of the public bike lane and Folsom Ranch Drive in the
2 vicinity of Greenback Lane to ensure conformity with any approved plans before permitting the
3 general public to enter/fravel through the area, failed to have the proper person and/or body vested
4 with proper authority to approve the design and failed to ensure the design was approved in
5 conformity with all applicable federal, state and local design and engineering standards, to fully and
6 adequately consider bicyclist safety before approving the design and plans, to ensure any approved
7 plans were accurate and complete and included all relevant aspects of the proposed design, and to
8 otherwise ensure the reasonableness of the design before approving design and/or opening the area
9 for use by the public.
11 members of the cycling public when they failed to take into consideration all changed conditions that
12 could or would render any previously approved and/or constmcted configuration of the subject
13 premises hazardous, dangerous and confusing for cyclists and motorists based on those changed
14 conditions.
15 137. Defendants, and each of them, are further liable to Plaintiff for the negligent acts
16 and/or omissions of their employees, agents, servants, confractors and/or subconfractors, pursuant to
17 Govemment Code §§ 815.2, 815.4, 820 and 840.2 that were committed while said employees, agents,
18 servants, confractors and/or subconfractors were acting on behalf of Defendants and/or in the course and
19 scope of thefr employment or hfre with Defendants and caused and/or contributed to the dangerous nature
20 of the subject premises as described herein.
21 138. The hazardous and dangerous conditions of both the public bike lane on Greenback
22 Lane and of southbound Folsom Ranch Drive as described above combined with and contributed to
23 Defendant SANTOS' negligent acts and omissions while operating his vehicle, who was using
24 southbound Folsom Ranch Drive and crossed the public bike lane in an entirely foreseeable manner
25 based on the design, configuration and maintenance of Folsom Ranch Drive and the bike lane, and
26 the dangerous and hazardous features of both the public bike lane and Folsom Ranch Drive as
27 described above substantially increased and intensified theriskof danger and serious injury to
28 Plaintiff as a result of Defendant SANTOS' acceleration through the bike lane occupied by Plaintiff

29
1 and his failure to yield and/or stop for Plaintiff, also entirely foreseeable and expected based on the
2 dangerous and hazardous conditions of the public bike lane and adjoining Folsom Ranch Drive.
3 139. At alltimesmentioned herein, the defects, deficiencies, hazards and exfremely
4 dangerous condition of both the bike lane on Greenback Lane and Folsom Ranch Drive were open,
5 obvious, apparent and easily identifiable and visible to any individual and/or entity working for
6 and/or on behalf of Defendants observing or performing even a cursory inspection of the subject
7 premises, but would not have been visible or apparent to Plaintiff or any other bikeriderusing the
8 public bike lane on the subject premises.
9 140. At alltimesmentioned herein. Plaintiff did not cause or contribute to his injuries or to
10 the occurrence of any of the events that caused his accident or injuries and was at all times exercising
11 due care whileridingin the bike lane on the subject premises.
12 141. At all times mentioned herein. Plaintiff could not have appreciated and did not
13 appreciate the extremely dangerous and hazardous condition and trap Defendants, and each of them,
14 caused, created and permitted to exist on the subject premises that Plaintiff unknowingly entered as
15 he rode with due care in the Class II bike lane in the vicinity of Folsom Ranch Drive, entirely
16 unaware that a vehicle exiting Folsom Ranch Drive would not look for or see him and/or stop or yield
17 for him and would collide with him due to the dangerous condition of the intersection as described
18 above that encouraged motorists to accelerate across the bike lane and onto Greenback Lane without
19 looking for or stopping or yielding for cyclists in the bike lane.
20 142. As a direct and proximate of Defendants' and each of their wrongful acts, omissions,
21 failure to comply with numerous federal, state and local design and constmction standards and
22 dangerous condition of the subject premises, as herein alleged. Plaintiff was stmck by a vehicle
23 exiting Folsom Ranch Drive and merging onto Greenback Lane while Plaintiff wasridinghis bike in
24 a designated Class II bike lane at that location.
25 143. As a fiirther direct and proximate of Defendants' and each of their wrongful acts,
26 omissions, failure to comply with numerous federal, state and local design and constmction standards
27 and dangerous condition of the subject premises, as herein alleged. Plaintiff suffered severe and
28 permanent injuries to his mental, physical and emotional well-being.

30
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (Liability Pursuant to Govemment Code §§ 820(a), 815.2,815.4 and 840.2)
3 144. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation set forth in
4 Paragraphs 1 through 143 of this Complaint as though fiiUy set forth herein. This cause of action is
5 alleged against Defendants CITY OF FOLSOM, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO and DOES 1-25,
6 inclusive.
7 145. Califomia Govemment Code § 820(a) provides: "Except as otherwise provided by
8 statute (including Section 820.2), a public employee is liable for injury caused by his act or omission
9 to the same extent as a private person."
10 146. Califomia Govemment Code § 815.2(a) provides: "A public entity is liable for injury
11 proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his
12 employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action
13 against that employee or his personal representative."
14 147. Califomia Govemment Code § 815.4 provides: "A public entity is liable for injury
15 proximately caused by a tortious act or omission of an independent confractor of the public entity to
16 the same extent that the public entity would be subject to such liability if it were a private person."
17 148. Califomia Govemment Code § 840.2 further imposes liability on an employee of a
18 public entity for causing and creating a dangerous condition of public property as a result of the
19 employee's negligence or other wrongful act.
21 possessed, designed, operated, managed, supervised, inspected, approved, repaired, maintained,
22 constmcted, entmsted and otherwise exercised dominion and confrol over the portion of the subject
23 premises described above that includes Greenback Lane at and in the vicinity of its intersection with
24 Folsom Ranch Drive, including the bike lane on westbound Greenback Lane at and in the vicinity
25 Folsom Ranch Drive.
26 150. Defendants, and each of them, are liable to Plaintiff because their employees, servants,
27 agents, and/or confractors caused, created and permitted to exist a dangerous, defective and hazardous
28 conditions of the public bike lane and adjacent sfreet that intersected with the bike lane on the subject

