Quantcast

Biking related lawsuit (another broken neck story)

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
OGRipper said:
I am pretty sure the fact that IT IS HIS ASS ON THE LINE makes dream4est more qualified.
I understand this, but most people, no matter how much research they have done, will never know the system as well as someone who works in it and went to school fo rit (yours truly included).

He may have done an assload of research, but one tiny loophole makes it all for naught, and lawyers are trained to know these stupid loopholes like the back sof their hands. Saying someone who owns a business is better qualified then an attorney trained in business law, would be pretty silly.
 

DH Diva

Wonderwoman
Jun 12, 2002
1,808
1
OGRipper said:
If so, the insurance company might go after the landowner whether you like it or not.
Just some inside perspective on this, as I have been in the situation where you start to cost your insurance company a lot of money and they start to ask questions.

Once you hit a certain $$ amount after an accident, your insurance company sends you an accidnet report form asking very specifically:

"Could this accident be the fault of someone other than yourself?"
"Did this accident result from negligent actions of a second party?"
"Did this accident take place on public or private land, and if so, was the owner at fault for your injuries?"
"Do you take full responsibility for this accident?"

In my experience, you have to physically "inform" your insurance company that you think the accident was someone elses fault, because they don't automatically investigate a bike accident like with an automobile accident.

My injuries sustained at Schweitzer totalled somewhere around $60,000 when all was said and done. The insurance company started asking questions around $30,000.

Because we're talking about a kid here though, chances are it's his parents fight this more than him.
 

blt2ride

Turbo Monkey
May 25, 2005
2,333
0
Chatsworth
dream4est said:
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.
If you feel comfortable trusting a lawyer, more power to you. They like to tell you what you want to hear. I'm sure your conversation went like this: Lawyer: "Here is your waiver, it looks good, you should be fine." That will be $2000 for my time."

You: "Sweet!"

Transcend is right, a waiver isn't even worth the paper it's written on. If you want to argue that point, go to www.teambigbear.com, you'll figure it out...

A word of advice, talk to another lawyer. I'm not too sure I would trust the one you have. The only people who lie more than used car salesmen are lawyers...

If you don't believe me, try this. If your lawyer claims you can't lose a lawsuit with the waiver he wrote for you, ask if he will defend you for free if you get sued. I bet he would say...nope.
 

OGRipper

back alley ripper
Feb 3, 2004
10,647
1,116
NORCAL is the hizzle
Transcend said:
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.

It varies from state to state but regardless it's wrong to say they serve no purpose. Even if not strictly enforceable, the waivers go a long way to show prior awareness of danger and assumption of risk.

In most states the waivers are actually pretty solid so long as there was no showing of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. So take Big Bear for an example. Dude isn't suing because DH racing is dangerous. He's saying BB was negligent in course marker placement. He assumed the risk of riding DH, but was entitled to assume the course would be properly constructed. As long as deam4est can show he took reasonable precautions under the circumstances, his waiver should go a long way.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
OGRipper said:
It varies from state to state but regardless it's wrong to say they serve no purpose. Even if not strictly enforceable, the waivers go a long way to show prior awareness of danger and assumption of risk.

In most states the waivers are actually pretty solid so long as there was no showing of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. So take Big Bear for an example. Dude isn't suing because DH racing is dangerous. He's saying BB was negligent in course marker placement. He assumed the risk of riding DH, but was entitled to assume the course would be properly constructed. As long as deam4est can show he took reasonable precautions under the circumstances, his waiver should go a long way.
Right, but most people/organizations word the waiver so that it makes it seem like you cannot bring legal action upon them in case of an accident. This is entirely not the case, as you can sue them until your heart's content.

As you say, it DOES allow the landowner some sort of recourse when he says look they signed the waiver, it said that they knew it could be dangerous. Still doesn't mean they won't sue, and still doesn't mean you won't be subjected to a long and tedioius court battle that will probably bankrupt you even if you win.

edit: it doesn not differ from state to state by the way...it's a federal thing. Seventh ammendment to be precise. "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved". You cannot waive a constitutional right.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
 

OGRipper

back alley ripper
Feb 3, 2004
10,647
1,116
NORCAL is the hizzle
blt2ride said:
If you feel comfortable trusting a lawyer, more power to you. They like to tell you what you want to hear. I'm sure your conversation went like this: Lawyer: "Here is your waiver, it looks good, you should be fine." That will be $2000 for my time."

