so, i'll make a long story short...er, well, a short story short.

a few months ago on one of the "b" rides (i think it was a b ride based on what i can gather...maybe one of the hammer fests....but i really don't think so...anyway, not that big of a deal) around town, there was a crash at one of the sprint points. big surprise :rolleyes:

anyway, one of the riders involved is now suing the other rider. :eek: i, along with most of our cycling community, am fairly shocked.

just thought i'd put this out there. i've never really considered this as something to do. experiences? thoughts? wtfs? atta boys?

if you want even more info, pm me and i'll send the link to the thread about it on our local bb... (it does contain a post by the suing party)

i'm just imagining lawyers lining every dangerous turn in our crits :eek:

hmmm i vaguely heard of this incident and dont really know the specific's to form an opinion. My immediate reaction would be that it's poposterous and that no one should be liable for other's crashes in a club ride unless the wreck was intentional which would be really hard to prove. Did he throw a frame pump into the crashee's spokes?

Depends on what happened.

If one of the riders did something incredibly unsafe and dangerous & it caused an accident where someone got hurt. And the person hurt was unable to get care or reimbursement from the responsible party's ins co........what do you think should happen?

On the surface, without more detail, this doesn't bother me.

Len

i mean, i'm getting "facts" slowly and having to sort through them....obviously. it seems as if it was NOT intentional, and nobody is claiming such. BUT, riding in groups in inherently dangerious, imho, and we all make less than perfect decisions on the bike....especially when contesting group ride sprints.

it just seems to me that this takes litigation and finger pointing too far..., again, just mho

i mean, on the local bb, one guy sees the incident like the plaintiff, and a few others see it the way of the defendent....(clarify: were on the ride and saw the events. so they're take on the events match the relative perspectives of those involved in the suit)

the more i think of this outside of a cycling context...the more it bothers me. what about a pick up basketball game...someone rolls and ankle (badly) b/c they were fouled on the way to the hoop (fouls aren't supposed to happen)....can a suit be filed? is it two shots and a settlement?

sounds like a case for judge judy, she'd knock it out in less than a half hour. but srsly, our club requires everyone to sign a waiver before riding to curb this kind of lawsuit. I'm thinking of sueing my employer over this nasty paper cut I just got.

sounds like a case for judge judy, she'd knock it out in less than a half hour. but srsly, our club requires everyone to sign a waiver before riding to curb this kind of lawsuit. I'm thinking of sueing my employer over this nasty paper cut I just got.
so that's why you wear your helmet at your desk....good thinkin :thumbsup:

Would it not be part of the game in a sprint? It is one of the cons of racing. But I agree with Len that if one rider did something slightly "unethical" and dangerous, then that's another game.

yeah, wayne/len, i see what you guys are saying. if actions were intentionally dangerous and/or malicious, i would think that it could be "criminal." (e.g. it'd be like punching somebody). this seems like a cse of crossing wheels while going for the "big prize."

i mean, these types of crashes happen all the time. i just wonder what level of "stupidity" it takes for someone to get sued...seems like a line i don't want to really have explored....

It's the US; what do you expect. Of, for and by JDs. - TF

the plaintiff did hire one of the most notorious personal injury attorney's in the area :rolleyes:

The plaintiff should be put to death (and then beaten with old folding tires)

I don't practice in this area, but many on this thread are confusing legal concepts. The suit is most probably for negligence, a tort or civil wrong. Simply stated; (from a law dictionary)

"In order to establish negligence as a cause of action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged."

So, did the Def have a duty to the plaintiff, probably yes.
Did the Def conduct fail to conform to the required standard of care? Don't know from the description.
Was the P harmed, don't know from the description.

I don't know the whole story, BUT:

1) Cycling is an inherently dangerous sport.
2) No one forced Mr. Plaintiff to participate in the sprint.

Cycling communities in the US are small ones, and this guy is (no doubt) earning the reputation for being a jacktard by filing suit. No one will be willing to ride with him anymore, and I doubt he'll be welcomed at any subsequent group rides. Who wants to risk riding with him and being sued?

What normally happens in a group ride or race is either that the person at fault feels bad and apologizes to the person not at fault, or the bystanders/person not at fault chews the person at fault a new one and he never does it again. Take up any monetary issues personally, don't take them to court. It just makes you look like a selfish jerk.

FWIW, I once had someone (who later became a teammate) sprint into me during a race, causing us to collide. Neither of us went down, but in order to stay up, I steered my front wheel into her rear wheel, destroying both wheels. She felt so bad after the race that I didn't need to say anything. We made nice and nobody had any hard feelings. We paid for our own damage and went our ways. That's how it's supposed to work in the cycling community.