31
1 premises, within the meaning of Govemment Code § 830(a), because the subject premises were in a
2 dangerous condition at the time of Plaintiff s injury, Defendants' employees, servants, agents, and/or
3 confractors knew or should of known of the dangerous character of the conditions of the subject
4 premises as described herein. Plaintiffs injuries were proximately caused by the dangerous
5 conditions, the dangerous conditions created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injuries
6 Plaintiff suffered and Defendants employees, servants, agents, and/or contractors had actual and/or
7 constmctive notice of the dangerous condition of the subject premises prior to and at the time of
8 Plaintiffs accident.
9 151. Defendants' and each of their employees, servants, agents and/or confractors had
10 actual notice of the extremely dangerous and hazardous condition of the subject premises because a
11 negligent or wrongful act or omission of one or more its employees, agents, servants, contractors
12 and/or subcontractors, acting within the scope of their employment, agency, service and/or pursuant
13 to confract(s) with Defendants, caused and created the dangerous conditions that proximately caused
14 Plaintiffs injuries, and therefore notice of the dangerous condition is presumed.
15 152. Defendants' and each of their employees, servants, agents and/or contractors had also
16 had actual notice of the extremely dangerous and hazardous conditions of the subject premises
17 because they saw and were fully aware of the presence of the dangerous condition of the subject
18 premises as described herein, and did nothing to remedy or wam Plaintiff and other cyclists of said
19 conditions.
20 153. Defendants' and each of their employees, servants, agents and/or confractors also had
21 actual notice of the exfremely dangerous and hazardous condition of the subject premises because
22 they had received prior complaints about the dangerous, defective and hazardous conditions of the
23 subject premises, knew or should have known of the dangerous character of the conditions, and
24 thereafter failed to correct or wam of the dangerous, defective and hazardous conditions at any time
25 prior to Plaintiffs accident.
26 154. Defendants' and each of their employees, servants, agents and/or confractors had
27 constmctive notice of the dangerous and hazardous conditions of the subject premises because the
28 dangerous and hazardous conditions and dangerous frap described herein existed for such a period of

32
1 time and was of such an obvious nature that Defendants' employees, servants, agents and/or
2 confractors should have discovered the condition and its dangerous and hazardous character, which
3 created a reasonably foreseeableriskthat the kind of injuries Plaintiff suffered would resultfromthe
4 dangerous condition, and thereafter failed to take measures to wam of, protect against or remedy said
5 condition.
6 155. Despite said notice of the dangerous, hazardous and defective condition of the subject
7 premises. Defendants' employees, servants, agents and/or contractors failed to remedy or wam
8 Plaintiff and other cyclists of the dangerous, hazardous and defective condition of said premises.
10 agents, and/or confractors failed to inspect the subject premises before opening the bike lane up to the
11 cycling public and failed to ensure that the bike lane and adjacent sfreets that intersected the bike lane
12 were reasonably safe for cyclists, that the bike lane and all intersecting sfreets complied with all
13 applicable federal, state and local constmction and safety standards and that the bike lane did not
14 create a dangerousfrapfor cyclists using the bike lane with due care.
16 agents, and/or confractors failed to utilize or install anyfrafficor waming and/or other signals, signs,
17 markings or other devices that were and are necessary to wam Plaintiff and other cyclists of a
18 dangerous condition andfrapwhich endangered the safe movement of bicyclefrafficand which
19 would not be reasonably apparent to, and would not have been anticipated by, a person exercising due
20 care whileridinghis or her bike in a designated public bike lane at that location.
22 agents, and/or confractors failed to comply with all applicable standards, statues, mles, codes,
23 regulations, guidelines and ordinances, including, but not limited to, all standards and requirements
24 set forth in the publications cited above regarding the configuration of roads, sfreets, intersections and
25 bike lanes on public sfreets and highways, and proper, necessary and required signage, pavement
26 markings and lines and other safety devices for the safety of Plaintiff and other members of the
27 cycling publicridingin the Class II bike lane on the subject premises.
28 ///

33
2 agents, and/or contractors located and constmcted the public bike lane on the subject premises
3 adjacent and in close proximity to an improperly configured and constmcted and exfremely
4 dangerous portion of Folsom Ranch Drive on the adjoining property that itself constituted a
5 dangerous condition and was exfremely dangerous and hazardous to cyclistsridingin the public bike
6 lane at that location, which exposed Plaintiff and other cyclists using the public property to a
7 substantial risk of injury.
9 agents, and/or confractors failed to exercise their authority over, compel and/or seek the cooperation
10 ofthe owner(s)/possessor(s) of Folsom Ranch Drive to design, constmct, configure, reconfigure and
11 maintain Folsom Ranch Drive in the vicinity of Greenback Lane in compliance with all federal, state
12 and local standards, statues, mles, codes, regulations, guidelines and ordinances and to place requfred
13 and appropriatefrafficcontrol signage, waming signs, markings and other devices as required on
14 Folsom Ranch Drive in such a manner that would not endanger and/or pose a substantial risk of harm
15 to cyclistsridingin the Class II bike lane on westbound Greenback Lane at that location.
17 agents, and/or confractors failed to properly review and consider all plans, permits and other
18 documents applicable to the configuration of the public bike lane and Folsom Ranch Drive in the
19 vicinity of Greenback Lane in compliance with its own application, permit and approval process,
20 failed to ensure conformity and compliance with all applicable federal, state and local statutes, codes,
21 regulations, standards and guidelines before approving any such plans, failed to properly inspect the
22 completed constmction and configuration of the public bike lane and Folsom Ranch Drive in the
23 vicinity of Greenback Lane to ensure conformity with any approved plans before permitting the
24 general public to enter/fravel through the area, failed to have the proper person and/or body vested
25 with proper authority to approve the design and failed to ensure the design was approved in
26 conformity with all applicable federal, state and local design and engineering standards, tofiiUyand
27 adequately consider bicyclist safety before approving the design and plans, to ensure any approved
28 plans were accurate and complete and included all relevant aspects of the proposed design, and to

