is that actually done? i thought waivers covered everything... man, people suck.

i think rd's should have the right to ban suers

---

http://www.theninjadon.blogspot.com

"The bicycle riders drank much wine, and were burned and browned by the sun. They did not take the race seriously except among themselves." -- Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises

its hard to say, Racers who take legal action can not be banned from other races and shouldn't be, they obviously are comfortable with legal action.

waivers aren't a block to legal action.

They can make it extremely difficult to raise certain claims.


Actually, I'd be interested in knowing how often people do file claims, the types of claims and their underlying circumstances, if and how they were resolved, and at what stage. I'd love to hear some RDs input.

Since one of my favorite races is no more because of a lawsuit I can say I have VERY strong negative feelings against people who file such lawsuits. If I could have found out the culprit's name I would have sent R10C after them! The suit in this case was filed against the local police, not the RD but you bet the town was reluctant to issue any more permits for a tri. And as far as I know the idiot never saw any money so everyone lost!

CST

I am a legal secretary -- unfortunately even with waivers people will sue. It's called DEEP POCKET. They know the RD has insurance, the city has insurance, the driver etc. etc. It's all about money unless truly truly serious like MacLaren who was already a paraplegic and was hit by a van at Mission Viejo tri (no longer exists). It's sad for everyone involved in the sport. I would be curious to know what RD think too and what types of claims they are sued for.

I think I remember signing a waiver for the city of Oceanside when I did the California HIM. I thought taht was overkill...but I guess not. It was probably smart on the part of the city.

I understand everyone's views but just to play Devil's advocate the legal process clearly imposes important standards on the way in which events are put on and the level of diligence that RDs put into ensuring their competitors' safety. Without the threat of civil action unscrupulous RDs (and there must be one or two) would only have to do enough to avoid criminal sanctions which is not very comforting for an entrant.

Earlier this year I did Le Race in Christchurch NZ which was close to being shut down when the RD was prosecuted a couple of years ago in relation to the death of an entrant who was overtaking other riders on a blind bend in the mistaken belief the road was shut to oncoming traffic. The RD was acquitted, which most seemed to agree was the right result, but the case was a good example of the way legal actions regulate the standards RDs must adhere too.

Maybe in the US the balance has tipped too far the wrong way but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Companies get sued, and their frequent decision to settle as quickly as possible is due more to economic reasons than legal ones. Yeah, the defendant may be "right", but do they really want to spend the money, time and risk of poor PR to fight it all the way through the legal system? They're better off just paying off the plantiff to get them to go away.

A signed waiver may be what's needed for a judge to rule in favor of a waiver, but a greedy plantiff and an aggressive personal injury attorney can use the system to suck the life (and money) out of an RD before a suit ever gets in front of a judge.

---

***

"Do folks think this is just the American way? "

I'd say the world view of American lawyers is that they're definately perceived as ambulance chasers. On a per capita basis there are far more lawyers in the USA than anywhere else in the world and they're always seemingly hustling for work, so to sue or to be sued is more common place.

Normally, I'd personally frown on an RD being sued, but it could depend upon the circumstances. The RD would have to be completely and obviously at fault before I'd support such an action.

Personnaly, I'd be more interested in having access to a list of race directors who have been sued and the nature of the accidents that lead to the suits. Most are very good at running safe races. Some probably are not very good at it and get by mostly on luck. It would be nice to have some method of figuring out who is who. At least then we'd have some idea of what we are really waiving when we sign the waivers.

I'll chime in on the side of the devil's advocate, too. We had a local YMCA tri in our area. When I saw the bike course (on roads I know quite well and on which I was hit and quite seriously injured previously), I thought they were nuts. I inquired what they were doing to marshal major intersections, etc. They had a small handful of volunteers who they were going to move around the course as the race progressed. I thought this was nonsense and dangerous to the extreme. I personally paid (a lot of money) to get some off-duty police officers to handle intersection duty. I was only doing the race as a relay (bike portion) and my swimmer was almost dead last (almost, but there were others still behind) out of the water. When I hit the course, there wasn't a volunteer marshal or even one of the cops I had paid out there to guard our safety. It was a Russian Roulette ride.