You: "Sweet!"

Transcend is right, a waiver isn't even worth the paper it's written on. If you want to argue that point, go to www.teambigbear.com, you'll figure it out...

A word of advice, talk to another lawyer. I'm not too sure I would trust the one you have. The only people who lie more than used car salesmen are lawyers...
This is crazy talk. Dream4est has done the right thing by actually having someone research the issue and prepare a form that (hopefully) follows the law to ensure max enforcement. If he gets sued and loses, the lawyer will get sued. The lawyer wants to give the right advice because his ass in on the line too.

Or maybe instead of trusting a licensed professional he should trust a bunch of 12-year olds on RM? :rolleyes:
 

Motionboy2

Calendar Dominator
Apr 23, 2002
1,800
0
Broomfield, Colorado
I have been in the situation where the insurance company has wanted to go after "the cause of this accident." This was the case only a few weeks ago when they called me because they "had information that there was another entity that caused my accident."
I crashed and tore my ACL at a skatepark. When they asked me this information I told them that I knew EXACTLY what caused my crash. The woman on the other end of the line sounded a bit excited and said "Oh, Well who or what was it!" I said "I, am an idiot and I tried to do something on my bike that I obviously couldn't do." She said "Oh I see"

Get insurance, make sure it takes care of your care and take responsibility for your actions ahead of time. Read Lee McCormacks site, he has information about insurance that takes care of you for your future www.leelikesbikes.com
 

OGRipper

back alley ripper
Feb 3, 2004
10,647
1,116
NORCAL is the hizzle
Transcend said:
As you say, it DOES allow the landowner some sort of recourse when he says look they signed the waiver, it said that they knew it could be dangerous. Still doesn't mean they won't sue, and still doesn't mean you won't be subjected to a long and tedioius court battle that will probably bankrupt you even if you win.
On this we definitely agree.

However, if there is a solid waiver some people, like insurance companies, are less likely to sue. And if they sue despite a waiver, and don't have good arguments that the waiver should not be effective, they will often end up stuck with the fees and costs suffered by the other, and sometimes sanctions or fines for abuse of process, etc.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
OGRipper said:
On this we definitely agree.

However, if there is a solid waiver some people, like insurance companies, are less likely to sue. And if they sue despite a waiver, and don't have good arguments that the waiver should not be effective, they will often end up stuck with the fees and costs suffered by the other, and sometimes sanctions or fines for abuse of process, etc.
They won't be fined for abuse of process, unless it is REALLY sketchy. My son is an idiot and crashed and broke his neck, altho ridiculous from our viewpoint, will be seen just fine by the courts. The 7th ammendment sees to that.
 

blt2ride

Turbo Monkey
May 25, 2005
2,333
0
Chatsworth
OGRipper said:
This is crazy talk. Dream4est has done the right thing by actually having someone research the issue and prepare a form that (hopefully) follows the law to ensure max enforcement. If he gets sued and loses, the lawyer will get sued. The lawyer wants to give the right advice because his ass in on the line too.

Or maybe instead of trusting a licensed professional he should trust a bunch of 12-year olds on RM? :rolleyes:
That's why I suggested that he gets a second opinion. It sounds like his lawyer may be giving him bad adivce. There are a lot of scumbag lawyers out there who will tell you what you want to hear. On the other hand, there are some honest ones who you could probably trust. Just like all professions, bad apples tend to sneak in from the time to time...
 

