Paceline lawsuit

[HenryA]

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/carolyn_crisp_v._michael_nelms_et_al..pdf

Please keep in mind that a rider’s death is the cause of the action and that the plaintiff (surviving spouse) and defendants are still with us. Be respectful of them in your comments.

To save you from wondering why this lawsuit happened it is most likely connected to the existence of one or more insurance policies.

Discuss.

[joosttx]

I hope their factory burns down*.

*without any injuries or casualties.

[nesteel]

Lets face it, there are no "accidents" anymore. The result of a terribly litigious society where everyone is out for themselves, and a butt load of money.

[cadence90]

"On February 25, 2014, five people embarked on a cycling expedition along the shoulder of U.S. Highway 321 near Townsend, Tennessee. The group was riding in a paceline, an activity wherein cyclists ride in a line one after the other in close quarters. This action serves to increase the efficiency of the ride as the riders draft off one another to counteract the wind resistance. At the front of the line was Long. Behind Long was Nelms. Richard Cox was third. Decedent was fourth, and Stacy Napier was at the back of the line. This was not a group of novices. Rather, these were seasoned cyclists riding expensive bicycles. Long and Decedent, friends since childhood and regular cycling companions, were in their 70s."


I am not a lawyer, but how is the expense of the bicycles relevant at all, and why would it be mentioned/considered pertinent?

I smell fish, sorry.
.

[joosttx]

"On February 25, 2014, five people embarked on a cycling expedition along the shoulder of U.S. Highway 321 near Townsend, Tennessee. The group was riding in a paceline, an activity wherein cyclists ride in a line one after the other in close quarters. This action serves to increase the efficiency of the ride as the riders draft off one another to counteract the wind resistance. At the front of the line was Long. Behind Long was Nelms. Richard Cox was third. Decedent was fourth, and Stacy Napier was at the back of the line. This was not a group of novices. Rather, these were seasoned cyclists riding expensive bicycles. Long and Decedent, friends since childhood and regular cycling companions, were in their 70s."


I am not a lawyer, but how is the expense of the bicycles relevant at all, and why would it be mentioned/considered pertinent?

I smell fish, sorry.
.

Does seasoned mean sweaty?

[kppolich]

Can someone cliff note this:

Final outcome?

Appeal?

[pasadena]

From skimming a few pages of the papers,

the deceased was quoted as saying he lay no blame on the others.
He became paralyzed due to the accident, and he and one of the guys being sued are lifelong friends.

They are/were in their 70s.

After his death, the wife is brought this lawsuit for whatever reasons.
I'm assuming the financial burden is quite high.

I feel terrible for the widow, what she had to go through when they should be enjoying their retirement, and the tragedy she has to endure.
As well, for everyone involved. It's a very sad situation.

[cadence90]

Does seasoned mean sweaty?

You'll have to ask an attorney that question, sorry.
.

[FlashUNC]

Just tragic proof the highest compliment you can pay anyone in a group ride isn't that they're fast, but that they're smooth and predictable.

[pjbaz]

Fascinating read.

[bikinchris]

When you ride in close quarters, the group has an understanding that what they are doing is dangerous. If someone gets hurt, you knew It was possible.

[Ken Robb]

TOTAL B S . If you ride in a paceline you accept whatever risk the other riders may create.

[cmg]

so if the widow wins and the other 4 are held responsible but don't have resources who pays? sometimes lawsuits are just stalling tactics to keep the hospital financial office at bay.

[cadence90]

I think the judgment should be as it was in that famous (fictional, iirc, book to film) UK case involving libel and "reputation":

"The Court finds in favor of the Plaintiff."

"The Court stipulates that the monetary amount in damages due the Plaintiff shall equal but not exceed One United States Dollar."
.
.

[m4rk540]

In the 90s or possibly early 2000s, a bike shop owner in LA was sued by a friend who crashed into the back of a car while in the peloton of a large group ride. The bike shop owner was believed to assume liability as many riders would start the ride at his shop. I don't recall all figures but the lawsuit amount may have been 2M. The owner was pressured to settle by his insurance companies for at least half a million. Story goes that the guy who sued continued to show up and do what had come to be thought of as the bike shop's ride.

[velotrack]

In the 90s or possibly early 2000s, a bike shop owner in LA was sued by a friend who crashed into the back of a car while in the peloton of a large group ride. The bike shop owner was believed to assume liability as many riders would start the ride at his shop. I don't recall all figures but the lawsuit amount may have been 2M. The owner was pressured to settle by his insurance companies for at least half a million. Story goes that the guy who sued continued to show up and do what had come to be thought of as the bike shop's ride.

that's messed up. jeez.

[Fivethumbs]

The cliff note version:

Some older guys were riding in a paceline and something happened that caused a crash. Whether it was because the lead rider slowed down unexpectedly or not is the subject of dispute. One rider went down and the rider following him hit him or his bike and crashed, hitting his head in the process. He died some time later from his injuries. The decedent's wife sued the lead riders who either caused the crash and/or crashed in front of him. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Generally speaking, summary judgment is supposed to be used in situations where there are no material facts in dispute and the undisputed facts support a decision in favor of the moving party as a matter of law. (In court, juries decide facts, judges decide law.) The trial court judge was convinced that because cycling in a paceline is an inherently dangerous activity, anyone who is injured participating in that activity has to bear some portion of fault (i.e. be found comparatively negligent). The trial court judge felt that any reasonable jury would find the decedent at least 50% at fault and ruled in favor of the defendants. Apparently in Tennessee if you are 50% or more at fault you are not entitled to recover damages. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision by basically saying, "We have no idea where the trial court judge got the notion that when you crash while riding in a paceline you are automatically 50% at fault." The appellate court also felt that there were material facts in dispute that should be decided by a jury. They sent the case back to the trial court to have the trial.

[pdmtong]

Just tragic proof the highest compliment you can pay anyone in a group ride isn't that they're fast, but that they're smooth and predictable.

I do not regularly train in a group or ride in close quarters. That said, there are only a handful of people I know and can trust to be predictable. almost everyone else I have been around is just not predictable uphill downhill or on the flats (once a guy ran into my DSCS and right heel once. really?) when riding close.

Riding in a PL with folks I do trust is a pleasure.

This lawsuit is sad...tragic accident but unfortunately, in this case, I think it's an accident.

[Peter P.]

Bob Mionske's book, Bicycling and the Law, has a chapter which explains well situations like this.

Group rides, as well as pacelines, are considered inherently risky activities and the participants assume risk.

This also holds true if some meathead on a group ride crashes a cyclist due to poor riding, resulting in broken bike parts. You can TRY to sue the meathead to pay for the broken parts but both parties share in the risk.

