Posts
1894
Joined
8/25/2009
Location
Moncton
CA
Edited Date/Time
10/28/2013 12:47pm
Hi gang, long time no chat.
Straight to the chase, I've been asked to meet with a lawyer this Friday afternoon regarding a turn-one pile-up that ended badly a couple of summers ago. Trying to explain turn-one to an outsider seems to cause their eyes to glaze over and they appear to severely miscalculate the risk of each and every start.
What I'd like to do, before the first question is asked, is to show him a collage of turn-one episodes from anywhere and everywhere. Does anybody have a link or two that might be a good, quick compilation of first turn "happenings"? The point I'd like to make is, everyone who knows anything about the sport knows the risks involved in that first bend.
I don't own any video editing software, so something reasonably complete would be much appreciated. If anybody can help me out, I'll meet you right back here.
Thanks Vitards ;-)
Straight to the chase, I've been asked to meet with a lawyer this Friday afternoon regarding a turn-one pile-up that ended badly a couple of summers ago. Trying to explain turn-one to an outsider seems to cause their eyes to glaze over and they appear to severely miscalculate the risk of each and every start.
What I'd like to do, before the first question is asked, is to show him a collage of turn-one episodes from anywhere and everywhere. Does anybody have a link or two that might be a good, quick compilation of first turn "happenings"? The point I'd like to make is, everyone who knows anything about the sport knows the risks involved in that first bend.
I don't own any video editing software, so something reasonably complete would be much appreciated. If anybody can help me out, I'll meet you right back here.
Thanks Vitards ;-)
What's your role? Are you a percipient witness ( someone who actually saw something happen) or being asked to give an expert opinion? What's your relationship to the lawyer? Are you cooperating with one of the parties, are you one of the parties? Is this lawyer on "your" side? Are you being compelled to give testimony?
All of these contextual questions drive what you might want to do or, more importantly, what you might be allowed to do.
The Shop
doesnt everybody sign a waiver when they race? i know i do, and i dont even race, just "practice"
They more or less serve to show the court that the individual (and or parents, etc) were warned of the risks of participation, and the risks of simply setting foot on the property. Plenty of tracks have their facility rules and a warning statement at the front gate too.
The waivers probably discourage the lawsuits from being filed in the first place.
A very natural and quite normal turn-one pile-up occurred at one of our regional tracks. A young rider (with at least 5 years experience) ended up in a power-chair as a result. Now, a law firm is gathering information on behalf of the rider and his family.
Based on the elapsed time between the incident, and the fact that the rider is from the province I live in, and the law firm is in the province where the race took place, I would speculate (without prejudice) that this is somewhat of an "ambulance chaser" situation. Nonetheless, I was contacted as a witness. It's hard to deny that I was watching the start directly as I am the track announcer.
The points that need to be made are - a) A rider with numerous years of experience is aware of and fully understands the risks of the sport, and in particular, that first turn - b) If everything is operated within the guidelines of all policies and procedures, and the track is considered safe to run the moto, and there is no evidence that the collision was premeditated or malicious, then there is no one who could be considered "at fault". It's a racing "thing".
FTE - I know that covers part of what you asked. Here are a few more answers.
Even though I've been at it for 35 years and could well be considered "expert" by some, I work for the promoters. I don't think plaintiff's people want to go there.
I have no relationship with the lawyer. I was originally contacted by phone by a researcher (articling) in Nova Scotia. It went no further until I received an e-mail from a New Brunswick colleague of hers representing the same law firm.
I would like to think I am cooperating with both parties by simply offering my observations. The level of cooperation will very much depend on what I interpret to be their plan and method of attack. I can offer what I saw. Anything beyond that is optional.
This isn't testimony or even a deposition at this point. He is fact-finding.
Anyway... about some of that video footage guys... anybody?
This all came in really fast, so, if I missed anything, hit me again. I'm still here. Thanks all.
There is nothing I can offer these people that would be detrimental to the promoter or anyone else they may name in a suit.
That way, I wouldn't have to fumble through a bunch of You Tube stuff and commercials and crap. I just thought a couple of you would throw your faves my way.
I can't opine on what the Canadian law is on qualifying experts, but I suspect all you'll end up going is giving them advance insight into how to attack your position and it could lead to you be disqualified from participating later on for the defense and, if you could contribute, a free shot at developing the attack on your personal qualifications and objectivity.
If you do get together a portfolio of first turn scenarios, 5 will get you a hundred they'll use that to establish some argument for why the current situation deviated from the ordinary situation such that the riders or track did not satisfy the standard of care for riders or track owners.
I deposed and strategized how to deal with some of the top research and clinical physicians on the plaintiffs side in the implant litigation. No good lawyer tries to go head to head on expertise against heavy weights; they try to undermine the relevance and credibility of the application of the expert's opinions to the facts of the specific case.
The worst mistake is to try to outsmart a lawyer in a situation; it's a great strategy to encourage an expert to get out on a limb that commits them to a concession from which an argument can be built into the story line they are committed to.
Do my sense is that you're less likely to help than to help, and even less likely to show them they have no case.
But if you're committed to it, you'll want to target physical track conditions similar to the track at issue , not just random tracks. Hope this helps.
Good luck and may the non-greedy prevail.
Pit Row
http://youtu.be/yPw148b2Yok
http://youtu.be/cvc9zNKEfKg
http://youtu.be/tqiU_SHSAZE
http://youtu.be/zJqlLYUmLwk
http://youtu.be/lqEVuLkCypE
I know exactly what you're saying. Maybe the video thing was just a dumb idea. I just thought if the person asking the questions can't even conceptualize motocross starts, they will have a hard time understanding my responses to their questions. I thought it might help reduce misperceptions and misunderstandings.
Maybe it's best to just let 'em figure it out for themselves.
I sorta know Raceguy - and although I don't personally know the poor fellow in the power-chair, I think I know who it is. I've been in a witness stand before, and witnessed people in the witness stand, and it's not a pleasant experience being helplessly led down the garden path by a line of questioning only for it to inevitably lead to the edge of a cliff. It's what they do - it's their job. As my old boss used to say, they get you in the room, sit you down in front of a judge, and try to make you look like a monkey. And from experience since then, it doesn't have to wait until you're in front of a judge - it can start in the conference room of a law office.
You've been a huge supporter of the tracks & promotors in this region for longer than I can remember. And an equally huge supporter of the riders. I absolutely know your heart is in the right place - there could be no better solution to this than to mediate both parties outside the courts or a law office. Maybe my radar is off-kilter, but I am also feeling that there will not be much mediative (is that a word?) affect to be had from a meeting with the legal team of the (very unfortunately) injured party. I am really hoping some balance can be found in all this - but can only imagine it will be very difficult if things do proceed.
Good luck!
(That likely didn't offer a lot of help....)
You would be surprised what they can twist to be detrimental........
People that think they are helping often do the opposite..
Read FTE's post carefully and if you don't know the answers to his questions, bow out...
http://listverse.com/2009/01/28/top-10-bizarre-or-frivolous-lawsuits/
Post a reply to: Meeting with lawyer