dream4est

Monkey
Jan 28, 2003
180
0
i am not worried about lawsuits. i have taken the necessary steps to ensure that when my current private park opens next year there will never be a problem. im not going to go into the specifics here but lets just say that i know how to handle this issue.
legal fees are not a problem. all one has to do is file a countersuit immediately to recoup money lost for various reasons. this places a lot of pressure on the injured party. if they lose they go bankrupt because i would sue them personally not the insurance companies. and i would not have to pay any legal fees anyway because my insurance company would handle the original case.
there is a loophole i have found through research. its all in the wording/verbage. there is a specific way to get insured to avoid all this hassle. i will never divulge this type of insurance/verbage to anyone for the exact reason i posted about how attitudes on this thread are hurtful to land owners/tour operators. because people who dont understand these issues can unknowingly bring legal action upon themselves/third parties. i know most of you will not understand what im saying here but its very important.
in the instance that started this thread, if i were the landowner i would countersue the injured party, every rider involved that day on my property, and/or any parents of any rider who was a minor and involved that day. i would claim trespassing and negligence on the part of all parties.
now do you guys understand why posting about this can create havoc? if the land owner in question read this the injured parties and his friends would crap their pants. pushing someone beyond their limits makes YOU liable. riding on private property without expressed, written permission makes YOU liable.
smart land owners like myself can use lawyers and negligence/liability/trespass issues just as, if not more so, effectively than land users. and we usually undertsand the situation better and come off more professional in court than the land user. and we definetly make an effort to fully educate ourselves to have the upper hand in court.
i doubt anyone here has spent as much time as i have researching this. i know why private land owners are sued and how they have fared in various trespass/negligence situations. and i am fully confident if i were the guy in question not only would i win if the original case i would win all the countersuits as well (and i doubt any would go even go to trial).
 

Motionboy2

Calendar Dominator
Apr 23, 2002
1,800
0
Broomfield, Colorado
dream4est said:
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.
WHAT! Did you read the post? I think it was one of the most informing posts about HOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS posted by someone who first put a DISCLAIMER THAT HE WASN"T AN EXPERT I believe it went a bit like this
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.
Do you propose that no one be educated about the law of this country except for a few select land owners?
I realize that you have land and that you have stunts, I realize that you are definitely working on the liabilities and I respect all of that. SK6 is informed, and is using this information to try to explain the basics of how this could be viewed in the legal system. By no means does this hurt the sport.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
dream4est said:
i am not worried about lawsuits. i have taken the necessary steps to ensure that when my current private park opens next year there will never be a problem.
This is my point, that is not possible. Again, see 7th ammendment.

I am not a lawyer, i did not stay at a holiday inn and i don't play one on tv. I have however studied constitutional law, and i can tell you right now you can never 100% ensure that this "will never be a problem". It is all about rights of the individual, and they trump the rights of a business every time.
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,959
35
This whole thread was so boring and it hurt my eyes to read it.

I'm gonna sue all of you.

:dead:
 

OGRipper

back alley ripper
Feb 3, 2004
10,647
1,116
NORCAL is the hizzle
Transcend said:
This is my point, that is not possible. Again, see 7th ammendment.

I am not a lawyer, i did not stay at a holiday inn and i don't play one on tv. I have however studied constitutional law, and i can tell you right now you can never 100% ensure that this "will never be a problem". It is all about rights of the individual, and they trump the rights of a business every time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 7th Amendment guarantees a jury trial in civil cases, and it can be waived. I agree that Dream4est sounds a little too confident, but I'm not sure the 7th Amendment means a lot in this context, especially if his Release includes a waiver of right to jury trial. And once you are in a bench trial or ADR, the individual no longer gets all the sympathy.

EDIT: Transcend, nothing personal. This time. :eviltongu
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
OGRipper said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 7th Amendment guarantees a jury trial in civil cases, and it can be waived. I agree that Dream4est sounds a little too confident, but I'm not sure the 7th Amendment means a lot in this context, especially if his Release includes a waiver of right to jury trial. And once you are in a bench trial or ADR, the individual no longer gets all the sympathy.

EDIT: Transcend, nothing personal. This time. :eviltongu
The whole point of the wording in the 7th ammedment, when it is read literally, (which at the moment it is, will change over time) states that "a right of trial by jury be preserved" in all civil cases.

