Statement from Rich Taylor (LACR Lawsuit)

Tyler D
Posts
2131
Joined
12/5/2022
Location
La, CA US
1/22/2025 11:10am
mxxcdez wrote:
Here is a simpler take with redactions. "It's baffling that any track is not held responsible for anything;" The statement has nothing to do with suiting...

Here is a simpler take with redactions. "It's baffling that any track is not held responsible for anything;" The statement has nothing to do with suiting up and taking risks; that is implied. It has to do with tracks assuming responsibility for their actions as well. It should be a mutual and symbiotic relationship. Sometimes, negligence is unknown until something adverse happens or it is tested. There are always two sides to every situation, story, or whatever you want to call it. 

Tyler D wrote:
"sometimes negligence is unknown..."not really. BY DEFINITION negligence arises out of an act or failure act that a REASONABLE PERSON would have foreseen as likely to...

"sometimes negligence is unknown..."

not really. BY DEFINITION negligence arises out of an act or failure act that a REASONABLE PERSON would have foreseen as likely to cause harm. 

if it's unknown, and not carelessly so, it's not really negligence. for example, failure to provide meteorite nets over your track is not negligence. 

mxxcdez wrote:
You are correct. I will redact negligence is uknown and simply quote  "BY DEFINITION negligence arises out of an act or failure act that a REASONABLE...

You are correct. I will redact negligence is uknown and simply quote  "BY DEFINITION negligence arises out of an act or failure act that a REASONABLE PERSON would have foreseen as likely to cause harm."  So it was said the track was negliegent because a reasonable person forsaw that the feature (corner) in question would cause harm and was not corrected or announced to others that did not forsee it. The fact that others did not foresee or notice the issue usually does not absolve the track once a hazard is (or should have been) discovered.

there's more to it than that. everything on a motocross track "could" cause harm. there are mitigating factors such as assumption of risk, and purpose of obstacle, etc. in other words, some things are inherently dangerous because of the nature of what they are, and this is unavoidable. i haven't followed the case closely, but i sure as hell wouldn't leave it to a layperson jury to determine as a matter of fact whether installing a dragons back (for example) in plain view is "negligent" or not. what i'm saying is, a jury of blue hairs finding that some track feature is negligent is non-deterministic for me and many others because it's such a specialized deal. it IS a bilateral or symbiotic relationship, and many feel that rich taylor breached this obligation & understanding, while others feel the opposite. for me, it seems unreasonable for RT to sue someone for what he himself could have and should have observed if he was acting with integrity and care. 

@971_Fan , what nuance am i missing?

3
1/22/2025 11:28am

Why don't we contact the owner of Vital Media and nicely explain why we feel  its not a good thing to accept advertising money from Rich Taylor and EKS brand when Rich Taylors actions are chipping away at the sport Vital makes its money from by getting tracks closed down.  Not saying to be a dick or make threats but make our opinions known in a polite and professional way to have them look past the dollars they may make now to money that will be gone when there are no tracks left to ride on. Brad McDonald is listed as owner and Todd Toth is VP of sales. I am sure ML512 is between a rock and a hard place and may be friends with Taylor and has stated he was disappointed when he found out it was Rich who sued. 

Here is a question, why is Rich Taylor and his kid even allowed to set foot on any track? Why haven't track owners banned him ? maybe they should. 

  The list of companies that are listed and support Vital is long and getting rid of Taylor and EKS I doubt would make any impact n the bottom line. Most people who sue run and hide from the sport and shunned when they sue so not sure why EKS and Rich Taylor have not been run out of the sport, but MX feeds on its own kind. 

https://www.vitalmedianet.com/home/#about-us

https://www.vitalmedianet.com/home/#contact

Here are all the listed companies that support Vital and I will support them and being a boomer we have the money to spend but we also have the choice NOT to spend. 

Site Sponsors

 

Support the companies that support your scene

Want to market your brand on Vital MX? Contact us

 

20
2
MxAddic
Posts
5308
Joined
11/24/2022
Location
NY US
1/22/2025 1:11pm

I don't remember if they told Rich they where going to fix it and he never actually checked?

