how bout the assumed risk that the coffee might be hot?? I burn my tounge all the time and I don't sue, anyway I think we have derailed the thread enough.
Big Bear suit.....another perspective
- Thread starter Damn True
- Start date
This was more than a simple tongue burn. She had third degree burns to 6% of her body and was in the hospital for 8 days, had to get skin grafts and still was permanently scarred.Brad23 said:
So she spilled it, right? That leaves her at fault.DRB said:
obviously she shouldn't have been sitting, or at least worn a waterproof/flame-retardant suit while drinking their coffee.DRB said:
So you sip it a tiny bit to find out. This isn't rocket science, the lady is an idiot.Toshi said:
what if the lady had instead walked into the mcdonalds and ordered a cup of coffee and on her way out the door slipped on a wet spot on the floor where some immigrant worker had cleaned up a previous spill without putting up a sign, that would be negligence, clear cut. If I were driving down the road and a billboard blew over and smashed my car that would be tough luck but I'd be sure to try and pin something on the owner of that billboard. If I were driving down the 1/4 mile of dirt road to get to my house after a rain storm at an excessive speed and didn't notice that the road had washed away untill the car was flipping end over end I don't know that I could justify it as being anybody's fault but my own for not being aware of the situation and driving faster than conditions allow. I'm sure some jury could be pursuaded otherwise though.
NO ONE ever sips coffee before they have put whatever it is they doctor it.Eigil said:
Additionally sipping is going to let you know its hot but not how hot. Certainly you wouldn't be able to tell that it is of a temperature capable of creating third degree burns. However, McDonalds knew that their coffee was capable of that.
Here we go again with the "I wouldn't sue if that happened to me" thing. You as in EVERYONE do know what you'd do if God forbid some this tragic happened to you. You don't know his circumstances, and I'm sure if he wins the suit the $ wont be spent on 6 months in Tahiti every year and a life of leisure, I'm sure every drop of the money will help him survive with the necessary care he requires. As far as walking the course/practice runs, I'm sure he did, but race runs are usally different than practice runs because your riding faster and your lines change because of course conditions are constantly changed from each rider. I don't care if rebar is the norm or not, rider safety should be #1 for the racers period (some form of breakaway pole). Maybe the people bitching and whining about this should work out a deal with his lawyers to keep BB open and help support Brian for the rest of his life with all his medical & living needs.
I'd be very bummed if this happened to N*, believe me but I don't think I'd go about it like most of you have..........It's kinda selfish IMO.
I'd be very bummed if this happened to N*, believe me but I don't think I'd go about it like most of you have..........It's kinda selfish IMO.
The lady at McDonalds was completely and totally unaware of the danger that the cup of coffee she purchased presented her. A reasonable person could not forsee the amount of injury (third degree burns) that coffee could do. However, McDonalds was aware of the danger as they had dealt with numerous claims and complaints in the past about it and did nothing to warn anyone.
A downhill racer could reasonably be expected to know that hitting a course marker could cause a crash. A downhill racer could also reasonably expect injury (including death) as a result of that crash. Even if that marker had been moved, it is reasonable to expect that conditions are going to change from run to run on a downhill course. How many times have you taken a line all day long only to find a gigantic rock right in the middle of that line that hadn't been there before during your race run?
However God knows what other facts are unknown at this point. I think it is simply too soon to make a judgement.
A downhill racer could reasonably be expected to know that hitting a course marker could cause a crash. A downhill racer could also reasonably expect injury (including death) as a result of that crash. Even if that marker had been moved, it is reasonable to expect that conditions are going to change from run to run on a downhill course. How many times have you taken a line all day long only to find a gigantic rock right in the middle of that line that hadn't been there before during your race run?
However God knows what other facts are unknown at this point. I think it is simply too soon to make a judgement.
When I was 13 I crashed racing BMX, I nosed tagged a table. I landed about 10 feet over and down. I absoloutly crused 3 vertabrea and fractured 4 more. I was in the hospital for 14 days. In those 14 dyasI was told I would never be able to walk right, ride a bike or do the career that I wanted to do. During my stay in the Hospital my parents health insurance comapny went belly up. My father wanted to sue the track. At 13 I knew I would this would A. ruin it for everyone and B. probally get me beat up alot. 