The whole point being, in this case, that even if the form includes waiving the right to a jury by trial....it won't hold water. You cannot waive a right granted by the constitution. That is pretty much the essence of my argument..you CANNOT waive these rights.

edit: Just to clarify. There is 2 ways to read the constitution - 1) being word for word. They want to enforce it exactly as it was written..usually a conservative type of reading.

Then there is the "living document" type of reading. This is a more liberal reading and tends to see the constitution as something that should be used as a foundation for law and order, but which can be understood slightly differently to better suit the times it is being read under.
 

OGRipper

back alley ripper
Feb 3, 2004
10,647
1,116
NORCAL is the hizzle
Transcend said:
The whole point of the wording in the 7th ammedment, when it is read literally, (which at the moment it is, will change over time) states that "a right of trial by jury be preserved" in all civil cases.

The whole point being, in this case, that even if the form includes waiving the right to a jury by trial....it won't hold water. You cannot waive a right granted by the constitution. That is pretty much the essence of my argument..you CANNOT waive these rights.

I'm sorry but I don't think you are correct. You can voluntarily waive your right to jury trial. But if you want a jury, you have a right to one every time.

Public policy prevents certain waivers from being effective (like personal gross negligence or intentional harm) but I don't think it works that way with jury trial waivers.
 

dream4est

Monkey
Jan 28, 2003
180
0
Transcend said:
This is my point, that is not possible. Again, see 7th ammendment.

I am not a lawyer, i did not stay at a holiday inn and i don't play one on tv. I have however studied constitutional law, and i can tell you right now you can never 100% ensure that this "will never be a problem". It is all about rights of the individual, and they trump the rights of a business every time.
read these links as a intro to private land issues.

http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_issues/risk_management.html
http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_issues/land_liability.html
http://www.gilawilderness.com/sportspg/liabprim.htm
http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_issues/pdfs/colorado.pdf
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/resources/repository/Colorado_Recreational_Use_Statute.html

that gives one an idea about liability/negligence. i will not be charging anyone to access my property based on certain legal issues. i am still able to offer my property to tour/training/shuttle operators (including myself and others) but i cannot discuss how that works due to strict security/legal reasons.
 

Secret Squirrel

There is no Justice!
Dec 21, 2004
8,150
1
Up sh*t creek, without a paddle
dream4est said:
read these links as a intro to private land issues.

http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_issues/risk_management.html
http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_issues/land_liability.html
http://www.gilawilderness.com/sportspg/liabprim.htm
http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_issues/pdfs/colorado.pdf
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/resources/repository/Colorado_Recreational_Use_Statute.html

that gives one an idea about liability/negligence. i will not be charging anyone to access my property based on certain legal issues. i am still able to offer my property to tour/training/shuttle operators (including myself and others) but i cannot discuss how that works due to strict security/legal reasons.

That's it!! I'm moving to your backyard (no...not literally) and then I'm going to injure myself...and sue!!!! Then we'll test your theory!!!! YAY!!! I'm gonna be rich!!! I hate my job....I wanna mooch!!!! That's the life for me.

:p :p :p :p :p :p
 

traildoctor

Chimp
Jul 27, 2005
6
0
Lots of good points to this thread. This lawsuit pi$$es me off, too.

I'm not a lawyer, either, so please take my post with a grain of salt. But I think dream4est's argument has some merit. Most, if not all, states have recreational liablity statutes that say that as long as the landowner is not deliberately trying to put anyone in danger, and as long as he/she doesn't charge money to use the land, then the landowner doesn't have to keep the property safe.

Check out the individual laws for each of the states on the imba website: http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_issues/rec_use_pdfs.html

Despite these protections, you never know. Like someone said, you don't need to lose a lawsuit to waste a lot of money defending yourself. When you start building stunts, you probably are much better off following certain guidlines. (IMBA's Trail Solutions book and their website have a lot of other really good information about building freeride structures and trails and reducing liability.)

