[PsychO!1]

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.

What if the pole he clipped was hidden behind the jump, he couldn't see it until he launched. The pole was in one location for all practice runs and 1st race run. Pole was moved to keep riders from starightening out an 'S' turn after 1st race run. Rider hits jump in 2nd race run, just like every other run, but this time, the pole is in the line he's been running, clips it and is paralyzed for life.

Who's fault, liability?

 

[MikeD]

I'd been a holdout for having any real opinion, waiting for 'the facts I didn't know...', and trying to stay sympathetic to the poor buy, but that article just made me jump on the negative bandwagon here.

You're gonna race, you know the risks. You know the risks, you'd better have insurance or some other means to deal with the potential consequences besides suing them. The course markings at BB are as safe as any, and like Transcend has pointed out, you clip a pedal on ANY course marker at 6" off the deck, and you're going down. Risk of the game.

I was hoping that the real story wouldn't make me bitter, but it has.

MD

 

[zedro]

We use trees and run the tape to them ...........Either make them all steel or all plastic.

how about using big fake (but realistic) plastic trees? then the debate could be purely philosophical.

 

[Zutroy]

I don't agree that this is a problem, I think comparative negligence is a good thing.

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.

It's a good idea on paper, but it never works in the real world, cause there are no objective measures, and it's human nature to side with somone that's hurt. So it's easy to justify saying that well maybe the were alittle bit to blame. When you dealing with large companies it's always hard cause Juries say oh what's alittle bit of money to them, they can afford it. Then the PI lawyer says thanks and takes his 30-40% and runs.

It's like class action suits the only people that win are the Lawyers that make a couple million verses the plantif that gets 10 bucks.

 

[Brian HCM#1]

Sorry Bri... you know I love you and all, but I have to disagree.
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?

Like my grandmother always says...............There are 3 sides to every story, his side, her side and the truth. We are all speculating on what's really happing without hearing all the other sides.

 

[Zutroy]

What if the pole he clipped was hidden behind the jump, he couldn't see it until he launched. The pole was in one location for all practice runs and 1st race run. Pole was moved to keep riders from starightening out an 'S' turn after 1st race run. Rider hits jump in 2nd race run, just like every other run, but this time, the pole is in the line he's been running, clips it and is paralyzed for life.

Who's fault, liability?

That would be a tough call, but that's not what happend here, from what has been written. There are all sorts of what ifs you could ask...what if a rider moved it? what is someone crashed in front of him and he hit him...is the guy that crashed at fault?

 

[PsychO!1]

That would be a tough call, but that's not what happend here, from what has been written. There are all sorts of what ifs you could ask...what if a rider moved it? what is someone crashed in front of him and he hit him...is the guy that crashed at fault?

That's exactly my point!!!

NOBODY HERE KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED FROM WHAT WAS POSTED HERE!!!!

It's all speculation. My version could be as right any other posted here.

Again, I'm not defending this lawsuit.
Just get off the frivilous lawsuit bandwagon.

 

[esr]

I see intresting falicies in the argument

 

[Zutroy]

That's exactly my point!!!

NOBODY HERE KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED FROM WHAT WAS POSTED HERE!!!!

It's all speculation. My version could be as right any other posted here.

Again, I'm not defending this lawsuit.
Just get off the frivilous lawsuit bandwagon.

Actually i read his website before they took it down, he said he hit a pole. Read Lees article, it pretty much says the same thing.

 

[Toshi]

That's exactly my point!!!

NOBODY HERE KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED FROM WHAT WAS POSTED HERE!!!!

It's all speculation. My version could be as right any other posted here.

Again, I'm not defending this lawsuit.
Just get off the frivilous lawsuit bandwagon.

no one likes the voice of reason, mike

 

[PsychO!1]

Actually i read his website before they took it down, he said he hit a pole. Read Lees article, it pretty much says the same thing.

And it was stated from the start....he can't talk about the case for obvious reasons. I'm sure the only ones that know WHOLE story are his laywers.

[EDIT} I'm out....

 

[OGRipper]

It's a good idea on paper, but it never works in the real world, cause there are no objective measures, and it's human nature to side with somone that's hurt. So it's easy to justify saying that well maybe the were alittle bit to blame. When you dealing with large companies it's always hard cause Juries say oh what's alittle bit of money to them, they can afford it. Then the PI lawyer says thanks and takes his 30-40% and runs.