34
1 otherwise ensure the reasonableness of the design before approving design and/or opening the area
2 for use by the public.
4 agents, and/or confractors failed to take into consideration all changed conditions that could or would
5 render any previously approved and/or constmcted configuration of the subject premises hazardous,
6 dangerous and confusing for cyclists and motorists based on those changed conditions.
8 agents, and/or contractors failed to implement and adhere to a reasonable inspection system that was
9 adequate to discover the aforementioned dangerous conditions of the subject premises, pursuant to
10 Govemment Code § 835.2(b), which posed an unreasonably highriskof serious injury to Plaintiff,
11 and thereafter failed to conduct reasonable and adequate inspections of the subject premises, which
12 inspections would have revealed the aforementioned dangerous and hazardous conditions and frap
13 described above and would have provided Defendants with the opportunity to eliminate and/or wam
14 of said dangerous and hazardous conditions before opening the area up to the cycling public.
16 agents, and/or contractors failed to with comply with all applicable laws, statutes, mles, regulations
17 and ordinances imposed by enactment that were designed to protect against theriskof the type of
18 injuries Plaintiff suffered as a result of the aforementioned accident.
19 165. At all times mentioned herein. Plaintiff did not cause or contribute to his injuries or to
20 the occurrence of any of the events that caused his accident or injuries and was at all times exercising
23 appreciate the exfremely dangerous and hazardous condition andfrapDefendants and thefr
24 employees, servants, agents, and/or confractors caused, created and permitted to exist on the subject
25 premises that Plaintiff unknowingly entered as he rode with due care in the Class II bike lane in the
26 vicinity of Folsom Ranch Drive, entirely unaware that a vehicle exiting Folsom Ranch Drive would
27 not look for or see him and/or stop or yield for him and would collide with him due to the dangerous
28 condition of the intersection as described above that encouraged motorists to accelerate across the

35
1 bike lane and onto Greenback Lane without looking for or stopping or yielding for cyclists in the bike
2 lane.
3 167. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' and each of their employees',
4 servants', agents', and/or confractors' wrongful acts, omissions and failure to comply with numerous
5 federal, state and local design and constmction standards, as herein alleged. Plaintiff was stmck by a
6 vehicle exiting Folsom Ranch Drive and merging onto Greenback Lane while Plaintiff was riding his
7 bike in a designated Class II bike lane at that location.
8 168. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants' and each of their employees',
9 servants', agents', and/or confractors' wrongfiil acts, omissions and failure to comply with numerous
10 federal, state and local design and constmction standards, as herein alleged. Plaintiff suffered severe
11 and permanent injuries to his mental, physical and emotional well-being.
12 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
1
13 (Negligence/Negligence Per Se)

15 Paragraphs 1 through 168 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. This cause of action is
16 alleged against Defendants ROLLINGWOOD COMMONS APARTMENTS, LLC and DOES 26-50,
17 inclusive.
20 maintained, entmsted and otherwise exercised confrol over the portion of the subject premises
21 described above that includes Folsom Ranch Drive and all areas adjacent to Folsom Ranch Drive in
22 the vicinity of Greenback Lane, including the paved portions, islands and all vegetation and natural
23 and artificial stmctures/objects in, on, and around Folsom Ranch Drive on the subject premises.
24 171. At alltimesmentioned herein. Defendants and each of their employees, agents,
25 servants and/or contractors had a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in their conduct, activities
26 and operation, supervision, management and maintenance of Folsom Ranch Drive in the vicinity of
27 Greenback Lane for the safety of, and to prevent harm to. Plaintiff and others lawfully riding in the
28 Class II bike lane on Greenback Lane immediately adjacent to Folsom Ranch Drive, and to conduct

36
1 themselves and their activities with respect to Folsom Ranch Drive in a manner that did not expose
2 Plaintiff and other members of the cycling using the bike lane of Greenback Lane to substantial risk
3 of harm.
4 172. Defendants and each of their employees, agents, servants and/or confractors had a
5 duty to avoid exposing Plaintiff and other members of the cycling public on adjacent/adjoining
6 property to an unreasonable risk of injury that occurs off site on said adjacent property due to
7 Defendants' and each of their conduct, activities and operation, supervision, management and
8 maintenance of Folsom Ranch Drive.
9 173. Defendants and each of their employees, agents, servants and/or confractors fiirther
10 had a duty to Plaintiff and other members of the cycling public to exercise reasonable care and skill to
11 inspect, discover, repair, remedy, correct, provide safeguards and protect against and/or wam Plaintiff
12 and others lawfullyridingon the adjacent/adjoining bike lane of any dangerous or hazardous
13 conditions that existed on and/or around the aforementioned premises that would expose Plaintiff and
14 other bikeriderto an unreasonable risk of harm.
15 174. Defendants and each of their employees, servants, agents and/or contractors fiirther
18 including, but not limited to. City of Folsom and Calfrans Highway Design Manuals, the CA
19 MUTCD and all other standards and requirements set forth in the publications cited above, which
20 were designed expressly for the safe movement of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians and establish
21 minimum standards and specifications regarding the design, configuration, constmction, maintenance
22 and operation of roads, streets, intersections and bike lanes, required sight lines and distances, and the
23 proper, necessary and required use offrafficor waming signals, signs, markings or other devices for
24 the safety of Plaintiff and other members of the cycling publicridingin the Class II bike lane adjacent
25 to and adjoining Defendants' property.
26 175. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants and each of their employees, agents,
27 servants and/or confractors knew, or, through the exercise of reasonable care, should have known,
28 that failing to take proper precautions and failing to exercise reasonable care and skill in their