There probably isn't much case history to go on, so let's keep our fingers crossed!
 

dream4est

Monkey
Jan 28, 2003
180
0
Motionboy2 said:
WHAT! Did you read the post? I think it was one of the most informing posts about HOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS posted by someone who first put a DISCLAIMER THAT HE WASN"T AN EXPERT I believe it went a bit like this

Do you propose that no one be educated about the law of this country except for a few select land owners?
I realize that you have land and that you have stunts, I realize that you are definitely working on the liabilities and I respect all of that. SK6 is informed, and is using this information to try to explain the basics of how this could be viewed in the legal system. By no means does this hurt the sport.
wow josh i think that you just dont like me personally. i have never done anything but try to offer my properties to local riders and have usually just received harsh criticism from everyone including you. all i was saying is that the poster was incorrect in his assessment of negligence as it pertains to mtb and private land owners. and i am entitled to my opinion on that. read the appropriate recreational use statues and then tell me you agree that the land owner is liable at all. i firmly believe he is not and thats why i disagree bitterly with what he posted. negativity is why every private mtb park opened has closed. and when i start letting people ride in mine anyone who makes a negative comment about it regarding liability/insurance/waivers/negligence/stunts/access/building will be kindly asked to leave and never return.
remember all the flak i got when i tried to work with the cdcc in 03? all the flak i got on this website BEFORE i even made the land available to the public? all the negativity from a certain pro dher who i just wanted to pay to help out? all the "you should build this stunt here and there" comments? well this time around i wont tolerate ANY of that. the last time i had to answer to three landowners. they did not care about any of the issues the local riders had with the place. i was in between the owners and the riders and had to answer to the former not the latter. i could care less if i pissed you all off because it was my ass on the line and i stand behind every decision i made back then. and i dont hold any grudges and still would like to work with all involved then who now dont like me. and thats because i know that no one understood how these things work legalities wise (and obviously still dont).
i have never had anything but good things to say about you and i have been nice to you whenever we have crossed paths. so i think your being i bit harsh here.
 

OGRipper

back alley ripper
Feb 3, 2004
10,647
1,116
NORCAL is the hizzle
Right on dream4est. I don't know you but I wish you would come buy a bunch of land in the Bay Area. You can put the stunts wherever you want and I promise I will never pay you!! :p
 

Pbody

Monkey
Oct 30, 2003
341
0
How do skate parks get around being sued all the times by the skaters and BMX freestylers who frequent the bike parks?
 

dream4est

Monkey
Jan 28, 2003
180
0
OGRipper said:
Right on dream4est. I don't know you but I wish you would come buy a bunch of land in the Bay Area. You can put the stunts wherever you want and I promise I will never pay you!! :p
good one!! but the bay area is like one mil an acre. if my bike shop/tour dealie (i am opening a small shop in empire, co and gonna offer tours to tourists. the land that the bike park is on is basically gonna be a play park for locals who want to build/ride. i just want mad trails there because i am planning to build my dream home there). if it works i am going to look at sw utah or ne washington next (cheap land). the business model i am using is escape adventures (but oriented to freeride). they rule. i am working on getting tour permits to the local hills. i have a connection here so i should be able to show around the rich fat texans next year.
 

OGRipper

back alley ripper
Feb 3, 2004
10,647
1,116
NORCAL is the hizzle
Pbody said:
How do skate parks get around being sued all the times by the skaters and BMX freestylers who frequent the bike parks?
I don't know if they do get sued all the times but one thing is that many of them charge admission, so they don't get the benefit of the recreational use statute. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go back and read the thread and follow the links.
 

Secret Squirrel

There is no Justice!
Dec 21, 2004
8,150
1
Up sh*t creek, without a paddle
dream4est said:
good one!! but the bay area is like one mil an acre. if my bike shop/tour dealie (i am opening a small shop in empire, co and gonna offer tours to tourists. the land that the bike park is on is basically gonna be a play park for locals who want to build/ride. i just want mad trails there because i am planning to build my dream home there). if it works i am going to look at sw utah or ne washington next (cheap land). the business model i am using is escape adventures (but oriented to freeride). they rule. i am working on getting tour permits to the local hills. i have a connection here so i should be able to show around the rich fat texans next year.
Go with NE Wash.!!!! That literally is my back yard!!! And yeah, it's pretty cheap....not much but space out there too!!! Good luck d00d! :)
 

Secret Squirrel

There is no Justice!
Dec 21, 2004
8,150
1
Up sh*t creek, without a paddle
Pbody said:
All I ever say, and my best friends agree, is that if you take the risk, you take the consequences.