2
fins227
Posts
1097
Joined
7/1/2014
Location
Chillicothe, OH US
1/22/2025 1:19pm

Yall been at it all day lol 

6

The Shop

disbanded
Posts
6886
Joined
8/26/2007
Location
Evergreen, CO US
1/22/2025 1:20pm

Track suing scum is track suing scum

12
2
Tortuga
Posts
52
Joined
5/6/2024
Location
west coast, CA US
1/22/2025 1:39pm

Lol...man this thread went sideways. The longer a story gets told the more jacked up it gets! lol....

1
2
1/22/2025 2:51pm

Its funny to come back and see the arguing . At least get the facts according to the statement correct. If You do not believe that Rich did not know about the corner before his kid rode, say it ( some have ).   People keep saying that Rich knew about the corner before the race. 

According to Riches statement, He did NOT know about it. And that was the problem he had. That an area that others had pointed out and asked to be changed  was a part of the track and unknown to Rich prior to the kid riding.  Had Rich known the corner was like that and that people had complained, his case would fall apart since he would have in a way accepted the risk. Like many keep saying he did. 

 

Maybe I missed some part where Rich revised his statement or somebody was able to prove he knew.  If You take him at his word, that he did not know. You can still disagree with him suing the track.   

    

1
12
avidchimp
Posts
5728
Joined
7/9/2008
Location
EGL, MN US
1/22/2025 2:54pm Edited Date/Time 1/22/2025 2:55pm
Its funny to come back and see the arguing . At least get the facts according to the statement correct. If You do not believe that...

Its funny to come back and see the arguing . At least get the facts according to the statement correct. If You do not believe that Rich did not know about the corner before his kid rode, say it ( some have ).   People keep saying that Rich knew about the corner before the race. 

According to Riches statement, He did NOT know about it. And that was the problem he had. That an area that others had pointed out and asked to be changed  was a part of the track and unknown to Rich prior to the kid riding.  Had Rich known the corner was like that and that people had complained, his case would fall apart since he would have in a way accepted the risk. Like many keep saying he did. 

 

Maybe I missed some part where Rich revised his statement or somebody was able to prove he knew.  If You take him at his word, that he did not know. You can still disagree with him suing the track.   

    

Rich is still the asshole who let his kid race without personally making sure the track was safe to race. All responsibility lands on his shoulders as the legal guardian of his kid.

25
yak651
Posts
8610
Joined
8/26/2006
Location
Appleton, WI US
Fantasy
1/22/2025 2:55pm
Its funny to come back and see the arguing . At least get the facts according to the statement correct. If You do not believe that...

Its funny to come back and see the arguing . At least get the facts according to the statement correct. If You do not believe that Rich did not know about the corner before his kid rode, say it ( some have ).   People keep saying that Rich knew about the corner before the race. 

According to Riches statement, He did NOT know about it. And that was the problem he had. That an area that others had pointed out and asked to be changed  was a part of the track and unknown to Rich prior to the kid riding.  Had Rich known the corner was like that and that people had complained, his case would fall apart since he would have in a way accepted the risk. Like many keep saying he did. 

 

Maybe I missed some part where Rich revised his statement or somebody was able to prove he knew.  If You take him at his word, that he did not know. You can still disagree with him suing the track.   

    

Problem is it’s not the tracks fault he didn’t know. It’s his fault for not walking the track before practice. Maybe he showed up late or figured I rode this track a thousand times, but it’s still up to him to decide if it’s safe (for the minor son he signed for to allow to ride).  

12
1/22/2025 3:11pm

We are lucky R.T. didn't sue washougal.  Can someone post the vid of him wadding up on the first lap of the national?

11
1/22/2025 3:43pm
Its funny to come back and see the arguing . At least get the facts according to the statement correct. If You do not believe that...

Its funny to come back and see the arguing . At least get the facts according to the statement correct. If You do not believe that Rich did not know about the corner before his kid rode, say it ( some have ).   People keep saying that Rich knew about the corner before the race. 

According to Riches statement, He did NOT know about it. And that was the problem he had. That an area that others had pointed out and asked to be changed  was a part of the track and unknown to Rich prior to the kid riding.  Had Rich known the corner was like that and that people had complained, his case would fall apart since he would have in a way accepted the risk. Like many keep saying he did. 

