Yawn.

---

Founder of THE TRIATHLON COLLECTIVE (Closed Facebook Group). A SBR discussion group without the white noise/trolling!

Take a breath before you have a heart attack and die.

Depending onthe conditions someone certainly could have beeen at fault. Not enough lifeguards, etc. I doubt you know the case well enough, nor do i to offer an opinion for whos at fault.

So umm yeah who cares.

---

Grant
----------------------------------------------------
Proudly sponsored by Desoto Sports
Please Support CAF every little bit helps http://raceforareason.kintera.org/grantreuter

As long as it can be shown that the organisation was not negligent in anyway then there is little chance of there being a case to answer. As far as I am aware there are accepted standards for the level of safety cover required. Were these met?

We all know when we enter these events of the risks associated with them and can take steps to deal with them accordingly. The organisers are obliged, as part of the contract we have with them when we sign up, to make every effort to minimise issues that may arise due to the nature of the event. Failure to meet those obligations can leave them open to being pursued through the courts.

And of course, living in a litigious society like you do it's open slather.

---

Trust me I’m a doctor!
Well, I have a PhD :-)

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=2347250

the original article said the trial would start July 6th.

Anyone know if it is under way?

The trial started yesterday, and is expected to last all week. The Panama City News Herald seems to be following the case pretty well:

http://www.newsherald.com/...-ironman-jurors.html

As long as it can be shown that the organisation was not negligent in anyway then there is little chance of there being a case to answer. As far as I am aware there are accepted standards for the level of safety cover required.

I can tell you that nothing causes more stress and sleepless nights for RD's than the swim. I was at that event and I recall standing on the beach a few days before the event talking to a woman, who had never swum in the ocean before. Never worn a wetsuit before. Never been in a big triathlon swim start before. Never swum longer than 2K before and she was planning on swimming 2.5 miles in the open ocean. When is it negligence on the part of the person entering the event?

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

1. It can't bring him back, but it can compensate for the income the family lost when the breadwinner dies. That can keep a family off the streets.

2. If the dumb asses win, it's only because IMFL was grossly negligent in providing a safe race. If this is the case, a win by the Plaintiffs would be good for all of us as it will force other event organizers not to cut corners and to make sure we are safe.

3. You bet, that can be the case. And if it turns out that's the situation here (we don't know whether it is or not) then IMFL has nothing to worry about. But sometimes people die because others don't take reasonable steps to prevent those deaths. If you're running a race, you have a duty to take reasonable steps to provide proper safety to your participants. Doesn't mean you have to prevent anything from happening, but if a risk is obvious (drowning) and you can take minimal steps to prevent it (lifeguards), you have a duty to do so. The reason you have a trial is so a group of objective folks can determine whether or not you met your duty.

4. It doesn't have to be someone's fault, a lot of times lawsuits fail because a jury or a judge decides it really is an accident and nobody is at fault. But if somebody is at fault, don't you think they have an obligation to compensate the people who have lost loved ones because of somebody else's negligence.

5. You have no idea what all of the underlying facts of this case are, so maybe it would be better not to make assumptions.

Question: Do you have a wife, girlfriend, kids, mom or dad. If they were killed in an auto accident due to somebody else's gross negligence, do you think you'd just shrug your shoulders and say "sometimes we just die at the most inopportune times and it falls into the "shit happens" catagory and it is no ones fault." I doubt it.

That's why we have trials Steve, to answer those questions. Its called "assumption of risk" and all states recognize the concept in one way or another.

With your last question: Obviously if there is gross negligence than yes someone should pay. I guess that is why this lawsuit is being brought up. The family feels it was IM FL at fault. If there was, than yes they should get compensated, if NOT...IT sucks but there are tragedies every single day in life.

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

I read somewhere on the internet that the reason the family has filed the lawsuit is because a lifeguard took away his fins after the first lap of the swim.

Right, and how are we supposed to determine whether or not there was gross negligence??

Answer: We have a lawsuit and a trial and the court makes that determination.

Its called "assumption of risk" and all states recognize the concept in one way or another.

Well, the woman I described was certainly assuming some significant risk given her lack of preparation and experience. However these days it seems "OK" for her to do something like that. It's not something I would personally ever suggest or recommend - but that's just my view. What would a judge think?