[oldpotatoe]

The cliff note version:

Some older guys were riding in a paceline and something happened that caused a crash. Whether it was because the lead rider slowed down unexpectedly or not is the subject of dispute. One rider went down and the rider following him hit him or his bike and crashed, hitting his head in the process. He died some time later from his injuries. The decedent's wife sued the lead riders who either caused the crash and/or crashed in front of him. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Generally speaking, summary judgment is supposed to be used in situations where there are no material facts in dispute and the undisputed facts support a decision in favor of the moving party as a matter of law. (In court, juries decide facts, judges decide law.) The trial court judge was convinced that because cycling in a paceline is an inherently dangerous activity, anyone who is injured participating in that activity has to bear some portion of fault (i.e. be found comparatively negligent). The trial court judge felt that any reasonable jury would find the decedent at least 50% at fault and ruled in favor of the defendants. Apparently in Tennessee if you are 50% or more at fault you are not entitled to recover damages. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision by basically saying, "We have no idea where the trial court judge got the notion that when you crash while riding in a paceline you are automatically 50% at fault." The appellate court also felt that there were material facts in dispute that should be decided by a jury. They sent the case back to the trial court to have the trial.

Thanks and yowser..I'll ride alone, thanks. I swerved to miss a wee dog once and hooked the guy behind me..he went down, he could have sued me..:eek:

[bikinchris]

In the 90s or possibly early 2000s, a bike shop owner in LA was sued by a friend who crashed into the back of a car while in the peloton of a large group ride. The bike shop owner was believed to assume liability as many riders would start the ride at his shop. I don't recall all figures but the lawsuit amount may have been 2M. The owner was pressured to settle by his insurance companies for at least half a million. Story goes that the guy who sued continued to show up and do what had come to be thought of as the bike shop's ride.

Dipping your hands into deep pockets is common. When I was district rep. For the USCF, I was deposed for 8 hours for a citizens race that wasn't even on my permit. A guy crashed into a bridge after being dropped and removing his helmet. His lawyers sued everyone they could possibly dip their hands into. There were 8 different organisations listed from bridge maker, parish (county to you) and police jury and every person they could blame for holding the race. Oh, yeah! The race organiser? He was the son of the guy who crashed.

Personally, I have dropped myself off of groups more often than been dropped because of The way people were riding. Not that I claim to be a strong rider. I just like my skin and bones.

[jamesdak]

Hence why I always ride alone.

[Nooch]

Thanks and yowser..I'll ride alone, thanks. I swerved to miss a wee dog once and hooked the guy behind me..he went down, he could have sued me..:eek:

Seriously, I was involved in a crash during an early morning, small-ring/high-cadence paceline ride a bunch of years back. Lead rider pulled off without indicating any hazards ahead, I went right into a bunch of tree 'parts' (bigger than sticks, smaller than branches, but somewhere in there) and went down, rider behind me rode over me and went down hard, concussion, punctured lung, the whole nine yards (he's a lawyer, to boot...)

But, we walk away friends -- because this is a sport of friendships and happenstance.. isht happens...

[mistermo]

"Decedent sharply applied his breaks and thereby caused his own misfortune." Amusing spelling error.

[Spaghetti Legs]

The admin assistant who typed this up must also sell bikes on Craigslist. It notes that one of the riders used his “breaks”.

@mistermo -beat me to it!

[AngryScientist]

messed up.

the guy who died probably was good friends with the ride leaders and would be horrified to know that they are being sued over this.

[Gsinill]

Sad event that triggered all this, even sadder were it ended up.

From a newspaper article:

"The widow of former Blount County Executive Bill Crisp is suing a bicycle rider in connection with the accident that left Crisp paralyzed from the chest down."
...
"Carolyn Crisp is seeking compensation for her husband’s medical bills, which the complaint states totaled $503,813.89.
The complaint says Carolyn Crisp is also seeking the $72,000 she spent making the couple’s home handicap-accessible."

Full circle back to the dreaded health care conversation.
Would have assumed though that in his former position working for the county, he should have had insurance?

Another one for the "Only in America" section, i.e. litigation craziness and HC, or rather lack thereof...

[glepore]

So, from a legal perspective there is a difference between "assumption of the risk" and "more than 50% comparative negligence". If you are engaging in an activity that is inherently dangerous and something goes wrong, you can't recover at all, regardless of whether you were negligent or not. That's assumption of the risk. It has been abolished as a legal doctrine in several states, including Tennessee. Thus, whether paceline riding is "inherently dangerous" is not even a concept open for discussion in this case.

The only issues then are a) were any of the other riders negligent, and b) whether Crisp was more than 50% responsible for his injuries. The trial court said yes he was as a matter of law, and the appellate court said no, this confuses assumption of the risk (no longer valid in Ten.) and reversed.

So, I would agree with Mionske et al that in a state that still allows the defense of assumption of the risk, yes, pacelining is inherently dangerous. In a comparative fault state where the doctrine is abolished, it is almost always a jury question with the caveat that you'd have to have some evidence of someone doing something wrong-an accident occurring isn't itself enough to get you to a jury.

As to the "moral" aspect of this, some insight-Crisp was rendered quadraplegic and lived for 6 months. His share of the hospital and health care expenses could easily have been a few hundred thousand dollars. In most states, there is a little known legal provision that renders a spouse or a surviving spouse responsible for "necessary" expenses of their spouse. Thus, Mrs. Crisp likely was on the hook for all of the copays etc, and while sometimes a hospital will write this off, they don't usually where there is equity in a house or savings. She may have not seen any option other than to pursue the other cyclists homeowners coverage. I sincerely doubt this was anything other than that, given that the responsible party and the decedent were lifelong friends. It is possible that its a widow unable to deal with her grief, but I doubt that.

Is this right? No, but its one other consequence of our inability to deal with our health care system.

I write this from the perspective of a 30 year cyclist, a 25 year litigator, and someone who helps out at a Bikelaw practice in Philly.

As an aside, while I agree with comments upthread about being careful who you ride with, wheels do touch and its not always someones "fault".

[oldpotatoe]

Long and Decedent, friends since childhood and regular cycling companions, were in their 70s."

Medicare? Why the big $ medical expenses that were on the wife??

[cmg]

Sad event that triggered all this, even sadder were it ended up.

From a newspaper article:

"The widow of former Blount County Executive Bill Crisp is suing a bicycle rider in connection with the accident that left Crisp paralyzed from the chest down."
...
"Carolyn Crisp is seeking compensation for her husband’s medical bills, which the complaint states totaled $503,813.89.
The complaint says Carolyn Crisp is also seeking the $72,000 she spent making the couple’s home handicap-accessible."