 

Maybe I missed some part where Rich revised his statement or somebody was able to prove he knew.  If You take him at his word, that he did not know. You can still disagree with him suing the track.   

    

avidchimp wrote:
Rich is still the asshole who let his kid race without personally making sure the track was safe to race. All responsibility lands on his shoulders...

Rich is still the asshole who let his kid race without personally making sure the track was safe to race. All responsibility lands on his shoulders as the legal guardian of his kid.

I'm not going to argue with that. I am not a fan of the suing.

 And I personally would have felt responsible if I allowed my kid to ride without checking the track out.

 

I was always worried about track changes and even on my personal track I take a slow lap to check things out and make sure weather or trespassers have not made any changes that could cause a problem. 

 

If I I was reading this  as a person totally new to the info and seeing people either assume Rich knew or just state he knew. When his statement said he did  not.  I feel like I would look at each sides arguments and it would make it harder for me to side with the people that are arguing by making  incorrect statements ( according to Riches Statement) . I would look for  the inconsistences in each sides arguments and  I would wonder why the side that should have the moral high ground ( the NEVER sue side) was trying to twist things to fit their way of  thinking better. 

 

I could see somebody totally miss something the way Rich claims he did. Just owning the small company I have. When I was going to  local races regularly  I would be pulled from person to person . Customers asking about orders or products, etc.  SO I do think it is possible that somebody at the level of Taylor could have either tried to get in and keep a low profile or have been so distracted by people chatting with him that he was able to miss the section.  I see crashes in front of my house all the time because people are not paying attention as they are driving. Distracted by a phone or whatever.  

 

Now I am not going to try and argue that he was justified in suing .  I personally do not think I would have done what he did in that circumstance. But I have been through enough shit to know that people do not always act rationally when under stress and in the cases of loved ones being injured. So I personally have a hard time  totally disliking Rich. I can understand wanting to make sure his kid is OK long-term. and I can respect that. Even while disagreeing about suing a track. 

1
5
1/22/2025 4:03pm
Its funny to come back and see the arguing . At least get the facts according to the statement correct. If You do not believe that...

Its funny to come back and see the arguing . At least get the facts according to the statement correct. If You do not believe that Rich did not know about the corner before his kid rode, say it ( some have ).   People keep saying that Rich knew about the corner before the race. 

According to Riches statement, He did NOT know about it. And that was the problem he had. That an area that others had pointed out and asked to be changed  was a part of the track and unknown to Rich prior to the kid riding.  Had Rich known the corner was like that and that people had complained, his case would fall apart since he would have in a way accepted the risk. Like many keep saying he did. 

 

Maybe I missed some part where Rich revised his statement or somebody was able to prove he knew.  If You take him at his word, that he did not know. You can still disagree with him suing the track.   

    

yak651 wrote:
Problem is it’s not the tracks fault he didn’t know. It’s his fault for not walking the track before practice. Maybe he showed up late or...

Problem is it’s not the tracks fault he didn’t know. It’s his fault for not walking the track before practice. Maybe he showed up late or figured I rode this track a thousand times, but it’s still up to him to decide if it’s safe (for the minor son he signed for to allow to ride).  

I agree with you on that.  But  the judge or whoever awarded him must not have since his point was that he did not know there was a danger that was new from the last time he saw the track.

 

 I have always walked tracks and personally I would feel responsible if I had a kid and let them ride without walking the track.  

I am just saying, in my opinion  it hurts credibility when people  argue the way I was seeing things argued.  

 

  Think of it from a neutral point of view. Coming on here and seeing something said as a fact that goes against the original statement.   And really doesn't have to be true to help Your argument out. You can dislike Rich still and think he is responsible for NOT knowing about said obstacle.  So wouldn't You start to wonder  what else the person who was stating stuff that went against the statement was perhaps either misunderstanding or making up? Or if it was something overlooked or misunderstood, what else could that person have overlooked or misunderstood? And wouldn't it make You start to wonder which side was being truthful?  