After months of convincing my father not to sue, he gave in and did not sue. The track had a special day for me when Iwas back up and running...kinda, I had to wear a HALO for 4 months. My neck was fused and I was one of the few lucky peopel who gained evrything back. I owe it to duck hunt...(thatas a whole nother story) My father had to pay the hospital bills out of his pocket but there was alot of help form outside sources....no lawyers feeding him lines of millions. I understand that this guy will need the money, he cant ever ride again(how much is that worth to you?) or get laid, work a normal job, or even drive a car. Its tough yea, we are allmad becuase we cant ride there, but think about this poor guy who cant ever ride again. There is still spots to ride, and many more we can build ourselves and not pay for. If he was your best friend or oyu , your opinion would be different. We are all in for fun and becuase we love it, no matter our riding level. I feel for the guy. And as long as we all live in the US , lawsuits are a normal occurance....we need to hate the "ambulance chasing" lawyers not the poor guy who gets sucked in by them. I hate lawyers......and alot of other things
After months of convincing my father not to sue, he gave in and did not sue. The track had a special day for me when Iwas back up and running...kinda, I had to wear a HALO for 4 months. My neck was fused and I was one of the few lucky peopel who gained evrything back. I owe it to duck hunt...(thatas a whole nother story) My father had to pay the hospital bills out of his pocket but there was alot of help form outside sources....no lawyers feeding him lines of millions. I understand that this guy will need the money, he cant ever ride again(how much is that worth to you?) or get laid, work a normal job, or even drive a car. Its tough yea, we are allmad becuase we cant ride there, but think about this poor guy who cant ever ride again. There is still spots to ride, and many more we can build ourselves and not pay for. If he was your best friend or oyu , your opinion would be different. We are all in for fun and becuase we love it, no matter our riding level. I feel for the guy. And as long as we all live in the US , lawsuits are a normal occurance....we need to hate the "ambulance chasing" lawyers not the poor guy who gets sucked in by them. I hate lawyers......and alot of other things 
You never get laid now! How is it any different?bibs said:
Your post boils down to one thing: Insurance companies are at the root of the problem.
\DRB said:
That sums up my point of view.
I'm not taking sides on this, but i think a lot people here have prematurly taken sides.
Just because there a lot of frivilous lawsuits, doesn't mean all lawsuits are frivilous.
hey is that sarcasm?DHS said:wow, bibs is cool
And Buildyourown.......Im not the married one..I stil can get some...I may not right now..BUT!!!! I can still get it! (fingers crossed, and knocking on wood)
Bwahahahahahahahabibs said:
Maybe it would have been different if you were paralized from the neck down.
I'm sure you've all seen this:
"SNOW SUMMIT TO DISCONTINUE DOWNHILL MOUNTAIN BIKING!
Big Bear Lake, Calif., December 9, 2004 Snow Summit Mountain Resort (Snow Summit) has decided to discontinue transporting downhill mountain bikes on the Sky Chair during the summer months for either recreational or competitive purposes. Team Big Bear, Snow Summit's mountain bike racing concessionaire, will no longer be permitted to hold downhill bike racing on the U.S. Forest Service Permit Area as they have for the last 15 or so years.
Further, the heavy, specialized downhill bikes will no longer be transported on the Sky Chair for general recreational purposes. The resort has taken this action in large part because the liability exposure is too great. Virtually all of the serious accidents occurring on-site, both in competition and in general recreation, have involved these bikes, which are designed for high speed and rough terrain. Their use has also been responsible for the so-called "outlaw trails" within and just outside the resort's Special Use Permit Area, causing erosion damage and forest disruption. Both Snow Summit and the U.S. Forest Service have been powerless to physically control their use as the riders breakdown or bypass any barrier, often removing any signage there.
These bikes typically weigh 45 to 60 pounds, thus ceasing to haul them on the lift will virtually eliminate their use at Snow Summit. Most standard mountain bikes are in the 25 pound range and are used for climbing and general cross country purposes and are not suitable for the steep, rugged trails established by the specialized downhill bikes. In addition to their heavy weight, they have 7 to 9 inches of shock absorbing capability and extra wide tires.
The resort will continue to haul conventional mountain bikes for the general public on the Sky Chair, which by and large rides on trails and roads off-site. There has been no decision yet whether to allow them within the permit boundary on designated trails on the ski runs, which has been allowed since the start of lift transport back in the late 1980's. Team Big Bear will continue with cross country racing on the various designated roads and trails. (Cross country bike racing does not utilize the chairlift and generally occurs within the resort's permit area only in the base and at the top of the resort.)