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

From the reporting on the trial, the dead guy's lawyer is arguing that IMFL did not follow its own safety protocol. If this is accurate, then IMFL will be in a spot of trouble.

I bet she was there just to have a good time and make some friends. Now here you are on the internet judging her - meanie.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

I think if you showed that you took all reasonable precautions to prevent someone's death or injury (especially if you could point to an industry standard), most juries would find you met your duty even if something tragic did happen. If you could show that her lack of experience created an unforseeable circumstance that could not be prevented through the application of reasonable precautions, you'd be fine.

Lots of people in our society conflate "lawsuit" with "liability." Anybody can bring a lawsuit alleging negligence, but that doesn't mean most are successful. In fact, the vast majority are not because most providers are not negligent.

Or look at it this way: If a person dies on the bike because they try to pass three wide and move into the opposite lane of traffic and get hit by an oncoming car, the race organizer probably is not negligent. That doesn't prevent the family from filing suit, but they aren't going to get anywhere in the long run. However, if the death happens because a car on a blind corner was crossing the road in front of the biker and the organizers hadn't posted a marshall at the intersection to stop traffic (or at least posted a sign warning that the race was going on), then you have a different question.

Or how about if the organizer provided no lifeguards at all for the swim?

Needless to say, most cases are not this black and white, there's a lot of gray in the middle, so we have juries and judges to draw those lines. And a study of jury results shows our society is actually less friendly towards liability suits now than they were 30 years ago.

Your not from the US are you? You have to know that only 12 idiots who either dont have jobs or were not bright enough to get out of jury duty are on this jury right? And this company (NAS, WTC, IMSA) have millions and millions of dollars....they are greedy empires of danger and were an accident waiting to happen. $50 million or so should teach them a lesson....


Font is green for the money the Attys are trying to take home with them.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

So whats the lesson learned here? Obviously the courts havent decided yet, but it seems you sure hope they do get a big chunk of money. So I ask, what did IM FL do wrong?

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

pretent the green is pink....

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

Slugas,

Thank you for your response. Makes sense. However, if you asked 100 people on the street if what the woman I am talking about was going to do was retarded, I'll take a good guess that it would be pretty close to 100%.

Now, the woman I am talking about did not die ( I have no idea how she did in the race) and I am not really sure of what the deceased level of preparation or experience was, but I do know that making up a bigger and bigger cohort at these half and full IM races are athletes like the woman I was referring to, when if you really looked at it they are woefully under prepared. Would that ever be brought up in a case? That the person was really in over their head( sorry bad pun). Or is it, sign the waiver, close your eyes and go?

I guess what I am getting at here is that it's hard to legislate common sense and rational thought.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Maybe it's over my head, but are you wanting WTC to lose or win?

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

Yup like you said...so be it...the guy is dead and $$ won't bring him back and I hope his greedy family looses. Getting a few million $$ and buying a new house, Louie Vitton purse, a Rolex and SUV is not going to bring him back. Yes I am not sensitive to the situation because when we do a tri there is the "assumption of risk" and the poor shlep just died. It is not like he got run over by a power boat. The lawyers are pulling at straws finding fault with IM. Having done a bunch of IM's I think they do a fine job. I am always amazed at the hundreds and I do mean hundreds of asses that show up on race day for an IM and can't swim 2.4 miles!! They doggy paddle, side stroke, float on their back the whole friggen thing...my god if you sign up have the common sense to train for it.

---

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
If you aren't sweating you aren't having fun!

So I ask, what did IM FL do wrong?

According to the article, they did not meet their own safety standards / protocol.

Among other things, it is alleged that they did not have a defibrillator on a boat in a position to help such victims. It is alleged that paramedics were not stationed close to the water and were unreasonably delayed in attending to the victim. It is alleged that the paramedics were not equipped with gear that could traverse the sand in a timely fashion to render the necessary care. It is alleged that the paramedics had to borrow someone's vehicle to transport the victim to an ambulance. It is alleged that these failures resulted in a delay of at least fifteen minutes before the victim was properly attended to in an ambulance. The vicitm's lawyer has retained a cardiologist who will testify that had the victim received timely care, he could have been saved.

Keep in mind that the victim's lawyer is alleging that the failures were failures of IMFL to abide by their own safety protocol and not an after-the-fact imposition of an unreasonable standard of care.