 

 I'm speaking more in a general sense than on here. On here somebody can dig back through and see how things got to the point they are now. But people may just also decide without looking back that they just don't know what to think and not care enough to look into it farther. In my opinion ,It hurts the argument being made when things are said that way.

6
MxAddic
Posts
5308
Joined
11/24/2022
Location
NY US
1/22/2025 4:25pm
I'm not going to argue with that. I am not a fan of the suing. And I personally would have felt responsible if I allowed my kid...

I'm not going to argue with that. I am not a fan of the suing.

 And I personally would have felt responsible if I allowed my kid to ride without checking the track out.

 

I was always worried about track changes and even on my personal track I take a slow lap to check things out and make sure weather or trespassers have not made any changes that could cause a problem. 

 

If I I was reading this  as a person totally new to the info and seeing people either assume Rich knew or just state he knew. When his statement said he did  not.  I feel like I would look at each sides arguments and it would make it harder for me to side with the people that are arguing by making  incorrect statements ( according to Riches Statement) . I would look for  the inconsistences in each sides arguments and  I would wonder why the side that should have the moral high ground ( the NEVER sue side) was trying to twist things to fit their way of  thinking better. 

 

I could see somebody totally miss something the way Rich claims he did. Just owning the small company I have. When I was going to  local races regularly  I would be pulled from person to person . Customers asking about orders or products, etc.  SO I do think it is possible that somebody at the level of Taylor could have either tried to get in and keep a low profile or have been so distracted by people chatting with him that he was able to miss the section.  I see crashes in front of my house all the time because people are not paying attention as they are driving. Distracted by a phone or whatever.  

 

Now I am not going to try and argue that he was justified in suing .  I personally do not think I would have done what he did in that circumstance. But I have been through enough shit to know that people do not always act rationally when under stress and in the cases of loved ones being injured. So I personally have a hard time  totally disliking Rich. I can understand wanting to make sure his kid is OK long-term. and I can respect that. Even while disagreeing about suing a track. 

Could  be he does feel guilt and the lawsuit served to deflect it.

8
1/22/2025 4:30pm
Its funny to come back and see the arguing . At least get the facts according to the statement correct. If You do not believe that...

Its funny to come back and see the arguing . At least get the facts according to the statement correct. If You do not believe that Rich did not know about the corner before his kid rode, say it ( some have ).   People keep saying that Rich knew about the corner before the race. 

According to Riches statement, He did NOT know about it. And that was the problem he had. That an area that others had pointed out and asked to be changed  was a part of the track and unknown to Rich prior to the kid riding.  Had Rich known the corner was like that and that people had complained, his case would fall apart since he would have in a way accepted the risk. Like many keep saying he did. 

 

Maybe I missed some part where Rich revised his statement or somebody was able to prove he knew.  If You take him at his word, that he did not know. You can still disagree with him suing the track.   

    

yak651 wrote:
Problem is it’s not the tracks fault he didn’t know. It’s his fault for not walking the track before practice. Maybe he showed up late or...

Problem is it’s not the tracks fault he didn’t know. It’s his fault for not walking the track before practice. Maybe he showed up late or figured I rode this track a thousand times, but it’s still up to him to decide if it’s safe (for the minor son he signed for to allow to ride).  

I agree with you on that.  But  the judge or whoever awarded him must not have since his point was that he did not know there...

I agree with you on that.  But  the judge or whoever awarded him must not have since his point was that he did not know there was a danger that was new from the last time he saw the track.

 

 I have always walked tracks and personally I would feel responsible if I had a kid and let them ride without walking the track.  

I am just saying, in my opinion  it hurts credibility when people  argue the way I was seeing things argued.  

 

  Think of it from a neutral point of view. Coming on here and seeing something said as a fact that goes against the original statement.   And really doesn't have to be true to help Your argument out. You can dislike Rich still and think he is responsible for NOT knowing about said obstacle.  So wouldn't You start to wonder  what else the person who was stating stuff that went against the statement was perhaps either misunderstanding or making up? Or if it was something overlooked or misunderstood, what else could that person have overlooked or misunderstood? And wouldn't it make You start to wonder which side was being truthful?  