Thankfully, there were no incidents. I don't think anyone could have anticipated when signing the waiver that the people putting on the race would be so irresponsible and have so little regard for the safety of the racers. If something had happened to me, I would have seriously considered suing the RD. And I probably would have had a contract issued for those lousy police officers who took my money and apparently took off for the doughnut shop.

On a side note, my wife is an attorney. She says waivers are meaningless. The intent is to make people believe they have no right to sue, so they don't. The reality is always that anyone can sue anybody for anything. It doesn't mean they'll win, but they can sue.

Bob C.

I suppose people have the right to take a RD to court. I also think that is this happens then the RD's have the right black list a racer. Most RD's want to have a successful race and most importantly have a safe race. If the RD does something to put his/her participants in danger then yes they should be held accountable.

I think that is the RD's are held accountable then USAT should be as well. If a race is a sanctioning race and that race is supposed to meet certain requirements set forth by USAT then if problems arise due to non compliance to USAT rules they have partial responsibility (IMHO) to make certain these requirements are adhered to.

As a member of USAT I would expect that the nature of sanctioning go beyond the specter of supplying insurance to RD's. I would hope that as a member of USAT I would be able to count on a safe race if a race is sanctioned by USAT. I believe USAT is heading in this direction but not quickly enough.

A certain "popular" southern Wisconsin RD is being sued by somebody I know after on being hit by a car on the bike segment.

The RD clearly has/had some major issues with protection and she attempted to settle to no avail.

Beyond her bike being destroyed her balance has been affected, which means she has mostly given up the sport, because the swim causes dizziness.

I am definitely NOT litigious, but in the bike course I expect to be safe from cars.

---

Swim - Bike - Run the rest is just clothing changes.

what are you truly thinking?

ban folks who have either filed suit or threatened a suit for what reason?

post names for what reason?

do you have any idea how many times lawsuits have been threatened but never got in front of a court?

reality check time. waivers are meaningless. every RD knows or should know the potential danger of anyone getting upset about something and finding an attorney who is willing to handle a lawsuit with or without merit. you as a race participant are also subject to potential lawsuits. and anyone is literally anyone. participant, spectator, resident or business owner along the course, venue municipality, fisherman trying to use the lake, motorist driving along the bike course....list goes on.

tell us what your hoped for desired end result is, and then (maybe) we can figure out how to get there, or if it is worth the trouble.

---

Train hard...race well.
www.jimmishler.com
"Jim, I happen to agree with you" DougStern

I do not know of the situation but can you ever be truly safe from cars unless the roads are closed? If that is the litmus test then the number of "safe" bike courses will be.............none?

In my opinion the only reason that a racer should be able to sue an RD is in the event of malicious actions aimed to harm the participant. Something along the lines of refusing to pickup an injured cyclist because they were on the way to get a BJ from on of the volunteers.

Cyclists hit by cars on the road are not the result of the RD or closure of intersections. They are the result of drivers not paying attention to cyclists on the road. Just because you are in a race does not mean that you get to blow every intersection without looking and watching out for yourself. When passing, you have to look behind you for cars and other cyclists, and you should never cross the double yellow line - especially on a blind curve.

I think that part of the problem is that some racers believe that the RD supplies a risk free environment for racing.

Training and racing are both very dangerous for all of us. I look to the RDs to supply water, food, a well layed out course, and timing. I'll supply my own saftey.

---

This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time. - Fight Club
Industry Brat.

"On a per capita basis there are far more lawyers in the USA than anywhere else in the world and they're always seemingly hustling for work, so to sue or to be sued is more common place."

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

Actually this is not a fully accurate statement and you are comparing apples to oranges. In many unregulated countries you don't need a law license to do things you need a license for here...so, they just are not called "lawyers," but are doing the same thing. Many countries have the equivalent of corporate lawyers, but in their countries the literal translation is only to "trial lawyers," so they don't count them as we do here.

The other thing that doesn't really seem to be popular to report in the press, etc is that the number of lawsuits between individuals (taking out criminal and domestic cases) has been on a downward trend in the US for many years. There has been an absolute explosion in criminal in domestic cases, plus a large increase in corporation v corporation.

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

"Normally, I'd personally frown on an RD being sued, but it could depend upon the circumstances. The RD would have to be completely and obviously at fault before I'd support such an action."