"We deeply regret having to make this decision, but for the reasons stated above, we have no choice", said Richard Kun, Snow Summit's President, explaining further, "Some downhill mountain bike riders are questioning why we accept the liability exposure from skiers and snowboarders during the winter but are unwilling to do the same for downhill mountain bike riders, especially since they sign a release. The answer is simple economics. Our core business is providing skiing and snowboarding so we must absorb the very high cost of liability protection in lift ticket sales and other income sources, but our entire summer's mountain bike income is about one third of one day's winter operation at full capacity. Further, while the releases have been upheld in court it can cost us tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight a claim even if we win. From a bottom line business standpoint this is an easy decision; from the recognition that we are in the business of providing fun on the mountain but can no longer do so with this activity, it has been very difficult."
"SNOW SUMMIT TO DISCONTINUE DOWNHILL MOUNTAIN BIKING!
Big Bear Lake, Calif., December 9, 2004 Snow Summit Mountain Resort (Snow Summit) has decided to discontinue transporting downhill mountain bikes on the Sky Chair during the summer months for either recreational or competitive purposes. Team Big Bear, Snow Summit's mountain bike racing concessionaire, will no longer be permitted to hold downhill bike racing on the U.S. Forest Service Permit Area as they have for the last 15 or so years.
Further, the heavy, specialized downhill bikes will no longer be transported on the Sky Chair for general recreational purposes. The resort has taken this action in large part because the liability exposure is too great. Virtually all of the serious accidents occurring on-site, both in competition and in general recreation, have involved these bikes, which are designed for high speed and rough terrain. Their use has also been responsible for the so-called "outlaw trails" within and just outside the resort's Special Use Permit Area, causing erosion damage and forest disruption. Both Snow Summit and the U.S. Forest Service have been powerless to physically control their use as the riders breakdown or bypass any barrier, often removing any signage there.
These bikes typically weigh 45 to 60 pounds, thus ceasing to haul them on the lift will virtually eliminate their use at Snow Summit. Most standard mountain bikes are in the 25 pound range and are used for climbing and general cross country purposes and are not suitable for the steep, rugged trails established by the specialized downhill bikes. In addition to their heavy weight, they have 7 to 9 inches of shock absorbing capability and extra wide tires.
The resort will continue to haul conventional mountain bikes for the general public on the Sky Chair, which by and large rides on trails and roads off-site. There has been no decision yet whether to allow them within the permit boundary on designated trails on the ski runs, which has been allowed since the start of lift transport back in the late 1980's. Team Big Bear will continue with cross country racing on the various designated roads and trails. (Cross country bike racing does not utilize the chairlift and generally occurs within the resort's permit area only in the base and at the top of the resort.)
"We deeply regret having to make this decision, but for the reasons stated above, we have no choice", said Richard Kun, Snow Summit's President, explaining further, "Some downhill mountain bike riders are questioning why we accept the liability exposure from skiers and snowboarders during the winter but are unwilling to do the same for downhill mountain bike riders, especially since they sign a release. The answer is simple economics. Our core business is providing skiing and snowboarding so we must absorb the very high cost of liability protection in lift ticket sales and other income sources, but our entire summer's mountain bike income is about one third of one day's winter operation at full capacity. Further, while the releases have been upheld in court it can cost us tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight a claim even if we win. From a bottom line business standpoint this is an easy decision; from the recognition that we are in the business of providing fun on the mountain but can no longer do so with this activity, it has been very difficult."
its better than wacking it.....well at work at least...
And yes insurance agencies are to blame a bit to ...but considering, then we would have to blame everyone one on down the line.
Im just saying ease up on the guy.......there is more than what we all see and read...
And yes insurance agencies are to blame a bit to ...but considering, then we would have to blame everyone one on down the line.
Im just saying ease up on the guy.......there is more than what we all see and read...
could understand if he impaled himself on the rebar (perish the thought). Thats the only reason i would see the setup being dangerous.
PsychO!1 said:
Actually what is miss here is that in an neglagence hearing, almost no one is ever 100% not guilty. You can access partial blame, that's why people sue for Huge amount cause then you still get a large some if they are only partially to "blame". So if they sue for 25mil, and they find SS,TBB, and USAC only 5% resposible for the accident then they're still owe 1.25mil. That's one of the problems with civil suits in the US. You don't have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" like you need to be in a criminal case.
Look at OJ if you want to see how it works.
The lady at McDonalds only got $480K....and that's before her lawyers and the government took their share.
