Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
The Shop
Free shipping: VITALMX
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Besides that release, we make every rider fill out a complete release form, Name, Address, print and sign etc. The minor release has 2 sides and 2 places for the parent to sign.
Takes a little extra time, but to us it's worth it.
I’m sorry for the kid that got hurt but $15M is nuts.
I really hope the place doesn’t close down as a result.
What they did trying to save their ass is really bad, I'm surprised people are less outraged about that then they were the POS CR250 that Tbteam got worked over on.
Unless you use stickers, armbands, or some other way and a lot of staff it would be really difficult, especially at a sprawling facility like durhamtown, to control someone showing up in an enclosed vehicle and hopping on a bike, atv, or utv and riding.
And due diligence with releases makes a difference.
To the rider - don't be a squid and stay on the track and you don't have this problem. Suing for $15 mil is crazy.
Once again, the owner/track workers actions of trying to cover it up are the worst thing about this situation. Makes them look worse than fessing up.
I have raced all kind of national tracks that has all kinds of stuff to hit if you run off the track you just have to ride accordingly.
Pit Row
First, if they lied, that's horrible. But... do we know that the culvert hadn't been covered at some point, and someone removed it (" here's a tire/haybale I can sit on to watch the race" ) and then it was replaced in good faith afterward, to keep someone else safe? And the person who testified may not have known any of that. Just a guess, but possible.
Secondly, the track that was mentioned with the restrictive fencing. I would bet money that the fencing was mandated by insurance to keep spectators off the track. Back in the "good old days", people were smart enough to wander around the track and not get in the way. It's called personal responsibility!!
Third, the dude who was on a skid steer on the track while riders were out there needs punched in the throat. That's gross negligence. And gross negligence SHOULD be the only reason to justifiably sue anyone in these types of situations.
Also, if there was no signed waiver, he shouldn't have been riding. I wonder if the father admitted to signing a waiver?
If not, they were not following the rules and shouldn't have been on the track.
I'm not even close enough in book smarts to be a lawyer, but this kind of stuff should be common sense and common decency. If you go to someone else's property to engage in a dangerous activity for your own enjoyment, then barring gross negligence, you should be responsible for your own actions.
Anything besides personal responsibility is killing our sport and should not be tolerated. Mitigating your own risk ( or those of minors in you care) in life should be your own responsibility.
Natural features of a motocross or off road track produce risks of injury may be assumed by the participant who elects to participate (at least in some states).
Man-made features and improvements will always implicate a duty of care by the person who makes and maintains the improvements so as not to increase the natural risk of the sport. In this case, the exposed culvert is not a natural risk of motocross.
Look around your track and note things that in your opinion should be changed for safety reasons; every one of those is a potential breach of the duty of care and can be argued as such as a basis of liability. Rather than argue with that reality, recognize it and address those controllable issues.
Some states (California for example) will allow releases (release = contractual assumption of risk, not assumption of risk as a matter of law) to waive rights to recover for injuries from natural conditions and also the simple negligence of the track owner, including negligence in any emergency rescue or treatment. This often is omitted from releases (and would in states where negligence cannot be waived).
The other thing to note is that juries have a lot to digest during trial, often confusing, and decisions sometimes come from clues the various witnesses give, and sometimes sheer likability of witnesses or experts. Testifying that you did X when a video shows up later that you hadn't is a pretty strong driver of jury reaction. I don't think the evidence that they moved tires to cover the culvert would have been admitted otherwise, but they opened the door by claiming that it was covered before the accident. I doubt the defense ever recovered.
Using this logic, it appears that the most conservative course of action from a track owner's perspective would be to do exactly what Unadilla did in the '70's.- have a 100% natural track using only naturally occurring elevation changes. Never bulldoze the track (man made feature), never add any jumps (man made feature), never water the track (man made feature which might add mud (slippery hazard). Just do what Unadilla did- let the natural track form in by itself, and between races just plant grass. No other maintenance allowed-ever.
Post a reply to: Greensboro Jury Awards $15M in Motocross Accident Injury