Garth, if all attorneys agreed with you and, more importantly, conducted business that way then the one-day liability coverage would cost about 79 cents. I’m from Mississippi, the tort capital of the world. If any of these race directors have deep pockets or connections to anyone with deep pockets, the world of triathlon will soon hear of Mississippi attorneys. There will be a stable of professional triathletes sponsored by a group of attorneys who attend every event in the country in hopes that something will go wrong at one of them. The attorneys will then sue for $125 in medical costs (the ambulance charge for taking a perfectly healthy triathlete to the hospital to pronounce them perfectly healthy) plus $10 million to compensate for the triathlete for his emotional distress, pain and suffering, plus $387 million in punitive damages to make sure that these dastardly people “get the message”. By the way, they will also sue the manufactures of the running shoes, bicycle and wetsuit worn by their athlete so they can show the jury how deep the pockets really are. Each defendant’s insurance company will chip in a little to avoid the mess and the suit will be settled for $18.2 million. The attorneys take their $15 million and go to the next target. Triathlons, on the other hand, must now pony up mega-bucks for liability insurance and we are left with 6 events the next year which cost $2,412.50 to enter and will be cancelled if fewer than 5,000 competitors pay.
BillT,
Sure hope you’re jesting (I fail to see the humor) since there is not one single slice of reality in your comments. Quite frankly, I really don’t see anything constructive from your comments to the post or the discussions. If you are just trying to be funny fine, I suppose. I do believe in free speech and open discussions (even from OU, until he went tooo far) though. In any event I think some of us are trying to sort out the concepts of negligence, responsibility, risk, etc. i have found most of it to be informative and helpful.
Best Wishes,
david
Actually, BillT’s numbers are a tad exaggerated for rhetorical effect, but the basic points – and methods mentioned – have a lot of truth in them
We have a society where the tort bar is successively targeting one industry after another to ruin. For example, over 50 companies that had only the most minor and peripheral interaction with asbestos have been driven into bankruptcy by the tort lawyers.
Doctors are fleeing tort-friendly states like Mississippi and West Virginia. Heaven help you if you get in a bike accident with a head injury in many parts of Mississippi because there are zero neurosurgeons left. The closest place for trauma care means a trip to Memphis.
And it is just getting worse. The tort lawyers are now guaranteed $600 million per year for the next 25 years as their slice of the tobacco settlement. This war chest is funding the assault on the rest of our economy.
However, it is not solely the lawyers who are ruining our way of life. I blame the juries who listen to these ridiculous cases and award completely crazy damages. People get so wrapped up in the notion, “well that is just a faceless corporation. They have plenty of dough. Let’s award $150 million.”
Any thinking citizen can spend 20 minutes looking at http://www.overlawyered.com and it doesn’t take much common sense to realize this system is utterly broken and creating great damage to our country.
I think I have failed to make my point in a concise manner, although a lot of the insights here are very valuable and I find them interesting. I’ll try again with this thesis and offer some supporting argument:
Participation in sports involves risk. It is impossible to accurately determine the degree of risk. It is not finite. Therefore, it should be impossible to assign “responsibility” for damages incured during an event if every participant acknowledges the random and indiscriminate nature of risk. This eliminates the capability to transfer liability.
Go ahead, let me have it…
Any thinking citizen can spend 20 minutes looking at http://www.overlawyered.com and it doesn’t take much common sense to realize this system is utterly broken and creating great damage to our country.
Any thinking citizen can spend 20 minutes looking at http://www.overlawyered.com and it doesn’t take much common sense to realize this system is utterly broken and creating great damage to our country.
I have no idea what happened to the long reply I just typed…is the tech part working properly?
In any event here is sort of what I just said:
Are there bad lawyers? Sure. Are there bad race directors? Sure.
I think that you will find that most lawyers work very hard, very honorably, make less than you think, etc. Probably just like most other professions.
