Track sued for $2.2 mill- what's your opinion?

[quote="TerryK":1anjvpky][quote="CamP":1anjvpky][quote="MXRose3":1anjvpky]Lets say you briefly walked the track and didn't see it.
Then you paid your $$ to ride.
When you rode around the track the first couple of laps slow, then you saw it.

My son screwed up by *slightly* overjumping the jump and getting taken out by that.
Theres no reason for something like that on a motocross track. Thats why they have equipment to prep the track beforehand.
I'm 44 and I've been riding since I was 16, and I don't agree with people that sue a track like RC16 did, but in this case the track owner was clearly at fault IMO.[/quote:1anjvpky]

Every track has hazards like that. It's the rider's responsibility to maintain control and assess all potential risks on and around the track. Just the other day I was at a track that has a big 70' catapult. I looked at the short, narrow landing zone and decided I wouldn't jump it. I could see myself landing off the side of it and eating shit so I passed. Later that day one of the guys did exactly that. He accepted full responsibility for his minor rider error that resulted in a hard get off.[/quote:1anjvpky]

x2[/quote:1anjvpky]


That seems a little different. You saw a tricky section that was designed to be jumped and opted not to do it. (more Vet riders need to do this!) where this is open area. And I see stupid things sitting right next to the track all the time.
One time recently there was a kid playing in the dirt on the launch of a 40 foot step up about three feet from the launching area. I yelled at him as I came by and he was gone the next lap. I mean I see some really, really stupid stuff.
And Flarider if you read it closely I don't think they had a trail running off a cliff. It seemed he was actually riding off the graded road onto what he thought was a trailhead, and found a cliff instead. At least that's what I see- it's kind of a weird description.

Ya know, you can say this is an unfair attack on a motocross facility, but really the court ruled in favor of a rider. So maybe it's a [i:20fi2mou]good thing [/i:20fi2mou]that a court doesn't agree with some posters that if you are aboard a motorcycle, you have no legal rights or protections. In other words "those dirt bikers are so crazy, they deserve to get mangled."
That to me would be a much more dangerous and negative stance for the court to take.
And Dave, re-reading I see your point. Sounds like the trail ran off a cliff. And wonder why the gun club got off the hook when it agreed to put up a fence, then took it down? Plus, they built the freakin' cliff it looks like.

[quote="OldTiddler":ih9h6jvt]I don't figure how you consider it more dangerous if the "courts" view riders as in general not deserving settlements when they get hurt doing what the entire rest of the planet already knows is too dangerous for most sane people to engage in.

Care to elaborate?[/quote:ih9h6jvt]

I don't agree with the argument that if you are on a dirt bike, you deserve any injuries that happen to you, even if someone was negligent. If a court was to brush off every lawsuit by saying "but he was on a dirt bike, he should have known he was going to get hurt"- that would be a bad thing for motorcyclists. Ironically, that appears to be what some riders want.
Don't get me wrong, I am not for suing tracks, obviously, but what if hospitals took this attitude? "sorry, he was on a dirt bike- he deserved it." And I know docs that think that way.
Particularly when dirt bike tracks are almost completely unregulated. It's the only sport I know where you can sign up kids to participate, have them sign a form, charge them money then unleash them in large numbers and expect to be free from legal culpability. Can you do that in youth swimming, football, baseball, or hockey? No.
The industry has to strike this balance, before the suits do it for us.

[quote="OldTiddler":2nebgjjj]To say that tracks are "unleashing" kids on the track is to speak only figuratively, and in the language of a prosecuting attorney using fuzzy logic. In reality, the parents and kids are "unleashing" themselves, as being individuals that are free to make their own choices about their own safety and the risks they are willing to take.

Until humans finally do evolve into an ant-like society of manager and attendant classes, we are all individuals who are responsible for ourselves. The tracks are only responsible for fulfilling their end of the agreement they made with you, which, according to the releases we sign, means--to anyone that can read--they aren't responsible to damage to yourself or your property while on the premises. Period.

If you don't like the agreement, leave the track. And don't come back, ever. Take up golf.[/quote:2nebgjjj]

A track is a business supplying a service. Does a patron have a right to expect a predictable level of danger? The court said that a motorcycle patron has a right to know the perimeter of the facility. That's a great example.
I agree individuals should be responsible for themselves. That includes track owners, who should be responsible enough not to create an irresponsibly unsafe situation.
I agree that nobody should ever sue for screwing up on a track obstacle that they attempted. But I believe that motocross track users should have some recourse when track owners do things that are negligent. What constitutes negligent or not is up to the courts. Apparently having a riding trail that runs off a cliff unexpectedly falls into this category. Not that I have an opinion on this one without seeing the area in question.

[quote="wardy":3kb16ag7]Like what putting tractor tires on the ground for track markers?

It's really simple here, either the waiver you sign matters or it doesn't, it is exactly why this country is so "f"d up, everyone looks for a frggin "gray" area to weasel out of responsability. You are told in that waiver specifically what could happen, if the waiver is correctly written then this thread tells us, well I "signed the waiver but really didn't mean it". That will alone be the reason why this sport has trouble.


want a comparison.

ski diving has waivers and no insurance can be bought. they figure if you jump out of a plane and get hurt, well you jumped.

it isn't much different except not many 4 year olds do it.[/quote:3kb16ag7]

What if you or someone you loved signed up for a skydiving course and they forgot to pack the parachute, and you jumped out of the plane and died? Would that be acceptable?
A participant signs up for a predictable level of danger, that is, jumping out of an airplane with a parachute. It's not gray areas, it's case by case review. That's one reason why they call them court "cases."