[underdogx]

There's a local wooded area where mountain bikers have built stunts for the last ten years. The land owner has pretty much turned a blind eye to the whole thing for as long as we can remember. He is aware of the stunts, and has no problem with it as long as trees and other property aren't destroyed. Occasionally he will go for a walk in the woods and watch riders launch various drops and jumps.

All the stunts are built by random riders from in town and abroad. Last year, some people built a 15ft tall drop to tranny. A few people had some pretty hard wrecks off it, while others landed it fine.

A few weeks ago, a grom decided to launch off it, and he crashed and broke his neck. From what we know, he is not paralyzed, but his injuries are pretty significant.

His family is suing the land owner.

He did not go off the drop by accident. He did not slip due to poor construction. He purposely rode off the end of this massive structure and lost control in the air, resulting in a violent crash.

What are your feeling of the liability in terms of:

1) The land owner
2) The original builders
3) The people who were there
encouraging the rider to do the stunt
4) himself

 

[Polandspring88]

In the end it all comes down to the fact that he made a concious decision to throw himself off the end of it. No one but him is at fault.

 

[Jimmy_Pop]

welcome to RM.

no comment. i dont ever want to find out what me or my family would do in such a situation. too many riders in my family to judge other people.

best of luck to the grom

 

[sikocycles]

Its the American way. Not taking responabilities for your actions. It has to be someone elses fault because most people cant suck up the fact that they themselves has screwed up. It is to bad someone got hurt

 

[Turd Ferguson]

This kind of thing scares the crap out of me. I feel bad for the grom. There are riding places like this all over the country. It's like a ticking time-bomb. Who's next? I would not want to be that land owner in these sue-happy united states. Just look at what the ski resorts face. They get sued all the time and everyone know it's ski at your own risk.

 

[zahgurim]

It sucks that somebody got hurt, and sucks worse that his family is looking to gain money from his faulty actions.
It's not like the land owner threw him off a building. He made a consious decision to ride a structure that was beyond his abilities, and should have been aware of his limits.

 

[Brian HCM#1]

i dont ever want to find out what me or my family would do in such a situation.

Exactly, who kows what you'd do, hopefully I'll never find out. There are so many big talkers on line here, but may change there mind if something like that ever happened. I'm not saying it's right to do because it was their desision to do what they were doing, but don't be so quick to judge.

 

[dogwonder]

Check the local laws...I know some states have something like a public nuisance law that indemnifies landowners for such things. I remember this being the case in Vermont where if you allowed people to build stuff on your land, your weren't going to be held liable.

That said, I do feel sorry for the grom but the family needs to recognize that the kid knows it's hazardous and could get hurt and if it happens, it's not the landowners fault. This kind of sueing behavior has become far too prominent in the country and is the main reason for trail access problems. We need to all stand up and take responsibilities for our actions. I have a standing command to my family that if I get hurt or killed riding or skiing or whatever, don't you dare sue, I know what I'm getting into and take full responsibility.

DogW

 

[Brian HCM#1]

It sucks that somebody got hurt, and sucks worse that his family is looking to gain money from his faulty actions.
It's not like the land owner threw him off a building. He made a consious decision to ride a structure that was beyond his abilities, and should have been aware of his limits.

If you sue and win "money" it's not like it's a huge bonus and he'll be vacationing in Tahiti 8 months out of the year, the money would most likely go to his care for the rest of his life.

 

[seismic]

SOmebody should change the legal system in the US so people can not just sue other people due to their own stupidity. I guess the problem that you can in fact get rich in the US if you are just stupid, rude and have a good laywer........I get pissed thinking about why the f### somebody have not changed that system yet.....but ok - I heard recently that around 40% of the american population has tried to be sued do to whatever odd reasons......

 

[H8R]

1) The land owner
2) The original builders
3) The people who were there
encouraging the rider to do the stunt
4) himself

My vote:

1) himself
2) himself
3) himself
4) himself

 

[zahgurim]

If you sue and win "money" it's not like it's a huge bonus and he'll be vacationing in Tahiti 8 months out of the year, the money would most likely go to his care for the rest of his life.

I'm not saying the guy would be going to Tahiti...I'm saying that it's ridiculous that they would most likely bankrupt some poor shmuck that let kids ride on his land, because their kid was riding something he wasn't comfortable with. If they are that concerned about money they should've had insurance.

If their claim goes through, you can bet that those trails and anything else in the area will be destroyed because nobody wants to be liable for somebody else hurting themself.

