79pmooney
Posts:3189
 |
| 09/30/2014 01:46 PM |
|
From VeloNews http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/09/news/news-olympic-cycling-champion-sara-carrigan-sued-bunch-ride-accident_347875
From Courier Mail, Brisbane Australia http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/olympic-cycling-champion-sara-carrigan-being-sued-for-750000-over-bunch-ride-accident/story-fnihsrf2-1227074665086?nk=6166addb821af5569359cfe146d4115f
In a quick summation: the plaintiff is suing the owner and founder of a cycling school for $750,000 and the rider that hit him over a crash that happened on a group ride. Apparently the plaintiff was hit by that rider when he failed to slow at a traffic light, resulting in a compound fracture that had to be pinned and left him with a pronounced limp and pain.
I find myself with mixed emotions about this. 3/4 of a million dollars is a lot of money. Loss of a good working body and the freedom to do things one loves at age say 45 (he was a former classmate of Sara Carrigan, the school founder, who won the 2004 Olympic road gold for Australia) and pain counts for a lot. For someone managing a construction business and used to that kind of money, $750,000 isn't a huge sum. For some people, it is.
But my other concern is where does personal responsibility and assumed risk play here? The plaintiff was riding a bike in a group ride, described here as "a bunch". Accidents happen. The plaintiff says the rider that hit him was known to be a poor and reckless rider and that the school should have excluded him from the rides. Seems to me the plaintiff himself had that same option, to exclude himself for his own safety. (There was a sprinter I used to race against regularly. I made it a point to never be beside him in the last mile of a race.)
I don't have the answer here. It has got me thinking.
Ben
|
|
|
|
|
SideBySide
Posts:444
|
| 09/30/2014 01:57 PM |
|
| It's a school. You had better expect some flaky riders. If you can't accept the risk you should not be there. |
|
|
|
|
THE SKINNY
Posts:506
|
| 09/30/2014 02:07 PM |
|
| i'm guessing the school has insurance? they would be the ones writing the check. the guy that did the running over, i hope he has some sort of policy. |
|
| How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives. |
|
|
Orange Crush
Posts:4499
|
| 09/30/2014 02:24 PM |
|
I saw this posted yesterday on FB by some folks I rode with in Brisbane. They were all dismisive as to case by plaintiff...this is a group ride, what do you expect etc.
Same ambivalent feelings as Ben, getting hit from behind is a raw deal with some serious consequences in this case. But it is a group ride after all.
I am also thinking that if the school has a proper liability disclaimer this should go away for them quickly. But I am sniffing out from the article that perhaps they didn't have all their ducks in a row. |
|
|
|
|
Oldfart
Posts:511
|
| 09/30/2014 03:47 PM |
|
You have to remember that is what is claimed. He won't necessarily get that amount even if he is successful. In common law countries, the plaintiff has to prove their damages, prove that the defendant(s) was negligent and that the negligence is a direct cause of the damages. Then there are defence arguments like inherent risk, acknowledgement of risk, was there a waiver signed before hand, contributory negligence. In Canada one is limited by law in what you can get for non pecuniary damages. the amount was set many years ago and has increased by inflation and I think the most one can get now is a little over $300,000 for non-pecs. That's pain and suffering. Wage loss, future wage loss, medical care costs are on top of that.
I was involved in investigating some terrible accidents in cycling races and group rides a while ago. On kid went through a plate glass window during a miss and out crit and died as a result of being stabbed in the heart by a large shard of glass. No claim ensued. A novice woman was involved in a large crash during a training ride when she went around the downed and crashing riders and rode into the side of a passing dump truck. Lost limbs during the crash and died later in hospital about two weeks after the insurers settled. She was in a vegetative state so it was a good thing I guess.
Mountain bike races where riders were rendered paraplegic. No claim in one case and only a claim against the bike and form manufacturer in the other.
|
|
|
|
|
Oldfart
Posts:511
|
| 09/30/2014 03:58 PM |
|
I handled a claim once where we had to deny coverage though but I did find out the results of the trial. Rugby game and one player is grinding his cleats into another players face. A teammate of the player on the ground runs up and punches the grinder in the face three times breaking bones around his eye.