Full circle back to the dreaded health care conversation.
Would have assumed though that in his former position working for the county, he should have had insurance?

Another one for the "Only in America" section, i.e. litigation craziness and HC, or rather lack thereof...

The health insurance may have only helped with medical costs but not the costs to making the couple’s home handicap-accessible. sometimes law suites are away of keeping the bill collector's away.

[MattTuck]

When I first saw this thread, I thought the forum was being sued. Glad that is not the case.

Thanks to the attorneys on here to help explain this.

[sailorboy]

So how is it that this person can sue other riders on a recreational ride, yet I can't sue other racers if I crash in a race, because I signed a waiver?

Doesn't make sense. They're both inherently dangerous activities. The risk should be assumed.

[glepore]

Medicare? Why the big $ medical expenses that were on the wife??
Yes, probably had Medicare. May or may not have had a supplement. With these type of injuries, the copays and uncovered expenses add quickly, and just keeping up with the billing could overwhelm an older widow.

I had a quadriplegia scare in 2010. C4/5 spinal cord contusion/lesion as the result of a m/c accident. I am extremely fortunate in that I mostly recovered, in part I suspect due to my ability to deal with the p/t because of my preinjury fitness. However, before I did, we had started to price out accessibility stuff, and yes, it would easily have been 50-75k potentially uncovered.

[oldpotatoe]

So how is it that this person can sue other riders on a recreational ride, yet I can't sue other racers if I crash in a race, because I signed a waiver?

Doesn't make sense. They're both inherently dangerous activities. The risk should be assumed.

You CAN sue and as is often the case, 'settling' is cheaper than going to court..even if you did sign a 'waiver'...Basically, and I'm not a lawyer, you can sue anybody for any reason at any time..I could sue you because being called sailorboy upsets me because I was in the Navy and had an unhappy time...type thing(not gonna sue you)..:)

[redir]

Didn't read the whole document nor the comments but I think they would have a hard time winning that case here in Virginia. In Virginia a bicycle is treated the same as a automobile and in probably 99.9% of traffic accident cases if you hit someone from behind it's your fault.

[berserk87]

Personally, I have dropped myself off of groups more often than been dropped because of The way people were riding. Not that I claim to be a strong rider. I just like my skin and bones.

Sadly Chris, I have taken to doing this myself a lot more lately. I get where you are coming from.

[RFC]

The cliff note version:

Some older guys were riding in a paceline and something happened that caused a crash. Whether it was because the lead rider slowed down unexpectedly or not is the subject of dispute. One rider went down and the rider following him hit him or his bike and crashed, hitting his head in the process. He died some time later from his injuries. The decedent's wife sued the lead riders who either caused the crash and/or crashed in front of him. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Generally speaking, summary judgment is supposed to be used in situations where there are no material facts in dispute and the undisputed facts support a decision in favor of the moving party as a matter of law. (In court, juries decide facts, judges decide law.) The trial court judge was convinced that because cycling in a paceline is an inherently dangerous activity, anyone who is injured participating in that activity has to bear some portion of fault (i.e. be found comparatively negligent). The trial court judge felt that any reasonable jury would find the decedent at least 50% at fault and ruled in favor of the defendants. Apparently in Tennessee if you are 50% or more at fault you are not entitled to recover damages. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision by basically saying, "We have no idea where the trial court judge got the notion that when you crash while riding in a paceline you are automatically 50% at fault." The appellate court also felt that there were material facts in dispute that should be decided by a jury. They sent the case back to the trial court to have the trial.

Good plain language summary. I have written a few appellate opinions, so I can say with authority that the Court of Appeals is telling the trial judge that he just didn't understand the law. And I agree.

[taz-t]

So, from a legal perspective there is a difference between "assumption of the risk" and "more than 50% comparative negligence". If you are engaging in an activity that is inherently dangerous and something goes wrong, you can't recover at all, regardless of whether you were negligent or not. That's assumption of the risk. It has been abolished as a legal doctrine in several states, including Tennessee. Thus, whether paceline riding is "inherently dangerous" is not even a concept open for discussion in this case.

The only issues then are a) were any of the other riders negligent, and b) whether Crisp was more than 50% responsible for his injuries. The trial court said yes he was as a matter of law, and the appellate court said no, this confuses assumption of the risk (no longer valid in Ten.) and reversed.

So, I would agree with Mionske et al that in a state that still allows the defense of assumption of the risk, yes, pacelining is inherently dangerous. In a comparative fault state where the doctrine is abolished, it is almost always a jury question with the caveat that you'd have to have some evidence of someone doing something wrong-an accident occurring isn't itself enough to get you to a jury.



What do you think of the appeal court logic that because there were more than two riders, then the decedent could not be 50% responsible? IE, following the courts logic, if 10 riders were in the paceline the decedent would only be 10% responsible.

If I'm reading that correctly, it makes no sense to me... two riders together that crashed would bar recovery (50% rule) but three or more riders that crashed would open recovery to an injured party. I think the appeals court was mistaken in how they determine the entities involved.

IMO opinion the group/paceline should have been one 'entity' and the decedent the other entity - which reflects the nature of a group ride - the group is amorphous and changing and a rider participates and reacts to the group, with the individual riders that are acting on him changing at any given point in time.

That determination would have to be argued for by the defense I suppose, but I think it more accurately reflects what occurs.

Another argument would be that each rider is 50% responsible in any incident with any other single rider, regardless of whether they were riding in a group of two or ten, twenty, etc. Although multiple riders may become involved, the proximate cause of the contact/injury involved two parties.

The scenario described in an earlier post (leading rider avoids a hazard at the last moment and fails to alert the following riders) really scares me from a liability standpoint if that rider is considered 'neglegent'. How many times have you (any cyclist) been on the rivet and barely holding yourself together at some point in a group ride/paceline?

EDIT - I suppose a 'reasonable person' standard would be used to mitigate the leading rider's responsibility (fact issue).

- t

[zap]

So how is it that this person can sue other riders on a recreational ride, yet I can't sue other racers if I crash in a race, because I signed a waiver?

Doesn't make sense. They're both inherently dangerous activities. The risk should be assumed.

Waivers mean nothing. Event organizers (all participants signed waivers) have been sued and lost. My bicycle club ( I was chair years later) in metro D.C. and a triathlon organizer in NoVA come to mind.

I have friends who stopped leading club rides long ago due to legal concerns.

Assume nothing.

[ultraman6970]

Group rides in a country where you can be sued for anything are a problem. Thats why you have to go in no more than 4 rider's groups. Feel sorry for the wife tho... I believe they should set a donations account for her and see how the stuff ends, will be faster go straight forward and clean about the intentions in that way you know.