 

 I'm speaking more in a general sense than on here. On here somebody can dig back through and see how things got to the point they are now. But people may just also decide without looking back that they just don't know what to think and not care enough to look into it farther. In my opinion ,It hurts the argument being made when things are said that way.

No judge or anybody awarded Taylor. The insurance company settled with Taylor.

3
1/22/2025 5:54pm Edited Date/Time 1/22/2025 5:54pm

I hope Rich is compensating mxxcdez fairly. Guy is working his ass off in this thread. 

23
1/22/2025 5:58pm
Rickyisms wrote:

I hope Rich is compensating mxxcdez fairly. Guy is working his ass off in this thread. 

I mean he's got the cash for it 🤫

5
mxxcdez
Posts
60
Joined
6/4/2024
Location
socal, CA US
1/22/2025 6:04pm
Rickyisms wrote:

I hope Rich is compensating mxxcdez fairly. Guy is working his ass off in this thread. 

Just trying to offset the C@@ksey mob mentality burn at the stake clan here and Nathaniel129 definitely outposts me with quips and badgering me to answer questions of which I did but of course no thank you’s from him. 

1
29
truck
Posts
3600
Joined
6/10/2015
Location
Louisville, KY US
Fantasy
1/22/2025 6:52pm
Rickyisms wrote:

I hope Rich is compensating mxxcdez fairly. Guy is working his ass off in this thread. 

mxxcdez wrote:
Just trying to offset the C@@ksey mob mentality burn at the stake clan here and Nathaniel129 definitely outposts me with quips and badgering me to answer...

Just trying to offset the C@@ksey mob mentality burn at the stake clan here and Nathaniel129 definitely outposts me with quips and badgering me to answer questions of which I did but of course no thank you’s from him. 

He also occasionally comments on other topics here as well. 

1
1/22/2025 7:02pm Edited Date/Time 1/22/2025 7:03pm
Rickyisms wrote:

I hope Rich is compensating mxxcdez fairly. Guy is working his ass off in this thread. 

mxxcdez wrote:
Just trying to offset the C@@ksey mob mentality burn at the stake clan here and Nathaniel129 definitely outposts me with quips and badgering me to answer...

Just trying to offset the C@@ksey mob mentality burn at the stake clan here and Nathaniel129 definitely outposts me with quips and badgering me to answer questions of which I did but of course no thank you’s from him. 

Thank you 😘

And dude 99% of your posts and likes are related to tracks and/or lawsuits lol

3
1/22/2025 7:33pm

Rich Taylor is a scumbag. That is all.

20
1
urbanlift707
Posts
1137
Joined
9/27/2006
Location
Humboldt, CA US
1/22/2025 10:53pm



 

Todd,
I have been a customer of Vital MX since its inception and was a Moto Drive member prior to that. Moto is my life, and I see the moto community as my family. We are an outcast sport that is often not seen by mainstream society in a good light. Our sport is frequently labeled as dangerous and obnoxious. As such, our riding areas are in constant jeopardy, and the places we can go to enjoy the sport we love have been dwindling.

As a customer of Vital and a family member of the moto community, I find it in extremely bad taste that our site continues to do business with an individual and a company that has committed unspeakable acts against its own. I had ridden LACR around the time Rich’s son hurt himself and rode that exact layout. To call that berm into question would be the same as calling EVERY jump, berm, or whoop on a track into question. To sue a track over a mistake you made is absolutely unacceptable. Had Rich’s son made the exact same rider error on approach to any berm or jump and flown off out of control, he could’ve been injured.

I implore you to have the moral decency and personal standards to not promote or do business with such a terrible and selfish individual who is not only incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions but also severely punished others for his own mistake.

24
1
MxAddic
Posts
5308
Joined
11/24/2022
Location
NY US
1/22/2025 11:20pm

Any tree USA is more dangerous than that section.