 

[Slugman]

If you sue and win "money" it's not like it's a huge bonus and he'll be vacationing in Tahiti 8 months out of the year, the money would most likely go to his care for the rest of his life.

Regardless of his conditions (1st post said he was not paralized - luckily) - why should the land owner be the one to pay for it? Yeah this groms life proabbly sucks really badly right now, but it's BS to sue the landowner who was being cool.

If he chose to go to the place and do those stunts then he is responsible for his actions.

 

[HenryTheHammer]

I believe the State of Washington can direct the issue towards the land owner for having an "attractive nuisence." We used to have a huge rope swing on our property that the locals would play on. One day someone got hurt, nothing came about it, but we did take the swing down to prevent anything from happening again.

 

[Jeremy R]

Screw that.
This one is even easier than the ski resort situations. At least the resorts are charging people to ride and have to worry about safety concerns.
This chubb was on private property.
And since this is America, the landowner could counter sue from the stress of the situation from this kid trespassing and getting hurt on his property.

 

[SK6]

OK, hears the skinny of it.

First, I must inform everyone that I am not an attorney. Any and all commentary of this subject matter are of my own opinion and is an application of legal theories only, and in no way does this opinion reflect legal advice.

I am by education a Paralegal, so if that last statement sounded like I was being a d*ckhead, I apologize; however, it is a necessary evil. :devil:

That being said, the landowner, is in all likelihood liable for the injury. The most important aspect of a situation such as this is the state in which the injury occurred. The reason for this is to determine the treatment of the liability, specifically, negligence. There are 2 types of possible negligence we face here and that is contributory negligence, and comparable negligence.

Addressing first, contributory negligence. This in essence states that if an individual contributed at all to the negligent act, then there is NO cause of action for negligence because the theory in essence states that a “reasonable” individual contributing in any manner to the tort (injury), is also partially liable for the action itself, thus alleviating the tortfeasor (the dude whose fault is supposedly is) from ALL responsibility. Henceforth, if there is 1% contribution of the one who is hurt, then there exists NO liability. There are only I believe 5 states that have that type of negligence statutes on the books as it were, and they are all on the east coast.

Comparable negligent theory is quite a bit different, insomuch as negligence on the part of the tortfeasor (the dude whose fault is supposedly is) exist, it just depends on how much is he negligent and how much the injured party contributed.

Suppose I go ride on some dude property who has stunts, and I rack myself up pretty good on this dude property, the dude is responsible for my injury, but not fully because I contributed to my dumb a$$ getting hurt, so the landowner would be “somewhat” responsible, but not fully. The amount of liability would be determined by the lawyers or court if it went that far.

In the contributory negligent theory, if I get racked up because I did the stunt, the landowner would be relieved of ALL liability because a “reasonable” person could have prevented the injury by not doing the stunt in the first place.

To be certain, all parties would be well advised to consult with an attorney to determine all of the specific factors in that particular situation.

 

[SK6]

SOmebody should change the legal system in the US so people can not just sue other people due to their own stupidity. I guess the problem that you can in fact get rich in the US if you are just stupid, rude and have a good laywer........I get pissed thinking about why the f### somebody have not changed that system yet.....but ok - I heard recently that around 40% of the american population has tried to be sued do to whatever odd reasons......

Sadly, there are NO laws OR statutes against sheer stupidity.

 

[Ciaran]

Regardless of his conditions (1st post said he was not paralized - luckily) - why should the land owner be the one to pay for it? Yeah this groms life proabbly sucks really badly right now, but it's BS to sue the landowner who was being cool.

If he chose to go to the place and do those stunts then he is responsible for his actions.

Yup. Plain and simple. Your dumbass move got you hurt. YOU should be 100% liable.

Oh yeah... ski resorts are a different animal. Most states have laws that pertain specifically to ski resorts regarding assumed risk.

 

[H8R]

First, I must inform everyone that I am not an attorney.

Which Holiday Express did you stay at?

 

[SK6]

Which Holiday Express did you stay at?

BWAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!



ROFLMAO!!!!

 

[ridetoofast]

i cant even begin to describe how fvcking pissed off this ****e makes me.

too bad for the grom suck it up.

the dude should find out where they live, get hurt on their property and countersue their dumba$$es.

lawyers are the downfall of this country.