The other issue is that many group rides have inexperienced riders which are or young or people that have been riding for centuries and have no idea how to even ride in the street, which in general cases are the most dangerous ones to ride with because their riding common sense is not (and never be) acute at all.

[pjbaz]

So how is it that this person can sue other riders on a recreational ride, yet I can't sue other racers if I crash in a race, because I signed a waiver?

Doesn't make sense. They're both inherently dangerous activities. The risk should be assumed.

My LBS has mandatory waivers for group rides that must be signed annually. They use a colored wrist band (affixed on your bike somewhere) to know if you've signed, etc. It's a smart move on their part but I'm fairly certain doesn't stop anyone from actually suing them.

[glepore]

@ taz-that logic is ridiculous, the math shouldn't work that way. The I look at it, for whatever that's worth, is that you compare the plaintiff's negligence to all of the the negligence (whether there's 1 defendant or 100) and if his doesn't exceed 50% he recovers.

Waivers? They can work. But they don't prevent a suit, as noted by spud. Defense attorneys cost money. Either yours or your insurers.

[benb]

Since we've got lawyers here... can anyone answer the following questions relevant to protecting ourselves or our spouses from this kind of thing?

I'm not 70... not even close, I don't know if I'd be in 22mph pace lines at that age as I'm already leery of a lot of group rides. Must have been fast fast fast guys or a descent or something, you'd think if they were that fast at 70 they'd all be rock solid group riders.

So first off... I have life insurance that is quite a bit more than the total dollar figures quoted in this case. But my current policy will be expired by the time I'm 70... IIRC it was set up that way as we'd hope to be retired and self insured by that time.

If you were to take out some kind of liability insurance/umbrella policy to cover this kind of thing, what would be the right type of way to go about that?

And finally what are the states that this is an issue due to the way they've removed "inherently dangerous activities" in a way that encourages this kind of litigation?

I think we'd be good anyway, depending on how our insurance would be setup... our retirement savings is such to already cover this kind of thing, and at 70 if we were retired and this was to happen to one of us we'd unfortunately be at one less person to support in retirement so the money would go 2x as far.

Talk about an unfortunate situation if they were all good friends, and even more so if they were all friends as couples too.

This is a funny thing with riding as I think most of us assume (correctly) that if you are the trailing rider and you hit the rider in front of you most of the time it's your fault, particularly if the rider didn't really slow down or anything. I've had 2X where people drafting me hit my rear wheel by half wheeling me. In both cases they crashed and I did not, in neither case did I do anything like hit the brakes or even stop pedaling, though it's been a long time, IIRC uphills were involved in both cases. One was in a race.

Also too bad some factors of group riding seem to inherently encourage the kind of bad behavior that can cause accidents like this, even if these guys were not behaving badly. Running stop signs saves watts, easy for someone to see red and start thinking they can get an advantage by doing so, or speed up the entire pace of the ride if they're obsessed with average speed.

[glepore]

Ben-lets not confuse types of insurance. Your life insurance covers your death and is payable to the named beneficiary. Liability/umbrella liability covers your responsibility to third parties, not payable to you or a beneficiary.

Insurance professionals should chime in, but you can buy accidental death insurance at rates much less than "life" as they don't cover death from disease. These are a fixed benefit.

The bigger question is what if you're injured but not dead? That's where the bills pile up for medical care. A good long term care policy is worth looking at, but its not cheap. Good health insurance as well, either a really good Medicare supplement or purchase a all in one Medicare advantage plan that provides a single health insurance policy but is partially funded by your Medicare benefit.

If you have homeowners coverage you have liability coverage for your responsibility for another's injury, almost certainly. An umbrella policy adds coverage for liability of any nature, whether auto related (homeowners excludes this) or general liability. You can generally purchase 1 mil of this sort of coverage affordably if you're not a known risk.

Just for clarity's sake, I no longer actually practice law, just have a lifetime's experience.


As to the stop sign thing, don't get me started. Groups where the leaders roll through a stop without regard to the 20 guys behind are my pet peeve.

[William]

I was fortunate that early in my Collegiate racing career we had a number of very accomplished riders on our team and others in the area that would train with us so I learned quickly safe paceline riding and ettiequte. Riding in close proximity at speed over changing terrain with frequently possible road debris and deteriorated road ways is inherently dangerous and you have to trust those around you. In racing situations with riders from numerous other teams you also have to access the riding skills of others and adjust accordingly. That said, stuff can and will happen...its just a matter of time. It even happens to the pros often enough so again, paceline riding can be a possibly dangerous activity that you know going into it.

I get that the widow probably feels she has no other option to cover bills, but her husband chose to participate in cycling and ride in close proximity with others, he knew the risks. To me this is just another example of an overly litigious society slowly killing off activities many humans choose to participate in.Sure, there are times when it might be warranted, but I just don't see choosing to ride in a paceline as being one of them.

YMMV.







William

[sailorboy]

You CAN sue and as is often the case, 'settling' is cheaper than going to court..even if you did sign a 'waiver'...Basically, and I'm not a lawyer, you can sue anybody for any reason at any time..I could sue you because being called sailorboy upsets me because I was in the Navy and had an unhappy time...type thing(not gonna sue you)..:)

Waivers mean nothing. Event organizers (all participants signed waivers) have been sued and lost. My bicycle club ( I was chair years later) in metro D.C. and a triathlon organizer in NoVA come to mind.

I have friends who stopped leading club rides long ago due to legal concerns.

Assume nothing.

Yea, this was kind of the point I was making...attorneys I've known have said that these broad event waivers mean very little in terms of preventing cases from being brought. As sad and tragic as her loss is, this woman can't be allowed to set a legal precedent that recreational riding with your buds can get you sued if someone falls off their bike.

[Mark McM]

I get that the widow probably feels she has no other option to cover bills, but her husband chose to participate in cycling and ride in close proximity with others, he knew the risks. To me this is just another example of an overly litigious society slowly killing off activities many humans choose to participate in.Sure, there are times when it might be warranted, but I just don't see choosing to ride in a paceline as being one of them.

It might also depend on who's on the hook for the medical bills. If the decedent had private medical insurance, then it's possible that the insurance company is behind the law suit, to recover its costs through subrogation. Although the widow is the named plaintiff, there may be a contractual agreement between her and the insurance company that requires her to attempt to recover costs.

[HenryA]

The summary and cliff notes posts above are good explainers.

As mentioned, an umbrella policy is one way to protect yourself against unforeseen liability from a situation such as being discussed. Having medical insurance with high enough limits is a great idea if you can afford it and it is available to you. The cost of a catastrophic accident can be absolutely mind boggling.