Check out the new movie Murderball.

http://www.murderballmovie.com/about.html

http://www.murderballmovie.com/images/about_the_film.pdf

These guys blame no one else but themselves, make the best of their situation, and go on living life the to the fullest that they can. These athletes are what all injured people should base their lives off of.

Wow...I'm gonna have to see that one!! Pretty sweet!
 

JeffD

Monkey
Mar 23, 2002
990
0
Macon, GA
Just a few points for everybody to consider:

1) Just because an injured party makes a claim against the landowner, it doesn't mean that they're filing suit
2) Assuming the landowner has liability insurance, the insurer will pay any and all defense fees if the claim goes to suit (this is true of 99.99% of all US liability policies - property, auto, etc...)
3) IF the plaintiff wins a judgement in court, the insurer will pay, up to the landowner's policy limits, for the judgement. Sounds like guy has a lot of land so he likely carries high policy limits. Assuming he does, there's slim-to-none chance that he'll be out of pocket. BUT, this doesn't mitigate the ****tiness of the situation because he'll still feel pressured to remove the stunts in order to maintain future liability insurance.

And finally...

What holds true legally in one place has little-to-no bearing on the legal environment in another. Partially because of the variotion in liability laws from state to state as SK66 pointed out, and partially because the variation between jury biases from venue to venue (i.e. how partial juries in a said venue are to plaintiffs or defendants goes a loooong way in influencing the outcome of a claim or suit).

Alright, for those of you who're still reading, go back to bickering now...
 

kinghami3

Future Turbo Monkey
Jun 1, 2004
2,239
0
Ballard 4 life.
Brian HCM#1 said:
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.
Very true. However, even though there is an equally good chance that the family will win the lawsuit as the land owner, it was the rider that made the decision; there's no doubt he knew what he was doing ( and if he didn't, the blame would rest on the parents/ family). Besides having an 'attractive nuisance' on his property, the land owner should not be held fully responsible.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,335
2,448
Hypernormality
I love NZ. Everyone has thrid party liability cover from the Government for everything, so no-one sues each other over stupid ****. It's awesome. They recon that overall it saves our economy millions every month.
 

SK6

Turbo Monkey
Jul 10, 2001
7,586
0
Shut up and ride...
JeffD said:
Just a few points for everybody to consider:

1) Just because an injured party makes a claim against the landowner, it doesn't mean that they're filing suit
2) Assuming the landowner has liability insurance, the insurer will pay any and all defense fees if the claim goes to suit (this is true of 99.99% of all US liability policies - property, auto, etc...)
3) IF the plaintiff wins a judgement in court, the insurer will pay, up to the landowner's policy limits, for the judgement. Sounds like guy has a lot of land so he likely carries high policy limits. Assuming he does, there's slim-to-none chance that he'll be out of pocket. BUT, this doesn't mitigate the ****tiness of the situation because he'll still feel pressured to remove the stunts in order to maintain future liability insurance.

And finally...

What holds true legally in one place has little-to-no bearing on the legal environment in another. Partially because of the variotion in liability laws from state to state as SK66 pointed out, and partially because the variation between jury biases from venue to venue (i.e. how partial juries in a said venue are to plaintiffs or defendants goes a loooong way in influencing the outcome of a claim or suit).

Alright, for those of you who're still reading, go back to bickering now...
Great points, but we need to remeber other causes of action can and more than likely would be filed in addition to negligence.

And my reply to dream4est:

I posted a disclaimer. I am not an attorney. I am by education, a paralegal, currently starting my senior year for my Bachelor of Science degree. To address your derogatory comment first. My post of the legalese of liability is basic torts 101. You claim you discussed it with your attorney. Awesome! I hope your venture works and you will not have to deal with any litigation whatsoever.

