"It’s unusual for an arbitrating attorney to make a decision so quickly—normally, one to two weeks is common—..."

Where did you get this tidbit? It is simply not true. I believe the best arbitrators make rulings soon after the hearing -- if not immediately. If it is a question of fact (and not one of law requiring additional legal research), then the fresher the testimony is in the mind of the arbitrator the better.

Stating that Keith Swensen did anything wrong by deciding the case on the day of the arbitration is simply dead wrong.

Thanks, DtL. I got it from talking with three other attorneys, asking if 90 minutes seemed a little brisk. They all said between a week and two weeks is more common, and that 90 minutes was remarkable.

But I accept your experience and appreciate your raising the flag. Perhaps they were wrong.

Mr. Downtown Lawyer,

I appreciate your comments in response to this story, but that is what I've been told across the board in regards to the speed of an arbitration decision. What Mr. Davis, who I respect and appreciate greatly, did not have to space to tell you is that Mr. Swensen acted strangely to me throughout the hearing. I'm not accusing Mr. Swensen of anything illegal. But, I'm sure he is guilty of a couple of things, first being that he does not listen very well. I told him that I had noticed that speed when I first turned onto the road and that I slowed down before hitting the speed bump.

Also, he is guilty of being a middle-aged man who grew up in the era of automobiles and quiet, Christian women. I don't think loud-mouthed, women, who get around on bikes and practice Buddhism appeal much to him.

It does not matter what I hit on that road. What matters is that I hit something that stopped my bike and threw me 20 feet.

Plantiff,

Should they maintain their roads? Yes
Was it negligence that they didn't? No

It doesn't sound like there were earlier complaints that they willfully ignored to imperil later bikers. Why don't you just follow the advice of Buddha about the "Four Noble Truths"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

Aren't you Buddhists supposed to be passive anyway?

get real,

I don't think that is fair of you to make a judgement of me based on what you know about Buddhism. There are many types of Buddhism. Thank you for the book suggestion.

http://www.sgi-usa.org

Plaintiff –

Since I’ve already stuck my craw in here – let me respond.

First of all, I’m sorry you got hurt. According to Jonathan Maus, it is – for some reason -- a “red flag” but I, like many lawyers, bike as well. I bike a lot. I’ve seen a lot of really bad accidents.

I’m not “against” you. I am, as a member of the legal community, concerned when the process is unfairly attacked. I don’t know Mr. Swensen.

Perhaps you would have been better served having one of the “across the board” lawyers that you say you have talked to represent you at the hearing – or explain some facts.

My guess is that you are being told what you want to hear in order to get you out of the office or off the phone, because the “one to two week” period is false. ["Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it." -- I think Buddha said that, right?]

Of course, many arbitrators are busy lawyers and sometimes, yes, it takes a while for them to sit down and crank out the actual documentation – but that delay is not, as you imply or have been erroneously told, required. In fact, the only rules I know of concerning timing require the parties to contact the arbitrator about making a ruling when the delay is too long.

Stop and think about it for a second.

The arbitrator is bound to decide the factual basis of the case on the evidence presented to him or her (or them, if it is a panel.) They can’t conduct their own investigation into the matter – they are bound by the evidence presented at the hearing itself.

I’ll bet your arbitrator took some notes – but for the most part paid attention to what was being said – evaluating the witnesses and evidence as well. There was probably no court reporter.

Following a two week delay, do you honestly think the Mr. Swensen would have made a more favorable decision?

I understand why you are upset, it's never fun to lose, but if you honestly believe you’ve been shot down by “the Man,” just because you are not, no one can help you.

Please keep in mind that if you go about accusing lawyers and arbitrators of “guilt” for not listening to you, that won’t go over well on any level. Phrases (and attitude) like: “Also, he is guilty of being a middle-aged man who grew up in the era of automobiles and quiet, Christian women” makes for a dangerous playground.” lead me to wonder how you presented your case at the hearing.