The injured jackhole sues the other player for assault and battery or in the alternative negligence. No insurer will insure assault and battery. Not in the public interest. But apparently this gets to a trial. Essentially the judge said you got what was coming to you. Claim dismissed.
Seems to me the plaintiff has a really tough battle to prove that the cycling school knew or should have known that buddy was a dangerous rider and should not have been allowed on the ride. They will need a lot of witnesses to state that they saw this guy riding badly and that the ride leader was made aware of this or witnessed it herself.
Probably all defendants have insurance. Probably a waiver defence. |
|
|
|
|
SideBySide
Posts:444
|
| 09/30/2014 06:45 PM |
|
| Shouldn't they need to show multiple people who saw him riding badly, and told the organizers? I think that last is key. |
|
|
|
|
Oldfart
Posts:511
|
| 09/30/2014 07:01 PM |
|
| Some jurisdictions require that a plaintiff put in an actual amount that they are claiming. Therefore prudent plaintiff's counsel will claim an amount way over what they think the claim is worth just in case because if you get top trial and did not claim enough, too bad. In auto accident claims you also see that plaintiff's claim all kinds of junk, not wearing their eyeglasses, drunk or on drugs, car didn't work eyc. All kinds of stuff that is probably bogus but alleged in case it is true. Plaintiff has to prove all that though. |
|
|
|
|
Nick A
Posts:625
|
| 10/01/2014 11:06 AM |
|
I have not, and likely, will not read the article. I can't fathom a reason for suing in regards to a group ride. Litigation is completely out of hand. Completely.
N
Edit: I don't usually have such sweeping and uninformed opinions. But this is a pet peeve of mine. |
|
|
|
|
Keith Richards
Posts:781
|
| 10/01/2014 12:44 PM |
|
| How did the school not have participants singing a waiver? |
|
| -----
It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong. |
|
|
Orange Crush
Posts:4499
|
| 10/01/2014 12:51 PM |
|
That my main question too Keith. Any form of formally organized ride you typically sign a waiver in which organizer disclaims any liability. Case over.
Nick - I'd agree with you for informal or loosely organized rides (shop rides). But once someone is trying to make a buck from organizing group rides (school or whatever) some standard of care might be expected. Where that begins and ends is for courts to decide but I am thinking that if the school had a proper waiver this court case should not exist (or be thrown out). |
|
|
|
|
Dale
Posts:1767
|
| 10/01/2014 06:37 PM |
|
A liability waiver is a waste of a good tree-- they are meaningless.
Any lawyer that has five minutes on his hands can dismember it in court. |
|
|
|
|
Oldfart
Posts:511
|
| 10/01/2014 07:19 PM |
|
Posted By Dale Dale on 10/01/2014 06:37 PM
A liability waiver is a waste of a good tree-- they are meaningless.
Any lawyer that has five minutes on his hands can dismember it in court.
Not in Canada Dale. There have been a number of successful waiver defenses up here. The waiver has to be clearly written and the signatory has to be advised that it is a waiver and they have to be given an opportunity to read it and ask questions too. The ski area waivers stand up to scrutiny all the time. Blomberg sued Blackcomb a number of years ago alleging that his collision with another skier was due to a lack of fencing signage and the configuration of the runs. He lost his case based upon the waiver he signed. Lost his appeal too.
Last year two women sued a local zip line operator who was negligent. They let one woman down the line when the other was stuck in the middle and they collided. One woman was a young lawyer the other the owner of a fitness facility where they used a similar waiver. Claim tossed as both plaintiffs' signed the waiver and knew or should have known what it meant.
|
|
|
|
|
Dale
Posts:1767
|
| 10/01/2014 08:27 PM |
|
Interesting… there are varying liability levels in different countries. Not every place is as litigious as the US.
Ski resorts in the US have a special exemption and there may be other industries with protection but for the most part a promoter cannot waive away liability-- particularly if there was something he should have done to reduce risk.
|
|
|
|
|
Oldfart
Posts:511
|
| 10/01/2014 10:44 PM |
|
| Waivers are a good tool to defend bogus claims. But a waiver wouldn't and shouldn't work for situations that are beyond foreseeable risks of an activity. Like when the chairs fell off the Quicksilver lift. I think it was four chairs that fell off during downloading at Whistler. A number of deaths and injuries. No waiver should work in that situation. |
|
|
|
|