indyfabz

Anyone actually read the decision? There is a link to the decision in the article liked by the OP.

It was never disputed that parallel grates are inherently dangerous to cyclists. However, under SD law, the entity responsible for the street cannot be held liable for design defects. The only possibility for liability in this case would have been if the grate where the woman crashed was damaged. There was no such evidence presented. The plaintiff's argument was that crossbars must have been welded onto the grate and later removed (constituting "damage") because that had happened with a bunch of other grate on the street and thus it must have happened to the grate at issue. In the face of photographs showing the grate at issue had no signs of ever having had crossbars welded to it and then removed, the inference that because the city had welded crossbars to some grates it must have welded them to the grate at issue (and that they must have late been removed) was insufficient to establish a question of fact as to whether the grate had been damaged as SD law requires.

"Godbes' claim that Grate 4 was damaged rests entirely on multiple inferences drawn from evidence showing that City knew the design of the parallel grates was unsafe, that straps were welded onto some of the parallel grates on the Street, and that some straps were torn off these grates. From this evidence, Godbes rely on inferences that all of the parallel grates on the Street, including Grate 4, must have been welded with straps and that the straps were torn off without leaving welding indents." (Emphasis in original.)

As for the grate at issue, the plaintiffs' counsel had the opportunity to (and did) photograph every grate on the road shortly after the accident. He then urged the city to replace the parallel grates but did not ask it to preserve the grate at issue. The city responded by replacing all the grates on the road.