5
SonofThor32
Posts
845
Joined
5/30/2021
Location
Corryton, TN US
1/23/2025 4:01am Edited Date/Time 1/23/2025 6:30am

Back to basics, page 1-3.  Somone lost control and whiskey throttled over a bowl turn.  Who here on Vital that has actually spent any significant amount of time racing, doesn't love a bowl turn? (I am sure LACR knows that too).  Should all tracks remove bowl turns or larger berms?  A jump is as dangerous as a bowl turn, that is a fact.  A fun and safe obstacle without any trees, bulldozers, sharp track markers is what we are talking about here.  If the track is negligent in that, all MX tracks should be flat with padded barriers to meet any criteria to be labeled compliant and safe.

A whole lot of hot air in here that I guess is providing entertainment, but this really is not complicated.

5
yak651
Posts
8610
Joined
8/26/2006
Location
Appleton, WI US
Fantasy
1/23/2025 4:37am
Back to basics, page 1-3.  Somone lost control and whiskey throttled over a bowl turn.  Who here on Vital that has actually spent any significant amount...

Back to basics, page 1-3.  Somone lost control and whiskey throttled over a bowl turn.  Who here on Vital that has actually spent any significant amount of time racing, doesn't love a bowl turn? (I am sure LACR knows that too).  Should all tracks remove bowl turns or larger berms?  A jump is as dangerous as a bowl turn, that is a fact.  A fun and safe obstacle without any trees, bulldozers, sharp track markers is what we are talking about here.  If the track is negligent in that, all MX tracks should be flat with padded barriers to meet any criteria to be labeled compliant and safe.

A whole lot of hot air in here that I guess is providing entertainment, but this really is not complicated.

This 💯 but please add the fact to your excellent comment that many gave R.T. the benefit of the doubt that it was his insurance company suing to recoup medical cost but he came here and cleared that misinformation up and admitted he brought forth the suit against the track. This is why people have hard feelings against him and EKS Brand goggles. It was his decision to sue after his decision to let his son race that day even though he didn’t do his due diligence of inspecting the track for safety led to an injury on an obstacle that he raced on throughout the day without incident.

2
DunnySeat
Posts
262
Joined
4/13/2021
Location
Laguna Beach, CA US
1/23/2025 6:10am

Something that has not been pointed out, is in a lot situations the insurance companies will force an individual to sue all involved parties in an accident. I've seen it in  gun cases where the gun company, bullet company, property owner, person that owned the gun, person that sold the gun all get sued. I spent a whole semester studying sport law (makes me an expert right?) and this is a lot more common in other sports than you may think. This may not be the case here who knows.

You can blame LACR for not having enough of a insurance policy to cover these type of suits, you can blame rich and his kid for not having a big enough policy or having a crappy carrier. You can blame California for making it impossible to do business or anything else without over regulation.

Just food for thought, nobody knows all the details behind the scenes here so it's kinda childish to call the dude a scumbag if he hasn't done anything to you personally.

1
15
PNWMXer
Posts
1734
Joined
1/13/2022
Location
Washington, WA US
1/23/2025 6:17am
DunnySeat wrote:
Something that has not been pointed out, is in a lot situations the insurance companies will force an individual to sue all involved parties in an...

Something that has not been pointed out, is in a lot situations the insurance companies will force an individual to sue all involved parties in an accident. I've seen it in  gun cases where the gun company, bullet company, property owner, person that owned the gun, person that sold the gun all get sued. I spent a whole semester studying sport law (makes me an expert right?) and this is a lot more common in other sports than you may think. This may not be the case here who knows.

You can blame LACR for not having enough of a insurance policy to cover these type of suits, you can blame rich and his kid for not having a big enough policy or having a crappy carrier. You can blame California for making it impossible to do business or anything else without over regulation.

Just food for thought, nobody knows all the details behind the scenes here so it's kinda childish to call the dude a scumbag if he hasn't done anything to you personally.

This was the prevailing theory early in this thread, but was debunked. Rich sued. 

As far as taking it personally…I/we should absolutely take it personally. 

On the individual level, lawsuits are shutting down tracks when it’s already hard enough to find them. For most this sport is far more than just a casual hobby, and for many, it’s something we’ve been doing most of our lives and resulted in many of our best friends and fondest memories. I’ll be damned if I’ll sit silent while people like him sue instead of taking responsibility for their actions.


On the societal level, lawsuits are driving up the cost of virtually everything in our lives, and preventing us from enjoyable activities that insurance companies have deemed “too dangerous “ because of people who are unable to take responsibility and/or are seeking a payday.