37
1 conduct, activities and operation, supervision, management and maintenance of Folsom Ranch Drive
2 in the vicinity of Greenback Lane, failing to maintain Folsom Ranch Drive in a reasonably safe
3 condition and failing to comply with all applicable local, state and local standards, statues, mles,
4 codes, mandates, regulations, guidelines and ordinances conceming the design, configuration,
5 constmction, maintenance and operation of roads, sfreets, intersections and bike lanes could and
6 would expose Plaintiff and other members of the cycling public using the public bike lane on the
7 adjacent/adjoining property to an unreasonable and substantisilriskof harm.
8 176. Defendants and each of their employees, agents, servants, confractors and/or
9 subconfractors breached their duty to Plaintiff when they negligently, carelessly, recklessly and
10 through want of ordinary care failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in their conduct, activities
11 and operation, supervision, management and maintenance of Folsom Ranch Drive in the vicinity of
12 Greenback Lane and failed to maintain Folsom Ranch Drive in a reasonably safe condition, which
13 exposed Plaintiff and other members of the cycling public using the public bike lane on the
14 adjacent/adjoining property to a foreseeable, unreasonable and substantialriskof harm.
15 177. Defendants and each of thefr employees, agents, servants, contractors and/or
16 subconfractors fiirther breached their duty to Plaintiff when they negligently, carelessly, recklessly
17 and through want of ordinary care exposed Plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injury that occurred off
18 site on said adjacent property due to Defendants' and each of their conduct, activities and operation,
19 supervision, management and maintenance of Folsom Ranch Drive.
21 subconfractorsfiirtherbreached their duty to Plaintiff when they negligently, carelessly, recklessly
22 and through want of ordinary care failed to exercise reasonable care and skill to properly inspect,
23 discover, repair, remedy, correct, provide safeguards and protect against and/or wam Plaintiff and
24 others lawfullyridingon the adjacent/adjoining bike lane of any dangerous or hazardous conditions
25 that existed on and/or around Folsom Ranch Drive that would expose Plaintiff and other bikeridersto
26 an unreasonable risk of harm, all of which conditions were open, apparent and obvious to said
27 Defendants, had they simply observed or performed even a cursory inspection of Folsom Ranch
28 Drive at any time prior to Plaintiffs accident.

38
2 subcontractorsfiirtherbreached their duty to Plaintiff when they negligently, carelessly, recklessly
3 and through want of ordinary care failed to comply with all applicable local, state and local standards,
4 statues, mles, codes, mandates, regulations, guidelines and ordinances, including, but not limited to,
5 City of Folsom and Calfrans Highway Design Manuals, the CA MUTCD and all other standards and
6 requfrements set forth in the publications cited above (including sections 11.6 and 11.9 of the City of
7 Folsom Design Standards, Folsom Municipal Code section 8.38.030 and Chapters 200,400 and 1000
8 of the Calfrans Highway Design Manual), which were designed expressly for the safe movement of
9 motorists, cyclists and pedestrians and establish minimum standards and specifications regarding the
10 design, configuration, constmction, maintenance and operation of roads, sfreets, intersections and
11 bike lanes, required sight lines and distances, and the proper, necessary and required use offrafficor
12 waming signals, signs, markings or other devices for the safety of Plaintiff and other members of the
13 cycling publicridingin the Class II bike lane adjacent to and adjoining Defendants' property.
14 180. At alltimesmentioned herein. Plaintiff was and is a member of the class of persons
16 cited herein were designed to protect, and the injuries and damages Plaintiff suffered were directly
17 and proximately caused as a result of Defendants' violation of said standards, statues, mles, codes,
18 regulations, guidelines and ordinances and were of the nature they were designed to prevent.
19 181. The hazardous and dangerous condition of southbound Folsom Ranch Drive as
20 described above combined with and contributed to Defendant SANTOS' negligent acts and omissions
21 while operating his vehicle, who was using southbound Folsom Ranch Drive and crossed the public
22 bike lane in an entirely foreseeable manner based on the design, configuration and maintenance of
23 Folsom Ranch Drive, and the dangerous and hazardous features of both the public bike lane and
24 Folsom Ranch Drive as described above substantially increased and intensified theriskof danger and
25 serious injury to Plaintiff as a result of Defendant SANTOS' acceleration through the bike lane
26 occupied by Plaintiff and his failure to yield and/or stop for Plaintiff, also entirely foreseeable and
27 expected based on the dangerous and hazardous conditions of Folsom Ranch Drive.
28 ///

39
1 182. At all times mentioned herein, the defects, deficiencies, hazards and exfremely
2 dangerous condition Folsom Ranch Drive that exposed Plaintiff and other users of the
3 adjacent/adjoining property were open, obvious, apparent and easily identifiable and visible to any
4 individual and/or entity observing or performing even a cursory inspection of the subject premises,
5 but would not have been visible or apparent to Plaintiff or any other bikeriderusing the public bike
6 lane on the subject premises.
8 the occurrence of any ofthe events that caused his accident or injuries and was at all times exercising
11 appreciate the exfremely dangerous and hazardous condition in the bike lane on Greenback Lane that
12 Defendants and each of their employees, servants, agents, and/or contractors caused, created and
13 permitted to exist on the subject premises that Plaintiff unknowingly entered as he rode with due care
14 in the Class II bike lane in the vicinity of Folsom Ranch Drive, entfrely unaware that a vehicle exiting
15 Folsom Rarich Drive would not look for or see him and/or stop or yield for him and would collide
16 with him due to the dangerous condition of the intersection as described above that encouraged
17 motorists to accelerate across the bike lane and onto Greenback Lane without looking for or stopping
18 or yielding for cyclists in the bike lane.
19 185. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' and each of their wrongful acts,
20 omissions and failure to comply with numerous federal, state and local design and constmction
21 standards, as herein alleged. Plaintiff was stmck by a vehicle exiting Folsom Ranch Drive and
22 merging onto Greenback Lane while Plaintiff wasridinghis bike in a designated Class II bike lane at
23 that location.
24 186. As aftirtherdirect and proximate result of Defendants' and each of their wrongful
25 acts, omissions and failure to comply with numerous federal, state and local design and constraction
26 standards, as herein alleged. Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries to his mental, physical
27 and emotional well-being.
28 ///