Quite frankly, your sweeping indictment of the legal system hurts your credibility. You know, our legal system is really what our country was founded on and what separates us from the rest of the world. Others have tried societies with no lawyers: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Iotola’s (sp?) Iran, etc…which would you choose?
Don’t you think that overlawyered.com only takes the worst of the worst? What about all the others? Come on…
Therefore, it should be impossible to assign “responsibility” for damages incured during an event if every participant acknowledges the random and indiscriminate nature of risk. This eliminates the capability to transfer liability.
Go ahead, let me have it…
Tom,
This is a good discussion, and I appreciate your view. But, see you just proved the point. Under the law there is no liability for “random and indiscriminate,” only for unreasonable and foreseeable. Don’t you see the difference?
By taking my money, the RD agrees, in part, to use reasonable care to ensure that the race goes as a reasonable triathlete expects it will. In return, I agree to accept those risks that a reasonable triathlete can anticipate. Some risks will fall outside of this reasonable range, and the waiver will shift many of them to me. I guess I don’t see why this system is so objectionable.
Golferboy must be picking up a little law on the links (not from me b/c I don’t golf). This is exactly right and exactly on point.
Ahh, well David, I do see you point- that there is a differentiation. That is part of my point I guess: There is only “risk”, not different types of risk. You play you pay.
That’s what I was trying to express. Thank you for your thoughts though, and I do see your point. 
in reply to
Snip…want to change the system you perceive to be flawed, write your congressman or better yet, when you get called for jury duty, show up and serve instead of angling to get out of it like most people with a modicum of education or common sense do. We defense attorneys do ok when we have a statute on our side or a decent jury. It’s when the plaintiff’s bar is the only group who can get laws passed and anyone with anything going on upstairs avoids jury duty that things go wrong.
Your so right and wrong at the same time. I been down that road…problem is congressmen are typically lawyers. Unfortunately, (in general) they have a vested interest in keep the system in tact. Right or wrong, that is the fact. There is simply not enough general concensus (on both the part of the congress and electorate) to make that kind of REAL change.
Decent juries are difficult to find and impossible to accomplish. Decent jury would be those that can make good judgments based on ALL the information. This is difficult to do since it is the job of both sides to not only skew the information but to attempt to eliminate that information which is damaging to it’s side. By default, you can never have a Decent jury. And I know of few attorneys that would really want a decent jury unless you define decent as a bias jury (biased to your side- of course).
What you get are those who during the jury selection process are 1) perceived as easily manipulated (i.e., not intuitive) or 2) willing to make decisions without prior facts. Unfortunately, what is defined as information that would prejudice a jury’s decision are actually facts that would help define the correct outcome. Despite that, I go and have never (and will probably never) be picked. I think therefore I am - that is not jury material. So, now… I show up therefore I waste my time.
Finally, yes - jury decisions are seldom a pot of gold. Unfortunately, many lawyers sell the idea of “easy money” in an attempt to put the “number game” probabilities in their favor. More cases (good or bad) increase probability of victory - period. That is what makes the judicial system less of a process of justice but simply an economic cost of doing business. In turn, those with legitimate claims become thrown in the “mosh pit” of numerical probabilities we foolishly call the judicial process.
FWIW Joe Moya
HOLY COW BATMAN! I can’t believe I wrote this…“I be semi-literate”.
I don’t have a rpoblem with lawyers- this is not their “fault”. Attornies are not “blame”. Although the “system” is defective (IMHO) I feel ultimately the problem is athletes who use (abuse) the system:
“Between stimulus and response is our greatest freedom: Choice.” (Stephen Covey).
We can choose to accept responsibility for our actions and negate the system in doing so. Geez, I apologize guys, part of me almost things I should have posted something about powercranks… Less controversy.
Tom, this is the only forum I read and contribute to as it has the best thinkers and astute triathletes of any I have read. Just keep assuming the risk of taking on controversial subjects. You’ll know you done good when Robert jumps into it.
Bob Sigerson
to come up with one system or solution for dealing with this issue.