-----------------------------------------
The thing the really doesn't make sense to me about this thread is how do we propose that we regulate society? If the RD does something wrong shouldn't they be held accountable so it is less likely to happen again? Sure, it needs to be legitimate, but there are many safeguards in place to make that likely.

There are basically 3 ways to regulate society (in this context) 1) through the government - very inefficient, expensive, and many times ineffective; 2) take law in your own hands - promotes general chaos and anarchy (maybe not all bad :-)!); and 3) the legal system - warts and all it seems to have proven to be the most effective way over time.

Any way.....just a few thoughts.

---

David
* Ironman for Life! (Blog) * IM Everyday Hero Video * Daggett Shuler Law *
Disclaimer: I have personal and professional relationships with many athletes, vendors, and organizations in the triathlon world.

I would think that most people are reasonable and that they realize the risks associated with this sport, but to ban racers from other races because they have sued another RD is a little silly.

What if the RD was standing out in the middle of the road swinging a mace, throwing ninja stars at people, and scattering rusty nails all over the road?

---

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

Brawndo's got what plants crave. Brawndo's got electrolytes. And that's what plants crave. They crave electrolytes. Which is what Brawndo has. And that's why plants crave Brawndo. Not water, like from the toilet.

they should be... I'd encourage anyone to sue a RD, it is OK for them get all the money and not provide enough security?

Someone in my last race put ice cubes in the water cup, what's up with that? I could have choked!

S-C-U-M!!! People who sue are low-lifes. As far as I know, not one person has ever been forced by an RD to participate. Everyone voluntarily registers kowing full well the sport has dangers and they need to be personally vigilant to keep from falling prey to those dangers. People need to be just as personally responsible during a race as they are when they train. They simply can't put blinders on and assume the RD has eliminated every possible danger.

If anything, some RDs have gone overboard in trying to eliminate "potential" problems. They questionably cancel races or portions thereof, they institute speed limits,etc., to attempt to eliminate the possibility that someone who didn't train enough will hurt themselves.

Racing is a human endeavor. Almost all human endeavors are prone to mistakes happening. Nothing is really ever 100% without danger.

In every race I've ever done I had the opportunity to examine the course prior to the event. I see it as doing due diligence by seeing where any potential problems may exist for me and then making a plan to account for those areas. IOW, taking personal responsibility in case unforseen circumstances should occur. RDs can't mandate that people exercise due diligence, but they shouldn't be responsible for other people's lack of it either.

---

Don

Tri-ing to have fun. Anything else is just a bonus!

I think people generally have a right to hold others accountable for their negligent actions. Politicians like to complain about medical malpractice lawyers but, if a doctor's screw-up crippled my kid, you bet your butt I'd want the right to hold him accountable.

I was looking into coordinating/underwriting a race a couple of years ago and consulted with my regular law firm over it. Their review of California law was that, with the right waiver form, I'd have to all but personally assault someone before being held liable for just about anything that went wrong on the course. It would have to be essentially intentional. No matter how negligent I was, a lawsuit wouldn't stick with the right waiver. Apparently, the case law in this state is pretty strong in the favor of race organizers. They showed me some cases where your average citizen would surely have deemed the RD at fault, yet the court threw it out because of prior rulings and the waiver. There is a strong public policy in this state that these are athletic events that carry a lot of risk.

A list would be nice. I know a RD that served as an expert witness for the plaintiff. Not sure if it was the RD or organization that was sued. Details were not discussed, but it looked good for the plaintiff.

---

________________________________
Lisa Walser-Anderson, ATC,CSCS

The American Way? Of course, how else can we become a lazy, and unaccountable for any of our own actions if we can't litigate? ;-)

While I am not certain of any "lists", I do believe every RD has the right to NOT allow certain participants to race (the right to refuse service), although of course, they need to be careful so they don't offend someone who will then make it a racial, ethnic, religious, etc. cause :-)

Go do a race. Know the risks. Accept them. Suck it up Buttercup.

P.S.- Perhaps we should allow RD's to sue contestants for performing illegal and dangerous actions (those breaking the rules, riding on the wrong side of the road, etc.)

---

Craig Preston - President / Preston Presentations
Saving the world with more professional, powerful, and persuasive presentations - one audience at a time.