The statutes are what they are. So, to address your links:

http://www.imba.com/resources/trail...management.html
http://www.imba.com/resources/trail..._liability.html
http://www.gilawilderness.com/sportspg/liabprim.htm
http://www.imba.com/resources/trail...fs/colorado.pdf
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/r...se_Statute.html

Unless you can validate with current case law, sorry, no offense, poo poo. However, those are great article as far as a general legal basic for the types of liability that exist, or possibly could. Unless you have a crystal ball, there is no way of knowing what could possibly happen. You can attempt to the best of your ability to protect yourself, and in your case it would appear to be the case, however, there is always a loop hole. That last statement is typically what tends to piss people off, and in many instances, rightfully so.

I am an advocate of DH and FR biking. I actually am a beginner at best, but I enjoy what I do and improving my riding. The liability issue, sadly, exists. Waivers are all nice fine and dandy, however, it will not prevent a plaintiff to file a cause of action in a court of proper jurisdiction holding you accountable for injuries etc. etc. etc……I broke my ribs 20 months ago at Wintergreen. Why did I not file a cause of action? I certainly would have won. Because I personally felt that the better good would be “leave it alone”. Why? So people can have a place to ride.

Your consulting an attorney was very wise on your part, and I wish you the best of luck in your endeavor.

Again, any information I have presented is personal opinion and does not represent legal advice nor does it indicate a practice of law. This is simply a discussion of legal issues that could or could not possibly arise do to the sport we love.

As far as the land owner where that accident occurred……I feel bad that they now have to cover their$$es because of a careless rider that gives a larger percent of us a bad reputation and name. I hope he heals well, and that the next time he attempts to do a stunt far beyond his capabilities, he will seriously reconsider.
 
I vote that the person is ultimately responsible for their actions.

On the other hand, this is could be argued as a negligence case. In order to have negligence the owner would have to have known about the stunt (a situation that is very likely to cuase harm to visitors) and have not done anything about it in a timely manner.

Unfortunately though, in the law's eyes if the landowner didn't have a release of liability waiver signed, he is liable for what happens on his property The fact that he knowingly allowed the stunt to be built and ridden doesn't help him either.

I hope he develops a release of liability document after this situation so that he doesn't run into this problem again.

Is the person who was injured under 18?
 

dream4est

Monkey
Jan 28, 2003
180
0
sirknight6 said:
I am an advocate of DH and FR biking. I actually am a beginner at best, but I enjoy what I do and improving my riding. The liability issue, sadly, exists. Waivers are all nice fine and dandy, however, it will not prevent a plaintiff to file a cause of action in a court of proper jurisdiction holding you accountable for injuries etc. etc. etc……I broke my ribs 20 months ago at Wintergreen. Why did I not file a cause of action? I certainly would have won. Because I personally felt that the better good would be “leave it alone”. Why? So people can have a place to ride.
man you need a reality check. the reason we have problems with liability is because of people like you. you broke a rib and thought about going to court? and you first post included this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirknight6

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

that shows me that you feel that your injury was wintergreens fault. i dont even know what wintergreen is but i am 100% sure you were at fault. people like you who always want to blame others make me sick. look into the mirror. thats whose responsible when you get on a bike and ride. i for one will never allow anyone with your ideology to ever ride on my property or with me at the resorts. i crashed at keystone two weeks ago. so they are at fault? for my stupid move? friggin lawyer types are so annoying. they always look for an angle when something goes wrong. anyone who reads the first post by sk6 should consider his above wintergreen comment too. i totally stand by my statement that he is hurting our sport. like 200% now.
 

Ridemonkey

This is not an active account
Sep 18, 2002
4,108
1
Toronto, Canada
Brian HCM#1 said:
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.
The land owner is likely not wealthy. How would you like you life savings compromised by this BS?

Screw these dumbasses that can't take responsibility for their actions. They are turning this country into a giant steaming pile of ****.
 