I don't practice in this area, but many on this thread are confusing legal concepts. The suit is most probably for negligence, a tort or civil wrong. Simply stated; (from a law dictionary)

"In order to establish negligence as a cause of action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged."

So, did the Def have a duty to the plaintiff, probably yes.
Did the Def conduct fail to conform to the required standard of care? Don't know from the description.
Was the P harmed, don't know from the description.

I'm not sure whether he has a case or not was the OP's question. Undoubtedly, with the legal system we have in place in US, he has a case. Hell, if a guy can sue a dry cleaner for millions of dollars over LOST PANTS, this guy has a case.

The question is... is he right to sue, or does he just end up looking like a jerk?

I don't practice in this area, but many on this thread are confusing legal concepts. The suit is most probably for negligence, a tort or civil wrong. Simply stated; (from a law dictionary)

"In order to establish negligence as a cause of action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged."

So, did the Def have a duty to the plaintiff, probably yes.
Did the Def conduct fail to conform to the required standard of care? Don't know from the description.
Was the P harmed, don't know from the description.

You are right in a general sense (but I don't practice in this area either), but I think what people are reacting to is the absurdity of it. Did the P have a duty to the D? Probably, but I think reason dictates that it was a minimal duty, and probably mitigated by D's willing participation in an inherently dangerous activity.

The Defense bar needs to bring back contributory negligence and assumption of risk, IMO.

I'm thinking of sueing my employer over this nasty paper cut I just got.


Well, you're not supposed to ACTUALLY put the magazine down there....moreon....:rolleyes: :eek:

Well, you're not supposed to ACTUALLY put the magazine down there....moreon....:rolleyes: :eek:


I couldnt help it, its the bicycling buyers guide issue!:blush2:

You are right in a general sense (but I don't practice in this area either), but I think what people are reacting to is the absurdity of it. Did the P have a duty to the D? Probably, but I think reason dictates that it was a minimal duty, and probably mitigated by D's willing participation in an inherently dangerous activity.

The Defense bar needs to bring back contributory negligence and assumption of risk, IMO.

I agree with you and Von entirely, I was just pointing out what the basis of a suit may be. Although with respect to the dry cleaner suit Von refers to, it should be noted that the judge dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Sure he was allowed to institute the case, but it was found to have no merit, so in that case at least, it can be said that the system worked correctly.

nice assessment, von...IME, everyone now assumes that the plaintiff says he "blew his wad" ALL THE TIME :wink: :eek:

I agree with you and Von entirely, I was just pointing out what the basis of a suit may be. Although with respect to the dry cleaner suit Von refers to, it should be noted that the judge dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Sure he was allowed to institute the case, but it was found to have no merit, so in that case at least, it can be said that the system worked correctly.

No, I see what you're saying. And I agree about the pants case. He didn't have a case, but he had a enough to at least file. Didn't he get stuck paying the D's legal fees, too? I know that was being argued at one point....

PI is one of those areas where the law has unfortunately overshadowed common sense. There is a part of me that thinks federal tort reform may be worse, however.

IMO, having "sprint points" on a group ride is stupid and asking for people to get hurt. I don't participate in group rides that turn into pretend-races for this very reason. If you want to have a race, do it on a closed course and have first aid equipment at hand.

No, I see what you're saying. And I agree about the pants case. He didn't have a case, but he had a enough to at least file. Didn't he get stuck paying the D's legal fees, too? I know that was being argued at one point....

PI is one of those areas where the law has unfortunately overshadowed common sense. There is a part of me that thinks federal tort reform may be worse, however.

Not sure about the legal fees in the dry cleaner case. Also not sure about tort reform for as you say, the cure may be worse than the problem. Think about the problems that would be created if all that was adopted was an English system. What might that do to product liability litigation where the Defendant is a major corporation.

Would an individual plaintiff have been willing to take the risk of paying Ford's legal bills in the Pinto case? That's probably not a good example as liability was pretty clear wrt the Pinto, but you get the idea.

There are a lot of situations in life where one theortically could have a case, but one does not bring it. I agree with what others have said that when it comes to personal injury tort law, sometimes people (and their lawyers) lack common sense when they bring claims. Obviously, each situation is fact specific and I cannot say that a case brought by someone injured on a group ride never would have merit. But, it think that would be a very rare case.

One lesson that organized groups should take from a case like this is that it is a good idea to have a waiver of liability in a membership application -- kind of like the waivers that one routinely signs on organized rides. Waivers will not work in all states, but that provide substantial protection in most states.

i'm just imagining lawyers lining every dangerous turn in our crits :eek:
You do know that a lawyer can't sue anyone unless the client decides to sue. Right?