On the percentage of fault issue, it is assumed that the total fault is 100%. That 100% is spread over all the parties found liable in proportion to their part in the wrong done and those parts must add up to 100% total. The version of this used in Tennessee is “modified comparative fault”. If the plaintiff’s negligence is less than the defendant’s, plaintiff may recover but the amount will be reduced based on plaintiff’s own portion of the total fault.

Waivers are enforceable in some states and less so in others. Consult a lawyer who practices in your state for an opinion as to the situation in your state. Yes, you can still be sued even with a ironclad waiver in a state that generally upholds waivers. But with a waiver in that situation, you have a good chance of defending yourself, which is vastly better than not having one. A smart and ethical Plaintiff’s lawyer may not bring suit when they realize they have a loser on their hands.

Finally, I posted everything I wrote here in this thread as social discussion relating to bicycling and nothing more. I hope the discussion helps people make good decisions about safe riding. Nothing I have posted here should be taken as legal advice. For legal advice, consult a competent lawyer in the your state.

[campy man]

In the 90s or possibly early 2000s, a bike shop owner in LA was sued by a friend who crashed into the back of a car while in the peloton of a large group ride. The bike shop owner was believed to assume liability as many riders would start the ride at his shop. I don't recall all figures but the lawsuit amount may have been 2M. The owner was pressured to settle by his insurance companies for at least half a million. Story goes that the guy who sued continued to show up and do what had come to be thought of as the bike shop's ride.

Remember that ... bike shop owner and guy who crashed were buddies. Low down was bike shop owner admitted liability for a kickback from his friend that crashed. Rider that crashed and sued did return to be a regular on the ride while bike shop owner disappeared.

I remember plenty of crashes on that ride. Lots of arguments and an occasional shoving match but that was the only case of a rider suing another rider. :no:

[cinco]

Bob Mionske's book, Bicycling and the Law, has a chapter which explains well situations like this.

Group rides, as well as pacelines, are considered inherently risky activities and the participants assume risk.

This also holds true if some meathead on a group ride crashes a cyclist due to poor riding, resulting in broken bike parts. You can TRY to sue the meathead to pay for the broken parts but both parties share in the risk.

This should get to the defendant's legal team. The "expert" the plaintiff got to testify said some very questionable stuff. I'd think that Mionske's book would have considerable "expert" clout.

Sad to think that these folks were friends. And to do this to your friends for a payday, even if you desperately need the $, is just, well, sad.

Andy in Houston

[Fivethumbs]

Here's some food for thought:

I am riding in a paceline and the guy in front of me takes one hand off the bar to take a drink from his water bottle, hits a bump and goes down. Did I assume that risk? Bikes come with water bottle mounts right? So maybe I did assume that risk.

What if the same guy takes his hand off the bar to answer his cell phone and goes down? Did I assume that risk?

I believe that injuries suffered while participating in inherently dangerous activities still require an analysis of whether the participant(s) were behaving as reasonably prudent persons would under the same circumstances.

[m4rk540]

Remember that ... bike shop owner and guy who crashed were buddies. Low down was bike shop owner admitted liability for a kickback from his friend that crashed. Rider that crashed and sued did return to be a regular on the ride while bike shop owner disappeared.

I remember plenty of crashes on that ride. Lots of arguments and an occasional shoving match but that was the only case of a rider suing another rider. :no:

There may be other Montrose ride lawsuits. Last year, on what used to be the off-season, tempo ride, a rider swerved at 25mph to avoid a large pothole. He lost control or slid out. His head may have slammed against the curb and he succumbed to his injuries. First death in the ride's history. Sad.

And that's an interesting theory about the kickback. It would explain some unconventional business practices. It's often wondered how that bike shop, "the largest in the...Valley" can operate with only one owner/employee. However, the owner must be a great actor because on my one field trip there he became infuriated when the friend was mentioned. That conversation flowed into the In N Out Lawsuit convo, but that's for another thread.

[bigbill]

In 2002 in VA Beach, there was a big crash in a paceline on a large group ride. One person got busted up pretty good and had to leave in an ambulance. The police were there because of the ambulance and took some statements. The cause was a sweeping turn and loose grain (ride was through farm fields) on the road caused a rider's front slide out. Several of us were contacted by attorneys but nothing came of it. For me, I broke two spokes in the front wheel from a collision with a guy's rear derailleur but I landed in the grass.

We all assumed the risk, and road conditions are part of the risk, even if something spilled out of a truck. And the amount on the road would not have affected a car.

[glepore]

It might also depend on who's on the hook for the medical bills. If the decedent had private medical insurance, then it's possible that the insurance company is behind the law suit, to recover its costs through subrogation. Although the widow is the named plaintiff, there may be a contractual agreement between her and the insurance company that requires her to attempt to recover costs.

Yes, the subrogation angle as well, although usually insurers don't force subrogation, just sweep in to take the money, less the attorney's fee, if a suit is brought privately.

[benb]

My questions about insurance were not really about the insurance paying a 3rd party just if there was a death the life insurance would provide money to shield against say a $500k judgement being a life changing event.

Yah the long term medical care without a death is way more scary.

[djg21]

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/carolyn_crisp_v._michael_nelms_et_al..pdf

Please keep in mind that a rider’s death is the cause of the action and that the plaintiff (surviving spouse) and defendants are still with us. Be respectful of them in your comments.

To save you from wondering why this lawsuit happened it is most likely connected to the existence of one or more insurance policies.

Discuss.

Just to be clear, the matter has been remanded for trial. This is not a final disposition. This likely will be settled and never see a courtroom.

I’m surprised there was no discussion of assumption of risk. In my state, there is a well-settled body of law holding that when you engage in sports you assume a certain risk of injury, and short of intentional assault or gross negligence of another participant, you aren’t going to have a viable claim against the participant for causing you injury. This would seem applicable when you engage in bicycle racing or group cycling activities. **** happens, and if you ride and race enough, you are going to have someone do something stupid that puts you on the ground. It comes with the territory.

[shinomaster]

TOTAL B S . If you ride in a paceline you accept whatever risk the other riders may create.

Agreed.

[shinomaster]

Here's some food for thought:

I am riding in a paceline and the guy in front of me takes one hand off the bar to take a drink from his water bottle, hits a bump and goes down. Did I assume that risk? Bikes come with water bottle mounts right? So maybe I did assume that risk.

What if the same guy takes his hand off the bar to answer his cell phone and goes down? Did I assume that risk?

I believe that injuries suffered while participating in inherently dangerous activities still require an analysis of whether the participant(s) were behaving as reasonably prudent persons would under the same circumstances.