40
1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (Premises Liability/Negligence Per Se)
4 Paragraphs 1 through 186 of this Complaint as though fiilly set forth herein. This cause of action is
6 inclusive.
7 188. At all times mentioned herein. Defendants, and each of them, owned, controlled,
9 maintained, entrusted and otherwise exercised confrol over the portion of the subject premises
10 described above that includes Folsom Ranch Drive and all areas adjacent to Folsom Ranch Drive in
11 the vicinity of Greenback Lane, including the paved portions, islands and all vegetation and natural
12 and artificial stmctures/objects in, on, and aroimd Folsom Ranch Drive on the subject premises.
13 189. At all times mentioned herein. Defendants and each of their employees, agents,
14 servants and/or confractors had a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in their ownership,
15 control, possession, design, constmction, repair, operation, management, supervision and
16 maintenance of Folsom Ranch Drive in the vicinity of Greenback Lane for the safety of, and to
17 prevent harm to. Plaintiff and others lawfiilly riding in the Class II bike lane on Greenback Lane
18 immediately adjacent to Folsom Ranch Drive,
20 had a duty to keep and maintain, manage, supervise and operate Folsom Ranch in a reasonably safe
21 condition and in a manner that did not expose Plaintiff and other members of the cycling using the
22 bike lane of Greenback Lane to substantial risk of harm, and to avoid exposing Plaintiff and other
23 members ofthe cycling public on adjacent/adjoining property to an unreasonable risk of injury that
24 occurs offsite on said adjacent property as a result of Defendants' and each of their operation,
25 supervision, management and maintenance of Folsom Ranch Drive.
27 subconfractors fiirther had a duty to Plaintiff and other members of the cycling public to exercise
28 reasonable care and skill to inspect, discover, repair, remedy, correct, provide safeguards and protect

41
1 against and/or wam Plaintiff and others lawfullyridingon the adjacent/adjoining bike lane of any
2 dangerous or hazardous conditions that existed on and/or around the aforementioned premises that
3 would expose Plaintiff and other bikeriderto an unreasonable risk of harm.
7 including, but not limited to. City of Folsom and Calfrans Highway Design Manuals, the CA
8 MUTCD and all other standards and requirements set forth in the publications cited above, which
9 were designed expressly for the safe movement of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians and establish
10 minimum standards and specifications regarding the design, configuration, constmction, maintenance
11 and operation of roads, sfreets, intersections and bike lanes, required sight lines and distances, and the
12 proper, necessary and requfred use offrafficor waming signals, signs, markings or other devices for
13 the safety of Plaintiff and other members of the cycling publicridingin the Class II bike lane adjacent
14 to and adjoining Defendants' property.
15 193. Defendants and each of their employees, servants, agents and/or confractors fiirther
16 had a duty to Plaintiff and other members of the cycling public to design, configure, constmct,
17 maintain, manage and operate Folsom Ranch Drive in a reasonably safe manner that reduced or
18 eliminated confiision by motorists and cyclists and that did not induce and encourage motorists to
19 operate their vehicles at unsafe speeds as they approach and cross the bike lane on Greenback Lane
20 and did not induce and encourage drivers to cross the bike lane without looking for or stopping/
21 and/or yielding for cyclists occupying the bike lane at that location.
22 194. At all times mentioned herein. Defendants and each of their employees, agents,
23 servants, confractors and/or subcontractors, knew, or, through the exercise of reasonable care, should
24 have known, that failing to exercise reasonable care and skill in thefr ownership, control, possession,
25 design, constmction, repair, operation, management, supervision and maintenance of Folsom Ranch
26 Drive in the vicinity of Greenback Lane, failing to maintain Folsom Ranch Drive in a reasonably safe
27 condition and failing to comply with all applicable local, state and local standards, statues, mles,
28 codes, mandates, regulations, guidelines and ordinances conceming the design, configuration,

42
1 constmction, maintenance and operation of roads, sfreets, intersections and bike lanes could and
2 would expose Plaintiff and other members of the cycling public using the public bike lane on the
3 adjacent/adjoining property to an unreasonable and substantialriskof harm.
4 195. Defendants and each of their employees, agents, servants and/or confractors breached
5 thefr duty to Plaintiff to exercise reasonable care and skill in their ownership, confrol, possession,
6 design, constmction, repair, operation, management, supervision and maintenance of Folsom Ranch
7 Drive in the vicinity of Greenback Lane and failed to maintain Folsom Ranch Drive in a reasonably
8 safe condition, which exposed Plaintiff and other members of the cycling public using the public bike
9 lane on the adjacent/adjoining property to an unreasonable and substantialriskof harm.
11 breached their duty to Plaintiff when they exposed Plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injury that
12 occurred off site on said adjacent property due to Defendants' failure to use reasonable care and skill
13 in their ownership, control, possession, design, constmction, repair, operation, management,
14 supervision and maintenance of Folsom Ranch Drive.
16 breached their duty to Plaintiff when they failed to exercise reasonable care and skill to inspect,
17 discover, repair, remedy, correct, provide safeguards and protect against and/or wam Plaintiff and
18 others lawfiillyridingon the adjacent/adjoining bike lane of any dangerous or hazardous conditions
19 that existed on and/or around Folsom Ranch Drive that would expose Plaintiff and other bikeridersto
20 an unreasonable risk of harm, all of which conditions were open, apparent and obvious to said
21 Defendants, had they simply observed or performed even a cursory inspection of Folsom Ranch
22 Drive at any time prior to Plaintiffs accident.
24 breached their duty to Plaintiff when failed to comply with all applicable local, state and local
25 standards, statues, mles, codes, mandates, regulations, guidelines and ordinances, including, but not
26 limited to. City of Folsom and Calfrans Highway Design Manuals, the CA MUTCD and all other
27 standards and requirements set forth in the publications cited above (including sections 11.6 and 11.9
28 of the City of Folsom Design Standards, Folsom Municipal Code section 8.38.030 and Chapters 200,