Interesting. I can't/won't comment on the validity of either argument b/c both are an impossible slippery slope. But I do feel that mountains need to pay very close attention to how they build jumps. I have felt this way for a long time. Not so much in where they place the pole, but the actual construction. I'm thinking if this kid, the wmoan who died at Big Bear, and the Turner/Honda kid who broke his back at Mammoth this year. It seems like in every case, the jumps were poorly constructed. Jumps with flat trajectories and long landings are relitively safe, but double, table tops, and rhythm sections all expose riders to more risk than is called for. Its easy to take a section of jumps thats is easy to ride under non-race condiditons, but add in the 1,000,000 or so variables of a race run and it seems like it is only a matter of time before something like this happens.
Just my .02
EDIT: I forgot to finish my thought before. So,
Take the wide range of rider abilities at a race, combine them with the adrenaline, emotion, fatigue and the million other things that go on during a race run and you have an impossible situation. It is nealy impossible to build a safe jump into a DH race course that is intended to be ridden by multiple classes/abilities.
Just my .02
EDIT: I forgot to finish my thought before. So,
Take the wide range of rider abilities at a race, combine them with the adrenaline, emotion, fatigue and the million other things that go on during a race run and you have an impossible situation. It is nealy impossible to build a safe jump into a DH race course that is intended to be ridden by multiple classes/abilities.
now Im not trying to dogg on your opinion, but the problem there is that there is suc ha HUGE differance in riders that you could have a perfect jump then ten riders liek and another ten dont. With the huge differances in style, skills and bike setup its so hard to do. Whistler has done well, but even the pros have issues on some jumps where a normal guy would love it. So catering ot the masses is almost impossible. but you do have a good point, its just how could one palce do that? Our own local small trails, we ahve that smae issue...some want biggre..btu kids ride there too...and they need to start some where...so its tough..Repack said:
Has anyone thought that MAYBE SnowSummit is only planst to close down temporarily as a means to help win the suit, and then once it is settled they will open back up again?
Please please please.......
Please please please.......
bushwacker said:
Yep that is true, what's funny is and there is were McDs f'ed up, is the had an offer to settle originally for just Med costs, then they didn't want to, so they went into a mediation, he recommended 225,000 for the settlement, then they went to court, had to pay the 480K, plus all the legal fees, sometimes it's just better to settle and run.
-BB- said:
Eigil said:
Man, now I'm more glad than ever I bought a Santa Cruz instead of a Specialized.
lol, damn Im screwed..my demo wont be allowed there...bummerOGRipper said:Man, now I'm more glad than ever I bought a Santa Cruz instead of a Specialized.
I wonder if Specialized could sue for picking on them...slander maybe? Its the america nway..sue and be rich! :nuts:
I agree, I was just trying to make the point that nobody here has enough information to declare this (or any other) lawsuit frivilous. It might be, we just can't make that call.Zutroy said:
Amen, to that. I don't think anyone on this board is so insensitive that they don't feel sympathy for this guy. It sucks and yes, Lee's right...it could have happened to any one of us. I think the bottom line is that he made a mistake, and now he's asking someone else to pay for it in a HUGE way...his decision not only affects/punished SS, TBB, and USA Cycling, but the entire cycling community. I busted my hand when I clipped a course marker on Log Chute a few years back...the only thing I asked SS/TBB for is to have the EMT look and my hand and give me a bag of ice. I made a mistake, got off line, and clipped the pole...that was nobody's fault but my own.Jeremy R said:
Here we use trees as course markers... Good luck hitting one of those.
Another daft question from the Aussie who has never even seen a pole used as a course marker - are you supposed to hit the poles? Did he intend to hit the pole? See, if you're allowed to hit them (like a slalom skiier), and he was doing that and found it to be made of steel instead of flexible pipe of whatever - then yeah I see the point. But from the description, he wasn't in control when he hit it (ie. didn't mean to, just had a sketchy landing). Riding at a speed you can't control is a decision you make yourself. I'm not sure I understand your liability situation over there folks.
Another daft question from the Aussie who has never even seen a pole used as a course marker - are you supposed to hit the poles? Did he intend to hit the pole? See, if you're allowed to hit them (like a slalom skiier), and he was doing that and found it to be made of steel instead of flexible pipe of whatever - then yeah I see the point. But from the description, he wasn't in control when he hit it (ie. didn't mean to, just had a sketchy landing). Riding at a speed you can't control is a decision you make yourself. I'm not sure I understand your liability situation over there folks.
toodles said:
there like a soft fence, i think it bucked him when he cuaght it. its not like ski raicng..try not to hit em, but for a good line, sometimes you have to hit em..its just a piece of 2 foot sttel in the ground and a PVC pipe stickinh up higher ....