You can peel off at any time if people in a group are being stupid. It's your choice. It's not worth the risk imho.

[AngryScientist]

Just tragic proof the highest compliment you can pay anyone in a group ride isn't that they're fast, but that they're smooth and predictable.

precisely correct, and i dont think it's fair to hold a non-professional cyclist financially responsible for a crash if he or she is not.

[Mr. Pink]

I ride, and drink, alone.

[shinomaster]

Group riding, and especially road racing, is inherently dangerous. Accidents are always going to happen even to really experienced cyclists with expensive bicycles. I mean, if the pro's crash regularly, how are a bunch of cat 3's or Freds going to stay upright? Do you sue the guy who didn't see a pothole? ( I hit a pothole in a fast paceline once and flatted but didn't crash)

[pdmtong]

Here's some food for thought:

I am riding in a paceline and the guy in front of me takes one hand off the bar to take a drink from his water bottle, hits a bump and goes down. Did I assume that risk? Bikes come with water bottle mounts right? So maybe I did assume that risk.

What if the same guy takes his hand off the bar to answer his cell phone and goes down? Did I assume that risk?

I believe that injuries suffered while participating in inherently dangerous activities still require an analysis of whether the participant(s) were behaving as reasonably prudent persons would under the same circumstances.


If you choose to ride in close proximity with others I believe yes you do assume responsibility for the risk of their behaviors. It doesn't matter if they are behaving prudently or not. You are the one that put yourself in their company. No one is forcing you to be in that group - it's your decision alone

[Fivethumbs]

You can peel off at any time if people in a group are being stupid. It's your choice. It's not worth the risk imho.

I agree. A plaintiff cannot knowingly insert himself into a dangerous situation and then complain when he is injured. I should have included facts indicating the rider following the one on the cell phone did not realize it until it was too late.

If you choose to ride in close proximity with others I believe yes you do assume responsibility for the risk of their behaviors. It doesn't matter if they are behaving prudently or not. You are the one that put yourself in their company. No one is forcing you to be in that group - it's your decision alone

It is true the general rule for participants who engage in an inherently dangerous activity is that they do not have a duty of care to one another. When you engage in the activity you assume those inherent risks. The point I was trying to make was there is an exception if one of the participants unreasonably increases the risks over and above the risks that are inherent in the activity. As someone stated earlier, this usually arises with an intentional act or gross negligence. Those are risks that were not assumed. If that causes injury the person causing the injury may be held liable. Often there will be other facts and issues involved; however, participating in an inherently dangerous activity does not give the other participants carte blanche to do whatever they want.

[zzy]

.

[glepore]

Just to be clear, the matter has been remanded for trial. This is not a final disposition. This likely will be settled and never see a courtroom.

I’m surprised there was no discussion of assumption of risk. In my state, there is a well-settled body of law holding that when you engage in sports you assume a certain risk of injury, and short of intentional assault or gross negligence of another participant, you aren’t going to have a viable claim against the participant for causing you injury. This would seem applicable when you engage in bicycle racing or group cycling activities. **** happens, and if you ride and race enough, you are going to have someone do something stupid that puts you on the ground. It comes with the territory.

Your state is in a shrinking minority. See discussions midthread.

[froze]

This is a situation where in America no one is responsible for their own actions, it's always someone else's fault. Riding a bike in a paceline is risky, but so bad that people all the time die from doing so? in fact a major disability or death is rarer in a paceline then being hit by lightning!

I remember when they had to put safety things on the cords of venetian blinds because supposedly hundreds of children died from hanging themselves with the cords to the tune of about 300 over the course of 25 years. Well they addressed that issue but kept out of public news that there were more babies being hurt and killed by the TV falling on them than the venetian cords were doing. How many more were killed by TV's over venetian blinds? remember what I wrote about 300 deaths over 25 years for blinds, well 349 were killed in a 11 year span! But there has been no outcry to prevent TV's from falling. I wonder why?

So this bike situation is taking a rare event and blowing if far out of proportion as lawyers will do.

[bicycletricycle]

This makes me really angry and frustrated

[ripvanrando]

Now I understand why some clubs make you sign a waiver for each and every ride. Lawyers. :)

[TonyG]

Here's some food for thought:

I am riding in a paceline and the guy in front of me takes one hand off the bar to take a drink from his water bottle, hits a bump and goes down. Did I assume that risk? Bikes come with water bottle mounts right? So maybe I did assume that risk.

What if the same guy takes his hand off the bar to answer his cell phone and goes down? Did I assume that risk?

I believe that injuries suffered while participating in inherently dangerous activities still require an analysis of whether the participant(s) were behaving as reasonably prudent persons would under the same circumstances.

If you choose to ride in close proximity with others I believe yes you do assume responsibility for the risk of their behaviors. It doesn't matter if they are behaving prudently or not. You are the one that put yourself in their company. No one is forcing you to be in that group - it's your decision alone

I think the point made by fivethumbs is that there is eventually some threshold where a rider in a group can do something so negligent that they would have liability for an accident. And I believe that is correct.

[zross312]

I'm not a lawyer, but I can only see true, legal negligence occurring if another rider knew in advance that they could compromise your safety - for example, by riding when they knew they were sick, or with equipment they knew was faulty, like a cracked frame. So for me, the distinction has to be advance knowledge that they could pose a safety hazard, and disregarding that knowledge, leading to another rider being injured. I just can't see how a rider can be considered criminally negligent in any other context.

I think the point made by fivethumbs is that there is eventually some threshold where a rider in a group can do something so negligent that they would have liability for an accident. And I believe that is correct.

[pdmtong]

I agree. A plaintiff cannot knowingly insert himself into a dangerous situation and then complain when he is injured. I should have included facts indicating the rider following the one on the cell phone did not realize it until it was too late.

It is true the general rule for participants who engage in an inherently dangerous activity is that they do not have a duty of care to one another. When you engage in the activity you assume those inherent risks. The point I was trying to make was there is an exception if one of the participants unreasonably increases the risks over and above the risks that are inherent in the activity. As someone stated earlier, this usually arises with an intentional act or gross negligence. Those are risks that were not assumed. If that causes injury the person causing the injury may be held liable. Often there will be other facts and issues involved; however, participating in an inherently dangerous activity does not give the other participants carte blanche to do whatever they want.


Good discussion and agree with your extended point.

[pdmtong]

I think the point made by fivethumbs is that there is eventually some threshold where a rider in a group can do something so negligent that they would have liability for an accident. And I believe that is correct.