I'm not going to debate the validity of the entire legal system, it's got plenty of problems fo' sure. The question is whether one party being "a little bit to blame" should completely exonerate another party, even if that party clearly did something wrong. In my opinion it should not, because then the wrongdoer benefits from the fact that the other party did something too, whereas in another situation the wrongdoer could have done exactly the same thing but be held responsible if the other party happened to be an angel that day. It's just too arbitrary a way to decide fault - if conduct is wrongful, it should have consequences, and those consequences should be reduced to extent the party claiming damage was also at fault. But hey you don't have to agree, your approach is more of a black and white, "all or nothing" way too look at it and I pretty much live in the gray areas.

 

[zedro]

I'm sure the only ones that know WHOLE story are his laywers.

as well as any revisionist history...

 

[Zutroy]

And it was stated from the start....he can't talk about the case for obvious reasons. I'm sure the only ones that know WHOLE story are his laywers.

[EDIT} I'm out....

Yeah he can't talk about the case, but I'm sure he did right after it happened to his friends. Until all the press hit about BB, there was a website up that listed exactly what happened down too he was even wearing Dainese Armour. He can't talk about it cause the Lawyers are afraid he might so some damage to the cause by writing or saying the wrong thing. They're going to tell him exactly how to say what happened because the want THEIR version of the truth to be heard. As you know there are many ways to say the same thing, and they will want it to be said in the light that best reflects it being not his fault. This is were the people that prep witnesses make the big bucks, in word smithing.

 

[Zutroy]

I'm not going to debate the validity of the entire legal system, it's got plenty of problems fo' sure. The question is whether one party being "a little bit to blame" should completely exonerate another party, even if that party clearly did something wrong. In my opinion it should not, because then the wrongdoer benefits from the fact that the other party did something too, whereas in another situation the wrongdoer could have done exactly the same thing but be held responsible if the other party happened to be an angel that day. It's just too arbitrary a way to decide fault - if conduct is wrongful, it should have consequences, and those consequences should be reduced to extent the party claiming damage was also at fault. But hey you don't have to agree, your approach is more of a black and white, "all or nothing" way too look at it and I pretty much live in the gray areas.

Yes it is a very gray area, and your right many things are not black and white. There are some checks in there, such as judges adjusting awards and such.

 

[Repack]

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..

This is exactly what I was trying to say. My bad for not finishing my thought.
So,
EDIT: 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.

 

[bibs]

This is exactly what I was trying to say. My bad for not finishing my thought.
So,
EDIT: 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.

oh ok, well I agree sorry I miss understood.

 

[thaflyinfatman]

That is ****in retarded. Like toodles said, what if he hit a tree? Or a rock? Why the hell is it Big Bear's fault? Yeah ok, I'm a bit over the "frivolous lawsuit" bandwagon as well, but wtf... there has so far been nothing to suggest negligence on BB's part. Poor form. It sure would suck to be that guy, and I feel really sorry for him, but holding someone else unnecessarily responsible is just total BS. I do accept that there MAY be some wack incident (eg the course marker being moved) that could constitute some sort of negligence on BB's part, but $25 million worth of course marker movement? um...

 

[bibs]

That is ****in retarded. Like toodles said, what if he hit a tree? Or a rock? Why the hell is it Big Bear's fault? Yeah ok, I'm a bit over the "frivolous lawsuit" bandwagon as well, but wtf... there has so far been nothing to suggest negligence on BB's part. Poor form. It sure would suck to be that guy, and I feel really sorry for him, but holding someone else unnecessarily responsible is just total BS. I do accept that there MAY be some wack incident (eg the course marker being moved) that could constitute some sort of negligence on BB's part, but $25 million worth of course marker movement? um...

to play devils advocate here....

ok, lets take you for instance a good healthy person. You crash and now for the rest of your life you need constant care. And lawyers also take in part how much would it cost to make oyu stop doing the things yo ulove, how much is that worth to you. Yea, 25 mill is alot...but the court system had to see proof of why they asked for that much, its not jsut a number pulled out of a lawyers butt....but it could have been. But welcome ot the US..."you broke my nail..IM SUeIING!!" "my duaghter had to learn sex ed. , Im sueing!!

 

[builder666]

these course markers were rebar. to prevent riders from cheating the lines... go team big bear.

 

[thaflyinfatman]

to play devils advocate here....

ok, lets take you for instance a good healthy person. You crash and now for the rest of your life you need constant care. And lawyers also take in part how much would it cost to make oyu stop doing the things yo ulove, how much is that worth to you. Yea, 25 mill is alot...but the court system had to see proof of why they asked for that much, its not jsut a number pulled out of a lawyers butt....but it could have been. But welcome ot the US..."you broke my nail..IM SUeIING!!" "my duaghter had to learn sex ed. , Im sueing!!