8
GrapeApe
Posts
8783
Joined
6/7/2010
Location
Mc Kinney, TX US
1/23/2025 6:18am
DunnySeat wrote:
Something that has not been pointed out, is in a lot situations the insurance companies will force an individual to sue all involved parties in an...

Something that has not been pointed out, is in a lot situations the insurance companies will force an individual to sue all involved parties in an accident. I've seen it in  gun cases where the gun company, bullet company, property owner, person that owned the gun, person that sold the gun all get sued. I spent a whole semester studying sport law (makes me an expert right?) and this is a lot more common in other sports than you may think. This may not be the case here who knows.

You can blame LACR for not having enough of a insurance policy to cover these type of suits, you can blame rich and his kid for not having a big enough policy or having a crappy carrier. You can blame California for making it impossible to do business or anything else without over regulation.

Just food for thought, nobody knows all the details behind the scenes here so it's kinda childish to call the dude a scumbag if he hasn't done anything to you personally.

This was not an insurance subrogation case, RT made the decision to initiate suit.

LACR had insurance to "cover these type of suits", but claims and payouts make it harder and harder to secure coverage in the future.

12
JazzyJJ
Posts
1795
Joined
12/1/2020
Location
Nunya, WY US
1/23/2025 6:18am
DunnySeat wrote:
Something that has not been pointed out, is in a lot situations the insurance companies will force an individual to sue all involved parties in an...

Something that has not been pointed out, is in a lot situations the insurance companies will force an individual to sue all involved parties in an accident. I've seen it in  gun cases where the gun company, bullet company, property owner, person that owned the gun, person that sold the gun all get sued. I spent a whole semester studying sport law (makes me an expert right?) and this is a lot more common in other sports than you may think. This may not be the case here who knows.

You can blame LACR for not having enough of a insurance policy to cover these type of suits, you can blame rich and his kid for not having a big enough policy or having a crappy carrier. You can blame California for making it impossible to do business or anything else without over regulation.

Just food for thought, nobody knows all the details behind the scenes here so it's kinda childish to call the dude a scumbag if he hasn't done anything to you personally.

This case does not appear to be that way. The situations that your describing are more in terms of subrogation. This happens when a medical insurance company has to pay out money for medical bills, and they try to recoup some of this expense from others. Or when someone else hits you in your car and you claim the damage on your own policy. You insurance company will them go after the other driver/their insurance if they are at fault to recoup their money.

 

These are only two examples, but they are much different than suing after the fact for damages above and beyond medical expenses and such. 

MxAddic
Posts
5308
Joined
11/24/2022
Location
NY US
1/23/2025 6:30am

A couple of things I wounder about here. Did Rich not have medical on the kid and did he settle for more than actual expenses?

1
2
gharmon
Posts
2738
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Valley, AL US
1/23/2025 6:37am
DunnySeat wrote:
Something that has not been pointed out, is in a lot situations the insurance companies will force an individual to sue all involved parties in an...

Something that has not been pointed out, is in a lot situations the insurance companies will force an individual to sue all involved parties in an accident. I've seen it in  gun cases where the gun company, bullet company, property owner, person that owned the gun, person that sold the gun all get sued. I spent a whole semester studying sport law (makes me an expert right?) and this is a lot more common in other sports than you may think. This may not be the case here who knows.

You can blame LACR for not having enough of a insurance policy to cover these type of suits, you can blame rich and his kid for not having a big enough policy or having a crappy carrier. You can blame California for making it impossible to do business or anything else without over regulation.

Just food for thought, nobody knows all the details behind the scenes here so it's kinda childish to call the dude a scumbag if he hasn't done anything to you personally.

I have no dog in this fight but suing a track that you brought forth (not the insurance company) and having some sort of direct action of having that shut down the only place you get to ride. Is that not personal? I don't know if that's the case but I would say everyone that likes riding at lacr is personally affected. Calling the dude a scumbag is ok with me and most likely everyone here it seems.

9

Post a reply to: Statement from Rich Taylor (LACR Lawsuit)

The Latest