43
1 400 and 1000 of the Calfrans Highway Design Manual), which were designed expressly for the safe
2 movement of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians and establish minimum standards and specifications
3 regarding the design, configuration, constmction, maintenance and operation of roads, sfreets,
4 intersections and bike lanes, required sight lines and distances, and the proper, necessary and required
5 use offrafficor waming signals, signs, markings or other devices for the safety of Plaintiff and other
6 members of the cycling publicridingin the Class II bike lane adjacent to and adjoining Defendants'
7 property.
8 199. At all times mentioned herein. Plaintiff was and is a member of the class of persons
10 cited herein were designed to protect, and the injuries and damages Plaintiff suffered were directly
11 and proximately caused as a result of Defendants' violation of said standards, statues, mles, codes,
12 regulations, guidelines and ordinances and were of the nature they were designed to prevent.
13 200. Defendants and each of their employees, servants, agents and/or confractors fiirther
14 breached their duty when they designed, configured, constmcted, maintained, managed and operated
15 Folsom Ranch Drive in a dangerous, hazardous and unsafe manner that maximized confusion by
16 motorists and cyclists, obstmcted motorists' sight lines and distances, induced and encouraged
17 motorists to operate their vehicles at unsafe speeds as they approached and crossed the bike lane on
18 Greenback Lane and induced and encouraged drivers to cross the bike lane without looking for or
19 stopping/ and/or yielding for cyclists occupying the bike lane at that location.
20 201. The hazardous and dangerous condition of southbound Folsom Ranch Drive as
21 described above combined with and contributed to Defendant SANTOS' negligent acts and omissions
22 while operating his vehicle, who was using southbound Folsom Ranch Drive and crossed the public
23 bike lane in an entirely foreseeable manner based on the design, configuration and maintenance of
24 Folsom Ranch Drive, and the dangerous and hazardous features of both the public bike lane and
25 Folsom Ranch Drive as described above substantially increased and intensified theriskof danger and
26 serious injury to Plaintiff as a result of Defendant SANTOS' acceleration through the bike lane
27 occupied by Plaintiff and his failure to yield and/or stop for Plaintiff, also entirely foreseeable and
28 expected based on the dangerous and hazardous conditions of Folsom Ranch Drive on the approach

44
1 to and at its intersection with Greenback Lane.
2 202. At all times mentioned herein, the defects, deficiencies, hazards and exfremely
3 dangerous condition of Folsom Ranch Drive that exposed Plaintiff and other users of the
4 adjacent/adjoining property were open, obvious, apparent and easily identifiable and visible to any
5 individual and/or entity working for and/or on behalf of Defendants observing or performing even a
6 cursory inspection of the subject premises, but would not have been visible or apparent to Plaintiff or
7 any other bikeriderusing the public bike lane on the subject premises.
9 the occurrence of any of the events that caused his accident or injuries and was at alltimesexercising
11 204. At alltimesmentioned herein, Plaintiff could not have appreciated and did not
12 appreciate the extremely dangerous and hazardous condition in the bike lane on Greenback Lane that
13 Defendants and each of their employees, servants, agents, and/or contractors caused, created and
14 permitted to exist on the subject premises that Plaintiff unknowingly entered as he rode with due care
15 in the Class II bike lane in the vicinity of Folsom Ranch Drive, entirely unaware that a vehicle exiting
16 Folsom Ranch Drive would not look for or see him and/or stop or yield for him and would collide
17 with him due to the dangerous condition of the intersection as described above that encouraged
18 motorists to accelerate across the bike lane and onto Greenback Lane without looking for or stopping
19 or yielding for cyclists in the bike lane.
20 205. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' and each of their employees',
21 servants', agents' and/or confractors' wrongflil acts, omissions and failure to comply with numerous
22 federal, state and local design and constmction standards, as herein alleged. Plaintiff was stmck by a
23 vehicle exiting Folsom Ranch Drive and merging onto Greenback Lane while Plaintiff wasridinghis
24 bike in a designated Class II bike lane at that location.
25 206. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants' and each of their employees',
26 servants', agents' and/or contractors' wrongful acts, omissions and failure to comply with numerous
27 federal, state and local design and constmction standards, as herein alleged. Plaintiff suffered severe
28 and permanent injuries to his mental, physical and emotional well-being.