I understand that, and it totally sucks. But if it's his fault (which IMO it appears to be), then why the hell should everyone else suffer for it? The world is an inherently dangerous place, as proven by the fact that everyone ends up dead...

 

[Silver]

Can we stop asking "WHAT IF HE HIT A TREE OR ROCK? WTF!!!!??? WOULD HE STILL SUE THEN? ****ING PUSSY!"

He hit neither a tree nor a rock. So it really doesn't matter what he would have done if it was a tree or rock. Surely you can see the difference between a natural feature of the mountain and a man made course marker?

 

[bibs]

I guess my point is in this country no matter the talent or lack there of. Some one always looses. In this case both parties. Really all three, the mountian, the bikers and the poor guy. When i talk to my Canadian friends, they laugh at how many people sue in our country. and the way our countriy is set up, its not really fair to anyone but the lawyers.

guy gets hurt sues wins millions, government takes taxes, lawyer takes 30% on the average. Mountain has to shut down from the insurance companies gouging them, mountain looses income form not being able to have a extra source of income..and so ...and the poor guy cant walk..now he has a ton of people bitching about him..even though its not his fualt....it sucks...

 

[zedro]

Surely you can see the difference between a natural feature of the mountain and a man made course marker?

not if both are used for the same purpose.

 

[toodles]

Can we stop asking "WHAT IF HE HIT A TREE OR ROCK? WTF!!!!??? WOULD HE STILL SUE THEN? ****ING PUSSY!"

He hit neither a tree nor a rock. So it really doesn't matter what he would have done if it was a tree or rock. Surely you can see the difference between a natural feature of the mountain and a man made course marker?

No actually there isn't a difference - the whole course is man-made. The rocks, trees and whatnot are natural features integrated into a man-made course. Course marker or rock, someone collided with something solid on a DH course and crash with tragic results

 

[Orvan]

In light of the recent BB ugliness...here's some pics from BB 2004.

I'm suing BB (-BB-). He touched my bike and now I can't sell it for more than $900.

I think this is Heikki Hall at Nats.

"Big Bear and the pubs here suck. Cheers!" -Peaty

25 million dollar question is, when will sanjay wear a fullface?

Uh-oh... man-made course markers and tons of witnesses..

My GF was ahead of our times. She knew this will be what BB is like for the summer of 2005! We're switching to flats for hiking purposes.

Even MikeD have fun in BB.. Mike crashes more than anyone else I own who rides at BB. Rabie comes second but leads in mechanical per weekend. Good times!

Mike, this is that one chick that did a "full" 360 during Women's Only. I think Women's Only Weekend will be moved to Whistler for 2005....

I hope enjoyed the lil pictorial break. Now back to the Ridemonkey Trial Court Forum!

 

[OGRipper]

And it's pretty clear this lawsuit is not the only reason for but rather is basically the last straw, there are other problems as well, such as illegal trailbuilding. We'll probably never know for sure but I think it all boils down to money, the evil greenback, curse of the free world. I'm guessing BB was just not making enough profit to justify continuing DH in light of the potential liability.

 

[beaverbiker]

the legal trails at big bear sucked anyway. big deal if they close the lift. you can still shuttle the "good" trails.

 

[Silver]

not if both are used for the same purpose.

Which they weren't in this case, hence the rebar.

 

[zedro]

Which they weren't in this case, hence the rebar.

huh? still dont see the difference between using a solid tree and a solid marker to delimit a course.

 

[Silver]

Trees can't move, pvc can't slip off of trees, and it's hard to say that you didn't see the tree on the side of the course. If he had hit a tree, I'd be solely in Big Bear's camp. As it is, I don't have enough info to judge.

 

[zedro]

As it is, I don't have enough info to judge.

people keep saying that (which i think is a cop-out), but honestly how many variables can there really be that would make them liable in your eyes?

Or how about if his whole plan was to clip it believing it would just bonk out of the way, doesnt it still make it his own decision of risk like any other line that he could potentially get hung-up on?

I would actually think that should they be made to clip-off too easily, you are then exposing dangerous 'impale-alicious' rebar. In fact getting impaled is the only scenario i would judge as being liabelous no matter the 'variables' in other scenarios, just as a stray uncut branch stub.

 

[Silver]

Plus, with an artificial course marker, someone made a conscious decision to put it there.

The no info thing isn't a cop out. It is possible it was moved or just put in a bad place, or hard to see if the pvc had popped off. I just don't feel like wheeling a guy up to a cross and nailing him to it without knowing a lot more than I currently do about it, (I'm not meaning to imply you're doing that) especially when the lawsuit looks like a mighty nice way to pull out of a business that you're not making money at (DH) while still running XC races where you might be doing a bit better.