 

[AN6 Freerider]

dude if i hurt myself riding then thats the risk i take doing such a thing. if i go off a 15ft drop and not know what im doing then man i really should have paid attention to not being a moron 101...its his own fault for going off something that he problably knew he couldnt do.man you have to build up to drops that big,they dont just come over night...

overall opinon.

i think he is at fault he knowledgably went off the drop he is responsible for his actions, NOT the LANDOWNER.

and as someone else stated earlier in this thread.
y not sue it the american way...
should have insurance...


get well kid good luck and a safe healthy recovery.next time think about it b4 you drop it. kno w you capabilities


AN6's .02

 

[SK6]

Anyone know where this happened?

 

[OGRipper]

This kind of thing is more a symptom of our messed up health care/health insurance system than our legal system. If this rider could get the health care he needs without it costing millions of dollars, his parents wouldn't need to sue. Or maybe the kid is lucky and he has health insurance. In that case, it's probably the insurance company looking to the landowner for reimbursement. If so that insurance company will have little regard for how much of "good guy" the landowner had been.

Like a few others have said, there are a lot of big talkers here but almost none of us have a clue what is going on or what we would do in this situation. I'm not a parent but I hope I would probably do whatever it takes.

 

[blt2ride]

Yup. Plain and simple. Your dumbass move got you hurt. YOU should be 100% liable.

Oh yeah... ski resorts are a different animal. Most states have laws that pertain specifically to ski resorts regarding assumed risk.

Yep, the riders need to take responsibility for their actions. However, we live in a very litigious society and no one wants to take responsibility for their actions. In the end, the land owner, who sounds like a really nice guy, has just been put in a really bad spot.

Even though the injury is the rider's fault, the land owner will be the one who is held accountable for his injuries. This is an all too common problem. Does anyone now where this happened?

 

[jackalope]

I'd also like to know whether it's really the kid's family sueing or an insurance company sueing in an attempt to recoupe some cash?

Not that it matters much in the end, as it still sux that it comes down to lawsuits...

 

[dream4est]

That being said, the landowner, is in all likelihood liable for the injury.

well let me start by asking you your area of paralegal expertise. and have you ever been involved in a negligence/injury case? do you own land? build stunts?
i own land and build stunts. whether i charge a fee or not, the injured rider would have to prove negligence. had the landowner in question had a waiver form/and or signage on his land that would have helped prove his case. but it still comes down to proving negligence. and i doubt that it can be proved. the owner did not endanger the rider by allowing the stunt to be build carelessly or near danger (like a cliff, mineshaft, fence, other structure, obstacle in the lz, etc) nor did he boobytrap the trail. had the owner charged a fee he could be held liable for allowing a rider to attempt a stunt that he knew the rider could not handle, but that is not the case here.
next time you post a long diatribe that hurts the sport, think about it. we dont need legal "experts" like you spouting bs unless you have a specific case(s) that you can site that will back your opinion. if you do not i suggest that you post a retraction. how many city jump parks/skateparks/private land spots have been successfully sued (and i mean bikes, motorbikes, skating, skiing, equestrian, rafting, etc) according to your negligence theories? i would like to hear your response to that.

 

[Zutroy]

next time you post a long diatribe that hurts the sport, think about it. we dont need legal "experts" like you spouting bs unless you have a specific case(s) that you can site that will back your opinion. if you do not i suggest that you post a retraction. how many city jump parks/skateparks/private land spots have been successfully sued (and i mean bikes, motorbikes, skating, skiing, equestrian, rafting, etc) according to your negligence theories? i would like to hear your response to that.

Need we say Calabases, SandHill, Big Bear....you don't have to win the case to mess things up.

 

[GumbaFish]

stuff like this is stupid, if i dont have a fence around my pool some shmuck can come and swim in it and drown and i could probably get sued even though they were trespassing. I dont understand if they built stuff on posted private property that a cool owner allowed how anybody can sue him, i mean if he wasnt cool he could have all those kids fined for riding on his land and the reward he gets is a lawsuit against him? If this was in europe or something it probably wouldn't even be an issue, it seems there people accept the fact some people are going to do stupid things that result in injuries and its nobody's fault but theirs. This stuff always gets me riled up.

 

[vibiker]

And since this is America, the landowner could counter sue from the stress of the situation from this kid trespassing and getting hurt on his property.

And the problem is that only the lawyers get rich.