There are times when a race director could be negligent and someone gets hurt and there are times when racers take stupid chances or just have some bad luck and stuff happens. The reason that we have a court system is so that situations that are “grey” in nature can be assessed and have some resolution.
That said, using a situation like Utah last year (it’s been mentioned a few times so I’ll bring it up again), I really hope that any resolution favours the race director since freaky weather and 1500 type A personalties ready to rush in and swim in any situation doesn’t strike me as negligent on his part.
Yes, this reinforces my point. I hope this doesn’t smack of arrogance and it is not ANY criticism of those brave athletes who did Utah, but I frankly think I would have been too scarred to start the swim. I would have been tempted to go back to my room, get my camera and shoot the story as opposed to take my chances in what looked like the first 20 minutes of “Saving Private Ryan”. I was not there, so this is utterly speculative, but I would like to think I would have not gone in the water. I would be too afraid to accept that risk. I’m not that strong a swimmer.
I’m probably the opposite. I was not there either but I know that as a semi-lunatic who would have put in a ton of training and cash to get out to Utah I probably would have said F*** it, my swim will be slower due to the waves but I’ll go for it and make up time later. I’m sure that many of the athletes that were there thought the same thing.
That is what makes the judicial system less of a process of justice but simply an economic cost of doing business. In turn, those with legitimate claims become thrown in the “mosh pit” of numerical probabilities we foolishly call the judicial process.
Joe,
I find most of your recitation not accurate based on my experience. Have you ever been in front of a jury? How many times? Let’s just say I have been there a lot. Last case I tried had a jury that included, among others, two engineers, accountant, and a school principal.
However, I am interested in what recommendations you have for betterment because there are certainly are flaws. The tough part is that once you start chipping away at rights, we all become so confined. The tort system is actually based on responsibility that has been talked about so much in this thread - that is responsibility for wrongdoers in our society. Are there exceptions, flaws, aberations, just plain wrong, etc? Sure. But I would suggest to you most of the time it works.
These are my first of the morning thoughts. have a good day.
David,
Sorry if I stepped on any toes. Furthermore, I will agree with your statement above that most lawyers do a great job and are well worth the fees I pay them. Most CEOs do a good job as well, but that didn’t help Enron or Tyco.
The point of the thread is responsibility. Look at the waves and decide whether you want to swim. Ask about traffic and decide if you want to ride. Sip your McDonald’s coffee and decide if you want to drive away with it sitting in your lap.
Of course I use the extremes to make a point, but the pattern I described above IS happening to other industries. And, lawyers ARE getting rich doing it. I know. I do business with some of them. It’s an industry now and I don’t think we can turn it back. We’re already seeing the cost of liability waivers rise but maybe this sport can be spared the worst of it. The pockets involved aren’t as deep as the tobacco and drug companies and the participants tend to be a pretty independent lot, from what I’ve seen.
Which one of the following cases would you take if the person had signed a good waiver that had already been upheld on appeal:
-
Riding at about the 80 mile mark in a IM. Gets violently ill and veers into the outer lane and is hit by a car where two way traffic has been allowed to flow.
-
Riding along behind a pack(teed off at the drafters)when the official on the white horse(motorcycle)drives up, stops the drafter and stands him down for three minutes. The motorcyle stops in the roadway and even though you are elated, you can’t get out of the way and hit the back of the motorcycle, doing damage to yourself and you 4000 bike and the motorcycle. Since the USAT does not dictate a 3 minute standown in their rules, would the waiver protect the official, motorbike volunteer, or rd.
Thanks for the imput.
Bob Sigerson
Bob,
All i do is contingency fee work. Based on your facts as presented, and the laws of my jusidiction, I don’t see either one as a case. Of course I don’t know if any facts are missing, etc.
Is this a test?
david
David, first one was a hypothet; second one actually happened. All I wantaed to find out if an attorney would take the either case and if not, I could assume the waiver is solid.
Bob Sigerson