Sorry Bri... you know I love you and all, but I have to disagree.Brian HCM#1 said:
When some jackazz Skiier ran over Denise's snowboard and pushed her into a sign, breaking her leg in 5 spots with bone sticking out and everything (and he then proceeded to tell her to "Suck it up"), we didn't sue. Her bills were over $20 Gs
You said that every $$ will be spent on getting the necessary care he needs... That is why people have INSURANCE. That is NOT why you sue someone. What about all the people out there that get paralized and DON'T sue? Again, it is tragic and all, but why should bigbear pay if it wasnt' their fault? If I'm driving down the road and I hit a pole on side of teh road, is it the DOT's fault for making the pole solid? For not installing hover poles or something?
The Groovy Gravity Games used similar markers. Were they "negligent"?
You also talk about the course changing as the race progresses... What do you suggest then? That everyone walk the course between each run to see what little rock moved where... Oh, that's right, walking the course is pointless.
Waht if I were riding down your driveway and I clipped my foot on a little lamp post or one of those "spike" lights that you stick in the ground. Should I be able to sue you because you didn't have breakaway lights?
Where exactly do you draw the line? I certainly don't know, but IMO it is not HERE!!
Northstar built those little skinnies... Should you be able to sue them for not making them wider when you fall off?
No. You look at it and decide if riding it is worth risking bodily harm.
What if Snow Summit instead tied markers to trees? Could he still sue?
Common sense says that if you run into a solid object at high speeds then you WILL fall. And if you fall, it is your fault.
If I am walking down the sidewalk and it colapses and I fall into someone's basement, THEN maybe I could sue them, but if I walk into an open door, canI sue for plastic surgery to fix my F'd up dome?
PsychO!1 said:
I guess that would depend on your def. of frivilious, way the system is set up now, nothing is frivilous cause you can partially win anything.
The only people winning are the lawyers.
IMHO, it's frivilous based on the fact the guy even said HE clipped the pole. At that speed clipping a NERF pole would send you flying.
toodles said:
Agreed... If they put a solid pole in the middle of a slalom run (Skiing), THEN you would probably ahve a case, but this is NOT a sport where the norm is to go out and hit every pole you can to shave a few seconds.
Ah ok. You can't cut corners on our course markers at all. We use trees and run the tape to them and where there's no trees just use wooden stakes. If you can't dodge a wooden stake on a course full of trees you shouldn't be out there. Actually maybe that's your problem - you've got it too easy. Make all the course markers steel pickets and there won't be any confusion as to which ones you can run over or not. Seriously - it's DH. There's trees, rocks, poles, spectators and whole list of other things to avoid. What difference does it make adding a few more. The problem stems IMO from the inconsistency between having course markers you can clobber safey and ones you can't. Either make them all steel or all plastic. Were the other course markers plastic and this one was steel? Was it moved after practise? I guess any questions will be answered in the trial.
It has been said so many times in life and in this board...but this whole deal is about the legal system of america and how completely messed up it is, how we are trained since birth that you can always "sue", that any mistake will be made up for in a "lawsuit". I am SO not a legal expert, but it seems to me we are really way too far down the wrong road with the legal system, doesnt seem like there is any way to get it back on track-the amount of monetary rewards is like the amount pro athletes get (mainstream)...copious amounts of money.
Friend of mine said to me the other day, "its like a murderer getting a death sentence, its not going to bring the family member back, just like this suit is not going to make the guy walk again" I had to tell my friend he was a moron.
useless post really...yeah well-free bump I guess.
Oh, and I am not even on the same page as Lee on this one.
Friend of mine said to me the other day, "its like a murderer getting a death sentence, its not going to bring the family member back, just like this suit is not going to make the guy walk again" I had to tell my friend he was a moron.
useless post really...yeah well-free bump I guess.
Oh, and I am not even on the same page as Lee on this one.
I don't agree that this is a problem, I think comparative negligence is a good thing.Zutroy said:
Flip it around: BB is 95% responsible and the rider is 5% responsible. Without comparative negligence the rider gets nothing even though he's only 5% responsible. Sound good to you?
But that's a bad example since it's so emotionally charged. How about a car accident where driver 1 was doing nothing wrong except maybe his radio was up too loud or some other minor thing, whereas driver 2 was drunk and blew a red light - should driver 1 be denied recovery? Each person should be responsible for their own conduct, and if they contributed to the problem it should limit (but not eliminate) their right of recovery.