 

[Transcend]

well let me start by asking you your area of paralegal expertise. and have you ever been involved in a negligence/injury case? do you own land? build stunts?
i own land and build stunts. whether i charge a fee or not, the injured rider would have to prove negligence. had the landowner in question had a waiver form/and or signage on his land that would have helped prove his case. but it still comes down to proving negligence. and i doubt that it can be proved. the owner did not endanger the rider by allowing the stunt to be build carelessly or near danger (like a cliff, mineshaft, fence, other structure, obstacle in the lz, etc) nor did he boobytrap the trail. had the owner charged a fee he could be held liable for allowing a rider to attempt a stunt that he knew the rider could not handle, but that is not the case here.
next time you post a long diatribe that hurts the sport, think about it. we dont need legal "experts" like you spouting bs unless you have a specific case(s) that you can site that will back your opinion. if you do not i suggest that you post a retraction. how many city jump parks/skateparks/private land spots have been successfully sued (and i mean bikes, motorbikes, skating, skiing, equestrian, rafting, etc) according to your negligence theories? i would like to hear your response to that.

I am pretty sure that the fact that he works as a paralegal alone and understands the system makes him far more qualified then you to give legal advice on these matters.

His explanation does nothing to "hurt the sport"; he is simply educating people as to their responsibilities. I am willing to bet if there was a fence around the property, and danger signs then he would not be liable, and the injured guy would be liable for tresspassing.

USA land of the free...where you can be suued by the guy who steals your TV and falls down your front steps and breaks his leg.

 

[vibiker]

USA land of the free...where you can be suued .....

From what I have recently gathered, this is no longer a USA problem. Talking to a non-biking local on a recent Whistler trip, I come to find out that lawsuit abuse is becoming a fine art up there as well.

 

[Ciaran]

Need we say Calabases, SandHill, Big Bear.... you don't have to win the case to mess things up.

Exactly!

 

[dream4est]

I am pretty sure that the fact that he works as a paralegal alone and understands the system makes him far more qualified then you to give legal advice on these matters.

His explanation does nothing to "hurt the sport"; he is simply educating people as to their responsibilities. I am willing to bet if there was a fence around the property, and danger signs then he would not be liable, and the injured guy would be liable for tresspassing.

USA land of the free...where you can be suued by the guy who steals your TV and falls down your front steps and breaks his leg.

well i have researched this for 5 years. i have been pressured by surrounding land owners and their attorneys. i have taken the time to have a lawyer make my waiver/release of liability forms and signage. i have had a lawyer study the situations and examples (no one has ever successfully sued and won one of these cases. i am following the calabasas situation but the city is not going to lose any case in my legal advisors opinion). every time people discuss these things in a negative light it makes it harder for land owners like myself to offer private spots to ride. here in colorado there are ways to protect yourself like the resorts. i am considering offering llama tours because there are torts that protect llama touring companies (and that will also cover any tours those businesses offer).
its just sad that most people in this sport dont understand how much work goes into private operation. they just ASSUME that they know what they are talking about. why do you think that they are basically zero private mtb facilities? because most landowners are afraid of liability. in reality one would have to purposely and knowingly attempt to hurt someone in order to be found negligent in a court of law. if the poster was correct there would not be one mtb tour company in business today. yet there are dozens and i have yet to hear of one who was sued and lost. are lee bridgers and jared fisher sitting up at night worried about losing their businesses because of a frivilous lawsuit? no. they know they are not negligent. and they know they can prove that.

 

[OGRipper]

Then again, my family raised to me take responsibility for my actions.

That's easy to say, harder to do. What do you really mean? Are you going to pay your hospital bills and all your other expenses out of your pocket? If you are fortunate enough that you or your family can afford it, good for you. Or will you make an insurance claim? If so, the insurance company might go after the landowner whether you like it or not.

Look, I agree with you in concept, we should all be responsible for the silly crap we do on our bikes. But when it comes down to it, you are going to get the care you need (or that your child needs) and figure out a way to pay for it later.

 

[blt2ride]

well let me start by asking you your area of paralegal expertise. and have you ever been involved in a negligence/injury case? do you own land? build stunts?
i own land and build stunts. whether i charge a fee or not, the injured rider would have to prove negligence. had the landowner in question had a waiver form/and or signage on his land that would have helped prove his case. but it still comes down to proving negligence. and i doubt that it can be proved. the owner did not endanger the rider by allowing the stunt to be build carelessly or near danger (like a cliff, mineshaft, fence, other structure, obstacle in the lz, etc) nor did he boobytrap the trail. had the owner charged a fee he could be held liable for allowing a rider to attempt a stunt that he knew the rider could not handle, but that is not the case here.
next time you post a long diatribe that hurts the sport, think about it. we dont need legal "experts" like you spouting bs unless you have a specific case(s) that you can site that will back your opinion. if you do not i suggest that you post a retraction. how many city jump parks/skateparks/private land spots have been successfully sued (and i mean bikes, motorbikes, skating, skiing, equestrian, rafting, etc) according to your negligence theories? i would like to hear your response to that.