Yes agreed. I see that with his follow up post

[sailorboy]

I'm not a lawyer, but I can only see true, legal negligence occurring if another rider knew in advance that they could compromise your safety - for example, by riding when they knew they were sick, or with equipment they knew was faulty, like a cracked frame. So for me, the distinction has to be advance knowledge that they could pose a safety hazard, and disregarding that knowledge, leading to another rider being injured. I just can't see how a rider can be considered criminally negligent in any other context.

Right. In other words, accidents happen! But hey, where there's a buck to be made....

[fignon's barber]

Tragic story. As I read it, I couldn't help but look at the scars on my elbows and knees from decades of riding/ racing and feel thankful.

[froze]

I'm not a lawyer, but I can only see true, legal negligence occurring if another rider knew in advance that they could compromise your safety - for example, by riding when they knew they were sick, or with equipment they knew was faulty, like a cracked frame. So for me, the distinction has to be advance knowledge that they could pose a safety hazard, and disregarding that knowledge, leading to another rider being injured. I just can't see how a rider can be considered criminally negligent in any other context.

I agree with you as well, but then one has to think to is why would you be racing with some sort of faulty equipment that could place a hazard upon your own life? or being sick when your performance will be way off anyways. Sure I get there are stupid people! But the sick part is confusing because like I said a sick person would be way off the race pace anyways, and a mild cold that doesn't hinder performance wouldn't be important enough to call it a safety hazard, so the illness would have to be pretty serious which means that the person would be trailing far behind everyone else and not someone you would want to follow a pace line with.

But this is why riders sign waivers (back in the day when I raced we never even signed waivers!) in case someone, or you, or road conditions, etc, causes an accident you can't sue the race event people, you can't sue the city, county or state for road conditions, and you can't sue any rider, the risk is entirely on you. The guy in this example was following too close in order to draft had to, this crap happens in auto racing too, they get to close and they'll either tap bumpers or crash and sometimes severely, even if the lead car had to brake suddenly causing the rear guy to smash into then it's still considered an accident,
and thus it is with bike racing. So even if the leader braked it still isn't a sueable event.

But I have pretty good feeling that if Mr Crisp could speak from the grave he would tell his wife that he knew the risks when he got into racing, and to please not sue, things happen and unfortunately the worst possible thing happened, but that is the nature of any type of racing that anything is possible, and in amature racing the chance of a crash is far greater since the riders don't really know what they're doing yet, even pro racers have accidents and sometimes they die too, it was a risk he was willing to take because he enjoyed the sport. So let him go, he enjoyed what he did that if he could do all over again he would still race; and I know because I use to race, it was, and still is, in my blood from the time I was a little kid everything I touched I had to see how fast I could go in it, from my little push toys, to racing go karts, to cars, then bicycles, and I knew there was always a chance something could go really wrong and die as a result but it was in my blood, and it was in his blood too.

If that lawsuit goes through and declared valid and the person wins this will set a bad precedent for bike racing and we could see a major fall off in the sport in America. No race team, no event organizers, no fellow racer wants to have to worry about lawsuits because of a crash, no one wants to spend money on liability insurance because that will raise the cost of each participant by a lot (assuming you can even get insurance for an event like that), so they just simply won't hold the events anymore, and bicycle racing in America will come to screeching halt.

[glepore]

This has drifted a bit - this wasn't a club or a race, just 4 friends out riding, no waivers etc involved.

Mr. Crisp has already spoken, and he agrees with Froze. Mrs. Crisp is left behind trying to figure out her life. The conundrum here is this is a non cyclist plaintiff.

I was once called as a witness in a small claims case. Group ride, rider A is riding one handed for whatever reason, gesturing or something, and hits a hole, forcing rider B off the road. Rider B isn't even hurt, but wants his precious Spectrum fixed. Rider A refused to help. Judge agreed with the trial judge in this case. Me, I thought they were both idiots, B for suing and A for knowing he should have been more attentive and not helping B out volutarily.

[HenryA]

No, not really. (In response to froze who expressed fears that this could ruin bike racing)

A classic illustration might be of boxers in a boxing match. Outside the ring striking another would be considered a crime and a tort. (potentially leading to either action by the state or by the agrieved individual - criminal or civil charges) In the ring, its not. Its what they “signed up” for. Now if one of the boxers produced a knife from his trunks and stabbed the other fellow during the match, we’re back to crime and tort for the stabbing.

So, organized competitive events likely wouldn’t be affected by the outcome of this case we are talking about. But a particular act, such as sticking your pump into another racer’s wheel goes past what anyone could expect to happen within the realm of the event they signed up for.

For the legal reader, this case is simply about whether there was something for a jury to decide instread of dismissal by the trial judge. The Court of Appeals said it was for the jury and sent the case back to the trial court.

I couldn’t help but post this to hear what everyone thought about the facts of the dispute and how those facts might fit into Paceliner’s everyday assumptions about riding activities. These things are worth thinking about.

[Burnette]

I see this in the same vein as other cyclist's death threads in that I ask myself what I would have done in that certain situation, for whatever happens after I die is for others to fight about.

Since 2006 I have ridden in countless charity rides, shop rides and informal group rides. The majority of my rides have always been solo, the shop rides and informal rides were good for form and fun. I still prefer solo and now that makes up almost all of my riding.

For reference, I live in rolling hills where downhill speeds are around 25/30mph with a few that can get up to over 40mph.

Anything can happen with even seasoned riders riding together, but for me I think I'm done pace lining with strangers for sure and will only ride with people I know. Bad things can still happen.

Which brings me to this thread. For anyone who has done pace line riding long enough you have had your close calls if not crashes. A car can take us out, we could make a mistake ourselves and take us out, the risks are known. Sadly courts will work out what happens when it all goes wrong when you or a friend makes a mistake that costs a life.

This only reinforces my already growing inclination to ride alone. It's bad enough to leave your family in death, to leave them having to fight a court battle with a chance of losing everything you spent lifetime saving is too much to ask of them.

[HenryA]

This has drifted a bit - this wasn't a club or a race, just 4 friends out riding, no waivers etc involved.

Mr. Crisp has already spoken, and he agrees with Froze. Mrs. Crisp is left behind trying to figure out her life. The conundrum here is this is a non cyclist plaintiff.

I was once called as a witness in a small claims case. Group ride, rider A is riding one handed for whatever reason, gesturing or something, and hits a hole, forcing rider B off the road. Rider B isn't even hurt, but wants his precious Spectrum fixed. Rider A refused to help. Judge agreed with the trial judge in this case. Me, I thought they were both idiots, B for suing and A for knowing he should have been more attentive and not helping B out volutarily.


Yes.

And there, it would have been relatively easy to help pay for the other guys bike. Here, the numbers are big. It could be that the widow’s entire life savings were wiped out. It could also be one insurance company trying to soften the hit to itself. In any event when the numbers get big and someone is hurt badly this is where it can go.

