A recent lawsuit involving a Hollister Hills rider who was injured there and blamed it on the state underscores the need to require proof of insurance when entering such public parks.
State taxpayers were faced with the unnecessary, illogical burden of paying medical costs for the man’s injuries sustained when he crashed into a sediment basin at the recreation area.
This case in San Benito County Superior Court, even though the jury sided with the state in a 10-2 vote, shows that Hollister Hills and other recreation areas are prone to potential liability for accidents after which citizens neglect to take personal responsibility. In this case, the petitioners were requesting nearly $40 million.
With inherent danger involved, each rider makes a personal decision to risk safety every time he or she enters these areas and takes part in these activities. There is, after all, a reason for the “extreme” in extreme sports.
Most riders know that, but in almost any subgroup there are those willing to ignore logic and selfishly pursue others’ money in court when an opportunity presents itself. When it comes to medical costs, the potential liability cannot be taken lightly, as the local case shows.
Requiring everybody to show proof of insurance when entering Hollister Hills and other similar, public areas is an easy way to reduce the risk for taxpayers that a jury someday will not see the same rationale as the fine citizens on the San Benito County panel in this case.
It also would all but eliminate a growing problem at Hazel Hawkins Memorial Hospital, as noted by HHH CEO Ken Underwood recently, involving Hollister Hills riders from out of town who increasingly have given the hospital false insurance information to get treatment – another cost, ultimately, to local taxpayers.
Weighing the benefits and costs points to required insurance as a clear, simple solution to prevent taxpayers from having to maintain such steep liability. The benefits are potentially limitless because it provides a simple, inexpensive way to insure against the uninsured.
The only downfalls are the inconvenience for riders – which is minimal – and any added costs that might be necessary to administer such a requirement.
Far outweighing such negative impacts are the millions of dollars the requirement could – and at some point likely would – save taxpayers. It just might save some lives, too.