Your post is a bit confusing. Why would he want to write a retraction? Bottom-line, a land owner is ultimately responsible for what happens on his or her land. I don't like it either, but it is what it is.

To your point that you must "prove" negligence, well it's a lot easier than you think for a lawyer to convince a jury that the land owner was negligent. In addition, even if you were to win the case, it would cost you thousands of dollars, because you would have hire your own lawyer to defend your case.

I, for one, don't agree with how the legal system works, but it would be really hard for us to change it at this point. It seems like you're kind of killng the messenger. I'll be the first to tell you, you need to be really, really careful who you let ride your stunts, jumps, or whatever you have built.

It's absurd that you would need examples to see how lawyers have had skateparks, dirt jumps, BMX tracks, Big Bear, moto tracks, etc. closed. If you own a computer, TV, or read the newpaper, you must have seen this before.

As far as people winning lawsuits, do a www.google.com search, they are everywhere. I would like you to respond to why you would think that people wouldn't win a personal injury lawsuit. We live in a society where people sue tobacco compaines and a lady won millions of dollars from Mc Donald's, because she took the lid off of her hot coffee and burned her leg. The term "presumed risk" no longer exists in America, people are always looking for someone else to take the blame for their stupidity...

Sorry dude, you need to retract your post...it completley lacks merit...

 

[Zutroy]

well i have researched this for 5 years. i have been pressured by surrounding land owners and their attorneys. i have taken the time to have a lawyer make my waiver/release of liability forms and signage. i have had a lawyer study the situations and examples (no one has ever successfully sued and won one of these cases. i am following the calabasas situation but the city is not going to lose any case in my legal advisors opinion). every time people discuss these things in a negative light it makes it harder for land owners like myself to offer private spots to ride. here in colorado there are ways to protect yourself like the resorts. i am considering offering llama tours because there are torts that protect llama touring companies (and that will also cover any tours those businesses offer).
its just sad that most people in this sport dont understand how much work goes into private operation. they just ASSUME that they know what they are talking about. why do you think that they are basically zero private mtb facilities? because most landowners are afraid of liability. in reality one would have to purposely and knowingly attempt to hurt someone in order to be found negligent in a court of law. if the poster was correct there would not be one mtb tour company in business today. yet there are dozens and i have yet to hear of one who was sued and lost. are lee bridgers and jared fisher sitting up at night worried about losing their businesses because of a frivilous lawsuit? no. they know they are not negligent. and they know they can prove that.

You don't have to lose to be screwed that the problem. It still costs huge money to fight the suit, which is losing. I think the man reason no one really has private land operations are A) there is no money in it really. B) Here in cali most of the good land is USFS or BLM land. Isen't Northstar on private land, or GP and to be specific.

 

[OGRipper]

I am pretty sure that the fact that he works as a paralegal alone and understands the system makes him far more qualified then you to give legal advice on these matters.

I am pretty sure the fact that IT IS HIS ASS ON THE LINE makes dream4est more qualified.

 

[seismic]

people are not just looking for someone else to take the blame.....people are looking for MONEY........GREED !

 

[Transcend]

well i have researched this for 5 years. i have been pressured by surrounding land owners and their attorneys. i have taken the time to have a lawyer make my waiver/release of liability forms and signage. i have had a lawyer study the situations and examples (no one has ever successfully sued and won one of these cases. i am following the calabasas situation but the city is not going to lose any case in my legal advisors opinion). every time people discuss these things in a negative light it makes it harder for land owners like myself to offer private spots to ride. here in colorado there are ways to protect yourself like the resorts. i am considering offering llama tours because there are torts that protect llama touring companies (and that will also cover any tours those businesses offer).
its just sad that most people in this sport dont understand how much work goes into private operation. they just ASSUME that they know what they are talking about. why do you think that they are basically zero private mtb facilities? because most landowners are afraid of liability. in reality one would have to purposely and knowingly attempt to hurt someone in order to be found negligent in a court of law. if the poster was correct there would not be one mtb tour company in business today. yet there are dozens and i have yet to hear of one who was sued and lost. are lee bridgers and jared fisher sitting up at night worried about losing their businesses because of a frivilous lawsuit? no. they know they are not negligent. and they know they can prove that.

While all of that is understandable, you do know that your waivers serve absolutely no purpose right?

You cannot waive your right to sue. it is inalienable. Therefore i sign your form, get hurt and can still sue. Doesn't mean I will win, but i can still sue..costing you thousands in court and legal costs.