There can be no doubt that there is real, serious hurt here. I am sure that all involved would have chosen some other outcome.

[unterhausen]

The problem of legally interested parties not being on board with agreements not to sue each other is a real problem. It's one reason to have a healthy amount of umbrella insurance, and not engage in activities where people could get hurt.

It's too bad most riders never learn to paceline. Even in a good paceline, you have to be ready to save yourself. If the injured rider in this case had been looking past the guy who slowed down, he probably would have known it was about to happen. And of course, the person in front has a huge responsibility not to put himself in a position to slam on the brakes if at all possible. But from what I see, this collective knowledge has been lost. I can't tell you the number of people I ride with that don't know how to stand up in a paceline. Wonder how many people go down every year from that aspect alone.

[Mark McM]

The problem of legally interested parties not being on board with agreements not to sue each other is a real problem. It's one reason to have a healthy amount of umbrella insurance, and not engage in activities where people could get hurt.

Yeah, but ...

Yes, generally person has the legal power to waive their own rights to pursue damages when they engage in a dangerous activity. But a widow or surviving children can also suffer damages if someone is injured or dies due to their engagement in the dangerous activity. Does an individual have the right to waive the rights of others?

[glepore]

Yes. If the participant had in place a legally valid release, it bars recovery by the survivors. In any situation that comes immediately to mind.

[Mark McM]

Yes. If the participant had in place a legally valid release, it bars recovery by the survivors. In any situation that comes immediately to mind.

That's certainly one legal opinion - but it hasn't stopped survivors from suing (and sometimes winning).

[Bob Ross]

Just tragic proof the highest compliment you can pay anyone in a group ride isn't that they're fast, but that they're smooth and predictable.

I embrace that whole-heartedly, but I wish it didn't require an obituary to get the message across.

[kevinvc]

I don't like riding pacelines. I started cycling late in life and haven't developed the skills and bike control to do it confidently. When I'm out with a select group of friends I'll do it, but I always leave more of a gap with the rider ahead of me than is normal. My friends do the same behind me. They're good at giving me pointers and helping me improve, but I'm not all the way there yet. If the conditions are bad, e.g. lots of debris on the road, extreme fatigue, etc., I'll peel off.

Honestly, I'm finding that I enjoy riding for the activity and the views much more than speed and performance improvement. I generally prefer to ride alone or, if with others, not in a paceline.

I've never understood people who form pacelines on big event rides. I've done a lot of charity centuries and there are always folks who form packs and hammer down. I personally think it's irresponsible and dangerous to themselves and others. These events are races and attract a lot of riders with very little experience or knowledge of road etiquette. That's the nature of the events.

[echappist]

I don't like riding pacelines. I started cycling late in life and haven't developed the skills and bike control to do it confidently. When I'm out with a select group of friends I'll do it, but I always leave more of a gap with the rider ahead of me than is normal. My friends do the same behind me. They're good at giving me pointers and helping me improve, but I'm not all the way there yet. If the conditions are bad, e.g. lots of debris on the road, extreme fatigue, etc., I'll peel off.

Honestly, I'm finding that I enjoy riding for the activity and the views much more than speed and performance improvement. I generally prefer to ride alone or, if with others, not in a paceline.

I've never understood people who form pacelines on big event rides. I've done a lot of charity centuries and there are always folks who form packs and hammer down. I personally think it's irresponsible and dangerous to themselves and others. These events are races and attract a lot of riders with very little experience or knowledge of road etiquette. That's the nature of the events.

Agreed. And I've raced for the better part of a decade. When it comes to hammer rides, I'll politely see my way out, especially if the route is unfavorable to cyclists. Some may like to have the competitiveness of racing in a non-competitive setting, but to me, racing was already fraught with risks, why increase the stakes?

[froze]

I thought they were in race, or even training to do so, so the good news there is it won't have any effect on racing events...at least at this time. 4 friends just having fun still doesn't hold anyone liable, besides it becomes a he said she said as to what happened.

If the other 2 say that the front guy did slow down a lot for no reason I still don't know if that can be held up in court for a liability judgement because the defense will say they were riding too close to one another with no room for error and thus it was the fault of the guy behind the other guy, just like in a rear end car accident, the car that rear ends the other car is almost exclusively 100% at fault for following at an unsafe distance. So I can't see this case going far at all, hopefully someone here will follow it.

The only precedence I see here now if there is a settlement is maybe someone who is severely injured while racing takes this case as a landmark case for them to sue whoever, hopefully that will never happen but we do live in America.

[54ny77]

good grief, that is so lame i don't even know what to say.

hell, i'd come back from the dead and haunt my wife for doing that to a childhood buddy (suing him).

while most definitely a tragedy, the suit thing is just sickening. as is the blood sucking scumbag lawyer who took the case.

[HenryA]

good grief, that is so lame i don't even know what to say.

hell, i'd come back from the dead and haunt my wife for doing that to a childhood buddy (suing him).

while most definitely a tragedy, the suit thing is just sickening. as is the blood sucking scumbag lawyer who took the case.

You have no idea what you’re writing about, no real knowledge of why this is happening but ready to jump to an incredibly harsh conclusion. Take a deep breath.

[54ny77]

thanks. i read the pleading, this is a forum, things are open to discussion. here's what i read, which drove my comment:

"Decedent was rendered quadriplegic by the wreck. Decedent dictated a note to Nelms, stating in part: “I think it is important for you to know that I place no blame on you for the accident . . . it was just one of those things that you cannot understand.” On August 22, 2014, Decedent died."

i've ridden and raced for a long time, including team pursuit on track (where we ride stupidly close to each other and have to trust each other immensely) and fully accept the fact that bad s*&%@ can and does happen. i've been deliberately hooked plenty of times in races as well, which ain't what apparently happened here.

perhaps you can take a deep breath as well, or don't read others' opinions.

regardless, stay safe out there.


You have no idea what you’re writing about, no real knowledge of why this is happening but ready to jump to an incredibly harsh conclusion. Take a deep breath.

[bking]

This morning I joined a regular group ride, about 18 to 20 riders. I'd known about them, but this was my first time. Pulling away from the coffee shop meet up, a guy's got a bluetooth speaker dangling from his bike, a very nice bike, music blasting. I look up a few riders ahead and another guy is working on his cup of coffee, while riding. A mile or two later I see him riding no hands, middle of the group, still working that cup. They went right, I went left at the next corner.
Not that anything like this happened in this case. If we've ridden for anytime at all we acknowledge the risks. We reduce them as we can. Accidents happen.