SK6

Turbo Monkey
Jul 10, 2001
7,586
0
Shut up and ride...
dream4est said:
man you need a reality check. the reason we have problems with liability is because of people like you. you broke a rib and thought about going to court? and you first post included this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirknight6

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

that shows me that you feel that your injury was wintergreens fault. i dont even know what wintergreen is but i am 100% sure you were at fault. people like you who always want to blame others make me sick. look into the mirror. thats whose responsible when you get on a bike and ride. i for one will never allow anyone with your ideology to ever ride on my property or with me at the resorts. i crashed at keystone two weeks ago. so they are at fault? for my stupid move? friggin lawyer types are so annoying. they always look for an angle when something goes wrong. anyone who reads the first post by sk6 should consider his above wintergreen comment too. i totally stand by my statement that he is hurting our sport. like 200% now.
People like me? You sure do have a lot of balls to make a post like that in haste with out having a friggin clue and facts as to the situation surrounding my mishap. If you are so sure of ALL the facts of every situation, why did you consult an attorney? If you are such a legal prodigy, why do you need a waiver in the first place for an alleged “Private” park? I am NOT a legal authority, but rest assured, by your tone and response, I have more of clue than you purport to have.

Debate is fine, however personal attacks are not. Everyone one of your replies is lengthy drivel, where you perceive you are the sole righteous person, and feel as if you are a martyr and are the only one suffering the ills of the world. Wow, I guess you’re the first person in the history of MTB to have a park or course for private use on your land, rendering you an “expert”. Transcend posted a respectful reply, and you postured aggressively toward him, and attacked him as well as you have me. And he is a huge proponent of the sport as evidenced by his commitment and passion in the way he represents not only himself, but his magazine and his support of Ridemonkey.

My dear sir, your litigious posture is the reason we have the massive lawsuits in the first place. Your replies and tone are a perfect example of why our country is entwined in litigation. Someone disagrees with you, and you take it as a personal attack. One cannot not be respectful with you and debate with you, because anyone who disagrees with you or your opinion is “out to get you”. Welcome to the world of litigation. You and the likes of you blame all of the litigation it on lawyers, but it’s the attitude of prejudgment that you seem to posses that is the true problem, not attorneys.

You probably were one of the first to be on the bandwagon of folks who thought the lady who sued McDonalds was a loon for having too hot coffee. Do you even have the first clue as to what really transpired? Apparently you must since you are gifted with predisposition of all possible litigious circumstances.

Sir, you confuse the way attorneys act, with the ethics of an attorney and his/her zealous representation of a client, mandated by the oath they take to practice law. And you better pray you’re a$$ off that that will be the case if you get your butt caught in a sling because someone injured themselves on your course or you find yourself in a legal jam. I sure hope you NEVER have to endure such a painful and torturous situation.

Again, best of luck in your endeavors. I offer this one piece of advice, get the facts before you make hasty commentary. In here it is miniscule; however, in the real world or a legal situation, it can get you a world of headaches.
 

SK6

Turbo Monkey
Jul 10, 2001
7,586
0
Shut up and ride...
Ridemonkey said:
The land owner is likely not wealthy. How would you like you life savings compromised by this BS?

Screw these dumbasses that can't take responsibility for their actions. They are turning this country into a giant steaming pile of ****.
Yup. Society is litigious because no one wants to take responsibility. Not only are they “not” responsible, but will convolute it with crap to make it so ambiguous that the main issue is all but forgotten. Then! they hire a lawyer! :p

:D
 

dream4est

Monkey
Jan 28, 2003
180
0
sk6 like i said i dont even know what wintergreen but im sure they were not responsible for your injury. and since you wont even explain it i still think you are a person that would sue first and ask questions later.
i never attacked transcend. but you are a different story. anyone who posts that they considered suing after a crash without even explaining the situation scares me. it should scare everyone who rides. at least that grande kid who crashed at calabasas admits he wanted nothing to do with the suit and his dad is just a freak trying to profit off his sons misfortune (which is a horrible thing to do). anyone who mentions lawsuit after a bike crash will hear it from me. or those who assume a landowner is liable and post that online. both your comments i referred to are reflective of the attitudes that closed big bear, calabasas, gold hill, idaho spgs, sand hill, the challenge park, etc.
since you are new to the sport i know you dont understand how these beliefs will ruin mountain biking.