Monday kicked off a seven-day jury trial in Kalispell to determine whether the city of Columbia Falls is liable in the 2008 death of Casey Kent, who died from head injuries after a skateboarding accident in the Cedar Pointe Estates subdivision.

Judge Robert Allison is presiding over the trial in Flathead District Court.

Casey Kent’s widow, Sara Kent, originally sued the city and eight other parties in 2011, seeking damages for the city’s involvement in the design and construction of the subdivision’s paved trail system. The other defendants have since settled their cases out of court.

Casey Kent was skateboarding with his cousin on June 2, 2008, when he fell at a section of the trail graded on a 24 percent slope. He fell into a coma and died 12 days later from head trauma.

During opening statements to the 14-member jury, Sara Kent’s attorney, John Lacey, described Casey Kent as a husband, father, bluegrass musician and a talented guitar maker. He argued the city had assumed a statutory duty to ensure the trail would not pose an unreasonable danger to Kent or other users when it approved Cedar Pointe Estates with specific conditions related to the trail system.

“Sara is not here for the money. This case is about a trail. It’s a case about accountability to that trail,” Lacey said. “The fact is the city did nothing to effect a better — much less a safe — trail, as should always be the goal.”

According to court documents, the city conducted multiple on-site inspections and had been notified of potential hazards during the construction process.

Defense attorney Marcel Quinn countered that the city neither designed nor constructed the trail, and while the outcome was tragic, Casey Kent understood the risks of his decision to use the trail, with which he was already familiar.

“This case is about a 35-year-old male who made a conscious decision to skateboard down a steep path,” Quinn said.

She said Kent was also an avid skier with a history of taking risks.

“Casey enjoyed going fast. He enjoyed going down steep slopes and pushing himself,” she said. “But when you take on challenges, when you push yourself to become better, you also take on greater risks.”

She noted that the trail was located on private properly and is privately maintained — separate from the municipal trail system south of the development.

Quinn also argued that the city’s involvement in the project was not unusual, and was limited to setting general conditions on the trail system, as opposed to specifying slopes and grades.

The case returned to District Court after the Montana Supreme Court in May 2015 reversed the lower court’s earlier decision dismissing Kent’s complaints. In its order, the Supreme Court found the city could potentially be held liable for violating its statutory duty.

“Evidence sufficient to defeat summary judgment exists that the City was actively involved in the design of the path, knew of its dangerous grade, had the statutory authority to compel a modification and yet exercised its statutory and contractual authority to approve it,” wrote Justice Patricia Cotter, who authored the decision.

Reporter Sam Wilson can be reached at 758-4407 or by email at swilson@dailyinterlake.com.