45
1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (Negligent Hiring/Training/Supervision/Retention)
6 inclusive.
7 208. At all times mentioned herein. Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to Plaintiff
8 and other members of the cycling public riding in the Class II bike lane on the subject premises to
9 exercise reasonable care and skill in selecting, screening, hiring, training, supervising and retaining its
10 employees, agents, servants and/or contractors that were hired to design, constmct, maintain, inspect,
11 manage, supervise and operate Folsom Ranch Drive on the subject premises and who were
12 responsible for utilizing and installing all necessary fraffic and waming signs, marking and devices
13 for the safe movement of vehicular and bike fraffic on the subject premises, including the
14 adjacent/adjoining bike; lane, for keeping and maintaining clear and unobstmcted sight lines and
15 distances on the subject premises, for performing proper and adequate inspections of the subject
16 premises to ensure Folsom Ranch Drive and the adjacent/adjoining bike lane on Greenback Lane was
17 safe for cyclists using the bike lane, for discovering, repairing, remedying, correcting and/or waming
18 Plaintiff and others lawfully riding on the adjacent/adjoining property of any dangerous or hazardous
19 conditions that existed on and/or around the aforementioned premises, and for complying with all
20 applicable local, state and local standards, statues, mles, codes, mandates, regulations, guidelines and
21 ordinances.
22 209. At all times mentioned herein. Defendants, and each of them, knew, or through the
23 exercise of reasonable care, should have known, should have known, that their employees, agents,
24 servants, confractors and/or subconfractors that were responsible for performing the aforementioned
25 work and tasks were improperly and inadequately selected, screened, hired,frained,supervised and
26 retained and were otherwise incompetent, unable and unfit to perform the work and tasks they were
27 hired to do.
28 ///

46
1 210. At alltimesmentioned herein. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty to
2 Plaintiff when they failed to adequately select, screen, hire,frain,supervise their employees, agents,
3 servants, contractors and/or confractors, who were incompetent, unable and unfit to perform the work
4 and tasks they were hfred to perform, including the aforementioned work and tasks with respect to
5 Folsom Ranch Drive that directiy affected the safety of cyclists on the adjacent/adjoining property.
6 211. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' and each of their failure to adequately
7 select, screen, hire,frain,supervise, evaluate and retain their employees, agents, servants and/or
8 contractors, as herein alleged. Defendants' employees, agents, servants and/or contractors failed to
9 design, constmct, inspect, manage, supervise, operate, maintain and keep Folsom Ranch Drive in a
10 reasonably safe condition for Plaintiff and other cyclistsridingin the adjacent/adjoining bike lane,
11 failed to utilize and install all necessaryfrafficand waming signs, marking and devices for the safe
12 movement of vehicular and bikefrafficon the subject premises, including the adjacent/adjoining bike
13 lane, for keeping and maintain clear and unobstmcted sight lines and distances on the subject
14 premises, failed to perform proper and adequate inspections of the subject premises to ensure Folsom
15 Ranch Drive and the adjacent/adjoining bike lane on Greenback Lane were safe for cyclists using the
16 bike lane, failed to discover, repair, remedy, correct and/or wam Plaintiff and others lawfiilly riding
17 on the adjacent/adjoining property of any dangerous or hazardous conditions that existed on and/or
18 around the aforementioned premises, and failed to comply with all applicable local, state and local
19 standards, statues, mles, codes, mandates, regulations, guidelines and ordinances.
20 212. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants' and each of their failure to
21 adequately select, screen, hire,frain,supervise, evaluate and retain their employees, agents, servants
22 and/or confractors, as herein alleged. Plaintiff was stmck by a vehicle exiting Folsom Ranch Drive
23 and merging onto Greenback Lane while Plaintiff wasridinghis bike in a designated Class II bike
25 213. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants' and each of their failure to
26 adequately select, screen, hire,frain,supervise, evaluate and retain their employees, agents, servants
27 and/or confractors, as herein alleged. Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries to his mental,
28 physical and emotional well-being.

47
1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (Negligence)
5 alleged against Defendants NICHOLAS SANTOS and DOES 51-75, inclusive.
7 and other members of the cycling public on public highways and in public bike lanes to operate their
8 vehicles in a safe and pmdent manner, to obey all fraffic laws, and to look for, see and yield the right
9 of way to and/or stop for cyclists lawfully riding on Greenback Lane in the vicinity of Folsom Ranch
10 Drive and the public bike lane on Greenback Lane.
11 216. Defendants, and each of them, knew, or through the exercise of reasonable care,
12 should have known, that operating a motor vehicle on a public highway in an unsafe manner, failing
13 to obey all fraffic laws and failing to look for, see and yield the right of way to and/or stop for cyclists
14 lawfully riding in a public bike lane on Greenback Lane could and would cause serious injuries to
15 Plaintiff and any other members of the cycling public who were lawfully riding in the public bike
17 217. Defendants, and each of them, breached their diity to Plaintiff when they carelessly,
18 recklessly, negligentiy and through want of ordinary care failed to operate their vehicle in a safe,
19 pmdent manner and with due care, failed to obey all fraffic laws, failed to look for, see and yield the
20 right of way to and/or stop for Plaintiff as he rode in the public bike lane in the vicinity of Folsom
21 Ranch Drive on the subject premises, causing their vehicle to enter the bike lane while it was already
22 occupied by Plaintiff, who had the absoluterightof way at that intersection.
23 218. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' and each of their wrongful acts,
24 omissions, as herein alleged. Defendants' vehicle suddenly and without waming stmck Plaintiff and
25 his bicycle while Plaintiff was riding in a public Class II bike lane, violently throwing Plaintiff
26 violently to the ground.
27 219. As a fiirther direct and proximate result of Defendants' and each of their wrongful acts
28 and omissions, as herein alleged. Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries to his mental,