As I said, I don’t know Mr. Swensen. Perhaps you’re dead-on in your assessment. I just sincerely doubt he told you he prefers “quiet Christian women” during the hearing (and you are simply angry that he didn’t rule in your favor).

I’m equally skeptical that this alleged belief formed the basis for his ruling – unless you are honestly saying that Mr. Swenson ruled against you solely because you are a woman and you shouldn’t have been riding on a bike in the first place.

While, my guess is your attitude surely didn’t help the process, it probably didn’t carry the day.

Did you contact any lawyers before going to binding arbitration by yourself? If you did, did any of them tell you that they wouldn't take the case because of the facts of the case – (not because of your personality or religion.)

According to your facts, you were traveling at 18-20 mph (As I said, I do bike. We both know that is a good clip over any obstacle, let alone a marked speed bump.)

In Oregon, if you are more than 50% negligent for your own injuries, you don’t recover. Jonathon Maus could be correct, maybe your fault was less than 85% -- but less than 50%?

This rule protects defendants from financial responsibility from plaintiffs who cause their own injury. So, if I am doing something stupid, and I happen to be on your property, I can’t sue you.

[Now in Washington, you can recover even when you do have the majority of fault. Washington is a “pure comparative fault” state. Meaning, if your damages are $100 and you are 85% at fault, you still collect $15. But you weren’t riding in Washington.]

Perhaps you’re just angry at the law – but that isn’t Swensen’s fault, is it?

The law is what it is. The folks to be mad at would be down in Salem. The legislature makes the laws and wrote our contributory negligence statute.

I hope you fully recover from your accident. I also hope that this WAY too long comment helps you understand better how the system works.

Thank You DtL,

I appreciate your comment. I don't think that Mr. Swensen consciously made this decision against me based on my gender, religion, etc. I think it's a bit of a generational thing. Most of the men his age have told me to shut my mouth and that I've had no right to sue a university.

Mr. Swensen did not say anything to me about religion, but the defense used it in their work up against me. I use humor as a defense mechanism and laughed in the ambulance and was in good spirits at the hospital. So, they used that to discount my injuries. I told them that I'm Buddhist and that I live joyfully and do not let outside things take away my joy. I even told them about my defense mechanism and I was talking to a wall.

Yes, I am hurt emotionally and part of my body is damaged permanently. This story is just a drop in the bucket in regards to all I suffered. I was not going that fast over the speed bump. I was going that fast when I began to proceed down the hill. Nobody mentions I was on a decline.

I will focus my work on finding justice for those who have died and the families that are suffering without their loved ones. As well as the pain of not receiving justice by the "killer" drivers even being cited.

I welcome anyone who wants to know the whole story to ask and I'll tell you.

DtL—Thanks for your insightful comments. I hope you continue weighing in on these Breaking the Law blogs, because I sure as hell ain't no lawyer. Now:

Although I wouldn't quote Christ while ridiculing a Christian, Abel has made a point of mentioning her Buddhism in interviews, and I'd left it out of the story, not seeing its direct relevance. It seems, however, that she does see her religion as a factor in the decision on her case, and her sex, too, and I don't want to deny the validity of those perceptions. I'm not sure they can be so easily divorced from what you describe as her "attitude" in the hearing. What's wrong with a little sass?

Also, Abel was represented by an attorney, Jim Dodge.

I'm happy to hear that you were represented. Jim Dodge is a good attorney. I hate to hear about folks who feel that they've been burned by the system without good representation. (Obviously, I believe self-representation is not "good representation." The law is a complicated beast.)

And Matt, are you sure you want me to weigh in?

“The minute you read something that you can't understand, you can almost be sure that it was drawn up by a lawyer”
- Will Rogers.

Yes! Here's two more:

"Lawyers are operators of the toll bridge across which anyone in search of justice has to pass." Jane Bryant Quinn

"The only thing a lawyer won't question is the legitimacy of his mother." W.C. Fields

How many lawyers does it take to shingle a house?

Depends on how thin you slice them.

[wait for it.]

That's pretty fast.........she must be Hot!