I was thinking about the rebar impaling someone too...that's a nasty scenario. Yuck.

 

[MikeD]

the legal trails at big bear sucked anyway. big deal if they close the lift. you can still shuttle the "good" trails.

I'm confident BB, until very recently, made little to no effort to curb riding the illegal trails (which were pretty much set in place; there wasn't much, if any, "illegal building" going on...it was just riding...) because they knew their non-race attendance would drop tremendously if the only trails available were the big 3, Fall Line, and fireroads.

Anyhow, I'm sure the forest service will be on the lookout for the rather obvious sight of people shuttling the fireroad. You're in kind of a fishbowl up there, and personally, I wouldn't risk the tickets to ride those trails. Some were sure fun, but nothing I'm going to travel 2.5 hours for, just to have to spend tons of time in a shuttle truck with a possible ticket or arrest to boot. What made BB great, to me, was the sheer quantity of riding you could do in a day via the lift.

MD

 

[Silver]

If you really want to dodge rangers, you can stay home and ride at Aliso anyways...

 

[Slacker]

Tell you what... why don't some of you local racers put your words to good use. Why not contact Dick Kun, give him your contact info, and tell him to forward it to his lawyer. Tell him you're will to testify that the course was reasonably safe.

Maybe we don't like TBB or Dick, but regardless, they shouldn't have to go down like this. Look at it this way, it could possibly help them beat this lawsuit and help the future of the sport we love so much. Who knows, maybe it could help soften Dick's heart too.

And yes, I'd be more than happy to do this, but I don't race, nor have I ever been to one. I have stopped at car accidents that I've witnessed... actually, I gave a phone deposition almost exactly a year for a accident. The damn street was packed with witnesses too, but nobody bothered to help the victim because it was near Christmas and people were in a hurry to get home.

 

[MikeD]

That's a great idea...it does, however, assume that TBB (Edit: I mean, Snow Summit...I'm sure TBB wants it) really wants to keep racing around. They might use us in court (or before it, to leverage things), but still close the mountain afterwards...I mean, it's easy enough to say (possibly quite honestly), "The mere chance of this happening again makes it financially impossible for us to run a summer DH bike season."

I'm sure they wouldn't feel that way if they felt there was money in DH biking, of course...

 

[Pbody]

(1) So he raced the course at the Nationals, meaning he did at least 6-7 runs (practice runs + race run).

(2) So at the Am Cup race, let's just say his crash happened on his 2nd practice run, since it better not have happened on his 1st practice run since it should've been an easy "sight" run . . . . so he would've had at least 8 runs on this course by the time he crashed.

(3) 6-7 runs per person by all those who participated in the National race (I just counted 297 experts in the '03 race), so say 300 riders . . . . times 6 runs/person = 1800 runs. 1800 at the National event alone. 1800 times previously, everyone seemed to NOT clip their pedal on the course marker.

(4) The course markers are placed to keep people on the course, and sometimes to provide safety to keep the rider away from other, and possibly more dangerous, obstacles. So what the heck was he doing riding on the edge of the assigned course instead of in the middle of the lane where you were supposed to go. Yeah, I know, he was taking the fast line. But if you want to ride on the "edge" of the course, you gotta be willing to accept what might happen when you are on the edge.

(5) If his pedal hit the course marker, how did his handlebar, which sticks out farther, not hit it? Hmmmm...........

Those are the only facts that I need to know!

I feel for the guy, but I can only tell you that if it was me, I would be out there every race supporting all my friends and fellow racers, cheering as loud as I could, not trying to take away their fun by sitting in a courtroom.

Lastly, let's not forget why it's $25m, the lawyer wants $12.5m!

 

[Rabie]

Even MikeD have fun in BB.. Mike crashes more than anyone else I own who rides at BB. Rabie comes second but leads in mechanical per weekend. Good times!

That's crap. I didn't crash much at all at BB this year. You're still just bitter about the cock-block. Now that was good times. And a shame you just can't throw down cock-blocks like that outside the BB moondust.

Can't argue about the mechanicals. Blah.

 

[Eigil]

And it's pretty clear this lawsuit is not the only reason for but rather is basically the last straw, there are other problems as well, such as illegal trailbuilding. We'll probably never know for sure but I think it all boils down to money, the evil greenback, curse of the free world. I'm guessing BB was just not making enough profit to justify continuing DH in light of the potential liability.

That's what their official press release stated was the reason.