48
2 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
3 (Negligence Per Se)
6 alleged against Defendants NICHOLAS SANTOS and DOES 51-75, inclusive.
8 and other members of the cycling public on public highways and in public bike lanes to operate their
9 vehicle in a safe and pmdent maimer, to obey all fraffic laws, and to look for, see and yield the right
10 of way to and/or stop for cyclists lawfully riding on Greenback Lane in the vicinity of Folsom Ranch
11 Drive and the public bike lane on Greenback Lane.
12 222. Defendants, and each of them, knew, or through the exercise of reasonable care,
13 should have known, that operating a motor vehicle on a public highway in an unsafe manner, failing
14 to obey all fraffic laws and failing to look for, see and yield the right of way to and/or stop for cyclists
15 lawfully riding in a public bike lane on Greenback Lane could and would cause serious injuries to
16 Plaintiff and any other members of the cycling public who were lawfully riding in the public bike
18 223. Califomia Vehicle Code § 21804(a) states: "The driver of any vehicle about to enter or
19 cross a highway from any public or private property, or from an alley, shall yield theright-of-wayto
20 all fraffic, as defined in Section 620, approaching on the highway close enough to constitute an
21 immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield theright-of-wayto that fraffii: until he or she can
22 proceed with reasonable safety."
23 224. Califomia Vehicle Code § 22350 states: "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a
24 highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or pmdent having due regard for weather, visibility, the
25 fraffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the
26 safety of persons or property."
27 225. Califomia Vehicle Code § 21760(c) prohibits the driver of motor vehicle from driving
28 in closer proximity than three feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any part of a bicycle or

49
1 its operator.
2 226. Defendant SANTOS violated Vehicle Code § 21804(a) when he failed to yield tiie
3 right-of-way to Plaintiff, who already occupied the public Class II bike lane on Greenback Lane
4 dfrectiy in front of Defendant SANTOS when he entered Greenback Lane from Folsom Ranch Drive.
5 227. Defendant SANTOS violated Vehicle Code § 22350 when he operated a motor vehicle
6 at a speed on a sfreet and highway (including the public highway/bike lane on Greenback Lane) that
7 was greater than is reasonable or pmdent having due regard for visibility, the fraffic on, and the
8 surface and width of, the highway, and at a speed that which endangered the safety of Plaintiff who
9 was occupied the public bike lane at that location.
10 228. Defendant SANTOS violated Vehicle Code § § 21760(c) when he failed to maintain a
11 distance of three feet between his vehicle and Plaintiff and Plaintiffs bike.
12 229. At all times mentioned herein. Plaintiff was and is a member of the class of persons
13 the above Vehicle Code sections were designed to protect, and the injuries and damages Plaintiff
14 suffered were directly and proximately caused as a result of Defendants' violations of said Code
15 sections and were of the nature which they were designed to prevent.
16 230. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' and each of their wrongfiil acts,
17 omissions and violations of said Vehicle Code sections, as herein alleged. Defendants' vehicle
18 suddenly and without waming stmck Plaintiff and his bicycle while Plaintiff was riding in a public
19 Class II bike lane, violently throwing Plaintiff violently to the ground.
20 231. As a fiirther direct and proximate result of Defendants' and each of their wrongful acts
21 and omissions, as herein alleged. Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries to his mental,
23 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 (Loss of Consortium)
26 Paragraphs 1 through 231 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. This Cause of Action is
27 alleged against Defendants CITY OF FOLSOM, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ROLLINGWOOD
28 COMMONS APARTMENTS, LLC, NICHOLAS SANTOS and DOES 1-100, inclusive.

50
1 233. At all times mentioned herein. Plaintiff KIRA MURDOCK was and is tiie lawfiilly
2 wedded spouse of and resided witii Plaintiff VINCE MURDOCK.
3 234. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of
4 them, as alleged herein, Plaintiff VINCE MURDOCK suffered severe and permanent injuries to his
5 mental, physical and emotional well-being.
6 235. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of
7 them and the injuries Plaintiff VINCE MURDOCK suffered as a result, as alleged herein. Plaintiff
8 KIRA MURDOCK has suffered, and will continue to suffer, loss of consortium, including loss of
9 services, marital relations, society, comfort, companionship, love and affection of Plaintiff VINCE
10 MURDOCK.
11 236. As a result of the foregoing described injuries suffered by Plaintiff VINCE
12 MURDOCK, Plaintiff KIRA MURDOCK has been generally damaged in a sum in excess of the
13 jurisdictional limits of the Court.
14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
15 1, For special and economic damages, including any and all monetary relief according to
16 proof;
17 2, For general damages and non-economic damages according to proof;
18 3, For past and future damages for loss of consortium, according to proof;
19 4, For prejudgment interest, as is allowed by the State of Califomia, at the prevailing
20 legal rate;
21 5, For costs of the suit herein;
22
6, For such other and further relief and the Court deems just and proper.
23
24
Dated: November 2022 LAW OFFICE OF MINER & K E L L Y , L L P
25
26
27 Michael R. KeU
Attomeys for/Plaintiffs, VP^CE MURDOCK and
28 KIRA MUI

51
(] fr-. V f-1 \ \ / r- 1-^
! V.' ; •• I .'

Vince Murdock vs. City of Folsom

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vince Murdock vs. City of Folsom

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vince Murdock vs. City of Folsom

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Superior Gottti Of Califomte,

1 Michael R. Kelly (SBN 176085) 12^7/2022

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

20 conmiute and recreational purposes on a daily basis.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

21 standard concrete curbs on each side of the road.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

23 colliding with Plaintiff.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

18 traffic and bicycles.

19 77. Thefreeflow-stylechannelized on-ramp and/or acceleration lane and/or unconfroUed,

25 bike lane at substantialriskof harm.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

20 distances for cyclists and pedestrians.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

23 through the tum.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

20 of the subject premises as described herein.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

17 148. Califomia Govemment Code § 840.2 further imposes liability on an employee of a

21 possessed, designed, operated, managed, supervised, inspected, approved, repaired, maintained,

25 Folsom Ranch Drive.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

13 (Negligence/Negligence Per Se)

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

25 to and adjoining Defendants' property.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28 Drive at any time prior to Plaintiffs accident.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

25 supervision, management and maintenance of Folsom Ranch Drive.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES