F*ck people like that (and the laws that allow them to do this crap).Someone broke their neck out there in 2005. The lawyer was representing that guy and was trying to make a case that city knew the jumps were there and didn't do enough(or anything) to let riders know the dangers of said jumps.
Took the words straight out of my mouth!F*ck people like that (and the laws that allow them to do this crap).
If you do a sport like this, you should be full aware of the consequenses and accept responsibility for your actions. Don't ruin it for the rest of us.
-KT
I agree-However, he is a lawyer and is not to be trusted.
However, he is a lawyer and is not to be trusted.
Just because the Lawyer is representing this individual does not meen this individual filed said suit. Lets put it this way. You know the risks,except such risk and say hey I have insurance whats the worst that can happen. Well no matter how good a rider is **** happens. So you get hurt file a claim with your insurance and they denie your claim. Somewhere buried in the paper work gives them the right to denie coverage because of what you were doing or they think they can claim some one else should be responsible. What do you do when you are faced with hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills and will need care the rest of your life. Just another way to look at it. Now you know why when people start to get older and have others in there life depending on them they choose to change there perspective on what risk they are willing to take.F*ck people like that (and the laws that allow them to do this crap).
If you do a sport like this, you should be full aware of the consequenses and accept responsibility for your actions. Don't ruin it for the rest of us.
-KT
Hey Marty what would you have done without UPS.You bought the bike, you chose to hit the jumps and YOU crashed....Who's fault is that?
Stupid!
I love this idea, but it's scary because it puts the trails "out there" in the open with the potential of being taken out....and trying to get current bootleg trails legitimized.
I don't know if you're replying to me- that does suck that they knew they were there- hopefully it doesen't set a precedent to get rid of anything potentially not legal that could hurt someone.the city knew the dirt piles were there.
I spent an hour talking to the lawyer guy..
Go to the land owner / manager and ask for permission to build trails. If permission is granted, they'll be amazed at how quickly you get things done.In my previous post, I was referring to the trails that the county/city doesn't (in theory) know about... How do we go about legitimizing them and minimize the risk of losing them all together?
I wouldn't have had the money to buy the bike in the first place.Hey Marty what would you have done without UPS.
This is more often the case than the commonly perceived notion that the injured party is just out to get a free ride.Just because the Lawyer is representing this individual does not meen this individual filed said suit. Lets put it this way. You know the risks,except such risk and say hey I have insurance whats the worst that can happen. Well no matter how good a rider is **** happens. So you get hurt file a claim with your insurance and they denie your claim. Somewhere buried in the paper work gives them the right to denie coverage because of what you were doing or they think they can claim some one else should be responsible. What do you do when you are faced with hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills and will need care the rest of your life. Just another way to look at it. Now you know why when people start to get older and have others in there life depending on them they choose to change there perspective on what risk they are willing to take.
No need to flame away, you're right. I wasn't so much mad at the guy, but at the laws that allow the land owner to be held responsible for stuff like this. I wish our liability laws were more similar to canada.Flame away.
I hear you and I'll go a step further...I wish our society was set up so we could all carry the load for those who are less fortunate when this stuff happens without having to resort to lawsuits. Because it does happen, and it will continue to happen.No need to flame away, you're right. I wasn't so much mad at the guy, but at the laws that allow the land owner to be held responsible for stuff like this. I wish our liability laws were more similar to canada.
-KT
Are you willing to have a National Health Care plan? One where you may not have choices. On another note. Litigation like this usally follows the money. If the land owner had none they would not be a target.No need to flame away, you're right. I wasn't so much mad at the guy, but at the laws that allow the land owner to be held responsible for stuff like this. I wish our liability laws were more similar to canada.
-KT
Actually, yes, I am leaning more and more towards some sort of national plan, perhaps combined with some sort of traditional private option. As with everything there are drawbacks, however. And to afford something like this I realize that the traditional American standard of living that we Americans currently (or used to!) enjoy may need to be adjusted somewhat. But no one seems to want to pay the cost, we just want the benefits.Are you willing to have a National Health Care plan? One where you may not have choices. On another note. Litigation like this usally follows the money. If the land owner had none they would not be a target.
Warning signs are not needed. I have had dealing with atorney's and i have refered them to the RCW and have never heard back from them. We thank the late state senator Bob Oak for getting that law passed. Main reason we now have skate parks, BMX tracks, Downhill ,etc open to the public. The RCW says (the short version) if you don't charge for it you can't be sued for it. The sign issue is only if a property owner has dangeous area that may cause trouble for people using his property. Like an open pit full of starving wolves. Dirt Jumps don't count!Where is "Softies?" I got back into biking this summer after a long time off...
RCW 4.24.210 basically says that land owners have no liability as long as there are "warning signs conspicuously posted" for dangerous stuff. Were there any?
It's a horrible story - everyone's worst nightmare, I'm sure - but I absolutely hate it when people try to blame land owners for stuff like this. Bicycling is dangerous, bad things happen, and it's the rider's job to stay upright and in control. Way too many people are expecting someone else to guarantee their safety, which just screw things up for everyone else - land owners and other riders for sure, and society in general too IMO.
Dude save your rhetoric for a political forum.Are you willing to have a National Health Care plan? One where you may not have choices. On another note. Litigation like this usally follows the money. If the land owner had none they would not be a target.
Rite ON, thats Too FUNNY - Coyote part f'n cracked me upF*cking noobs!!! Out there alone and with the seat too high. Goes waaaay beyond assumed risk and more into the realm of imminent disaster. Pity his saddle/post didn't wind up deep in his rectum...and where were the coyotes when we needed them???
All the same, it's somewhat of a miracle they have been around as long as they have. Barely even got to know them, but I'm going to miss them all the same.
Fun police, die!
sighAre you willing to have a National Health Care plan? One where you may not have choices. On another note. Litigation like this usally follows the money. If the land owner had none they would not be a target.
My only info came from the lawyer guy. I passed it on to this page....are you sure it wasn't some 12 year old kid and his parents are suing?
this is effing retarded
We'll PM you so you can approve all posts beforehand.My only info came from the lawyer guy. I passed it on to this page....
and keep yer 'effin' politics out of my thread!@!!!!
Warning signs may not have been needed in your cases, since RCW 4.24.210 basically states that land owners are generally not liable for biking injuries. However, the same law also has a clause that says land owners can be held liable in some cases:Warning signs are not needed. I have had dealing with atorney's and i have refered them to the RCW and have never heard back from them. We thank the late state senator Bob Oak for getting that law passed. Main reason we now have skate parks, BMX tracks, Downhill ,etc open to the public. The RCW says (the short version) if you don't charge for it you can't be sued for it. The sign issue is only if a property owner has dangeous area that may cause trouble for people using his property. Like an open pit full of starving wolves. Dirt Jumps don't count!
Given that there's a lawyer still interested in the case, I'd wager that the lawyer was trying to determine whether that clause applies. The injured guy's case depends on it.Nothing in this section shall prevent the liability of a landowner or others in lawful possession and control for injuries sustained to users by reason of a known dangerous artificial latent condition for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted.