IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL (Page 3)

BrianK - 2009-05-27 3:33 PM

I would accept race organizers doing a better job to ensure the safety of the athletes.  If that means $2500, it means $2500.

Marvarnett - 2009-05-27 3:15 PM Regarding Mass starts:

You only get beat up if you want to get beat up.  Nothing says you can't wait a minute or two and wait for the washing machine to pass by.  It's your choice to seed yourself improperly and go at it toe to toe (wetsuit to wetsuit) with 2000+ of your best friends.

Case in point, at IM MOO the 'start line' extended all the way to the shore.  Start on the shore if you're worried.

Motivated - 2009-05-27 2:55 PM

Another sign of the total wussification of our society.  Pretty soon, thanks to the bottom-feeding-pond-scum sucking attorneys who file these speculative lawsuits (and the greedy families who are looking to make a quick buck) we won't be able to tie our shoes without first signing a waiver of liability.  I absolutely loathe this kind of thing. 

Triathlon's have an inherent amount of risk built into them.  If you can't take the risk, don't race.  You know going in its a mass start, a long race, full of opportunity for injury.  I just pray to God that the judge throws this out.  Don't need a bunch of fat-as$'s in suits and wingtips ruining triathlon as we know it.

I feel badly for the family, with respect to their loss.  But, they're turning the loss into an opportunity for a quick buck, a jackpot based upon the very thing that makes this sport so attractive, the risk of not finishing.  Jack a$s' like these folks are going to ruin our sport.

Brian Moore, you should be embarrassed for brining this suit.  I'm sure your good friend, the late Mr. Barney Rice, is turning in his grave thanks to your actions.  I sure hope my family has more grace and honor when I'm dead and gone.

Motivated - 2009-05-27 3:55 PM

Another sign of the total wussification of our society.  Pretty soon, thanks to the bottom-feeding-pond-scum sucking attorneys who file these speculative lawsuits (and the greedy families who are looking to make a quick buck) we won't be able to tie our shoes without first signing a waiver of liability.  I absolutely loathe this kind of thing. 

Don't need a bunch of fat-as$'s in suits and wingtips ruining triathlon as we know it.

Motivated - 2009-05-27 11:55 AM

...thanks to the bottom-feeding-pond-scum sucking attorneys...

OldAg92 - 2009-05-27 2:10 PM

Tell us how you really feel, Karl. 

Regarding the bottom-feeding, pond scum-sucking, fat-a$$ attorneys in wingtips filing "speculative" lawsuits, let me play devil's advocate for a minute.

Assume the Rice family approached NAS/WTC and tried to get some information/answers regarding safety measures, medical team preparedness, etc, etc.  Assume further that NAS/WTC said nothing more than "We had adequate measures in place...sorry for your loss" and refused to give out any additional information.  How else could the family get that information than to seek legal assistance?  As ChrisM previously pointed out, the Court has already looked at the case, and has also considered an attempt by NAS/WTC to have the case dismissed, and the case is still moving forward.  That is at least a shred of evidence, in my mind, that the Plaintiffs have some legally viable theories to move forward with.

Do I like the fact that Rice died?  Nope.  Do I like the fact that a lawsuit has been filed?  Nope.  Do I think it could potentially damage our sport?  Probably not but who knows?  One thing I am certain of is that I am not in any position, even as an attorney, to judge the situation based only on the information that is available on message boards, etc.  The Court has obviously had much more information to look at, and has decided the case can go forward.

 

bachorb - 2009-05-27 4:23 PM I would much rather have to read peoples' posts about the wussification of society and having to pay higher race fees than have to read about another fellow athlete dying.

Interesting tangent here - does anyone know what the data is on triathlon deaths across the pond in less-litigious Europe? Can anyone who's done a race there comment on swim safety precautions as compared to here?

PennState - 2009-05-27 4:42 PM Let's stop the lawyer bashing. While those who know anything about me know how I feel about the political/legislative/judicial agenda of the plaintiff's bar...there is no benefit to the lawyer bashing, it's uncalled for. Why don't we stick to the issue of whether this suit will affect our sport in the future (for the better or the worse)?

ChrisM - 2009-05-27 4:33 PM

Obviously you feel that way Brandt, you're one of the pond scum.  I am quite certain that Karl and Jorge know everything there is to know about the facts of this case to be able to pass such judgments.  I mean, otherwise, they'd be,... well...  talking out of their a$$es, wouldn't they?  I mean, that doesn't happen does it????

bachorb - 2009-05-27 2:54 PM . I personally think they should have some sort of qualifying system in place for people to do their first open water swim. I did an open water swim last week with the Manhattan Island Foundation, and in order to register I had to show proof that I had done at least one 1/2 mile open water swim previously. If you had never done an open water swim, you had to obtain a pool certification that you could swim a certain distance continiously. It's not much but a simple system like that could help save lives. At this point I am surprised they will just let anyone who can click a mouse to register do a tri. Maybe this lawsuit will change that, but that may not necessarily be a bad thing.

awwww did I hurt your feelings? As you can see on my post I bolded the sentiment it better represent my feelings  (Another sign of the total wussification of our society) hence I agreed with it. Also regardless of the words Karl chose I think there is a distinction on his statement:

Pretty soon, thanks to the bottom-feeding-pond-scum sucking attorneys who file these speculative lawsuits (and the greedy families who are looking to make a quick buck) we won't be able to tie our shoes without first signing a waiver of liability.  I absolutely loathe this kind of thing. 

They way I interpret it is that while lawyers have a job to do, not all are good or bad; like anything in life there are those who jump on this kind of lawsuits. I personally am not bashing all lawyers. Anyway, I don't know if the lawsuit is valid of not (although since it is heading for trial the judge most think there is something to it) as a triathlete knowing the dangers of the sport, knowing how every IM I've been present (racing/spectating) has provided adequate support and having been an RD of a small race at some point to me it makes no sense in particular for what you mentioned earlier: "conditions were such that the swim should have been cancelled off "for swimmers such as" the decedent..." really?

Motivated - 2009-05-27 3:55 PM

Another sign of the total wussification of our society.  Pretty soon, thanks to the bottom-feeding-pond-scum sucking attorneys who file these speculative lawsuits (and the greedy families who are looking to make a quick buck) we won't be able to tie our shoes without first signing a waiver of liability.  I absolutely loathe this kind of thing. 

Triathlon's have an inherent amount of risk built into them.  If you can't take the risk, don't race.  You know going in its a mass start, a long race, full of opportunity for injury.  I just pray to God that the judge throws this out.  Don't need a bunch of fat-as$'s in suits and wingtips ruining triathlon as we know it.

I feel badly for the family, with respect to their loss.  But, they're turning the loss into an opportunity for a quick buck, a jackpot based upon the very thing that makes this sport so attractive, the risk of not finishing.  Jack a$s' like these folks are going to ruin our sport.

Brian Moore, you should be embarrassed for brining this suit.  I'm sure your good friend, the late Mr. Barney Rice, is turning in his grave thanks to your actions.  I sure hope my family has more grace and honor when I'm dead and gone.

ChrisM - 2009-05-27 5:17 PM

No, you didn't hurt my feelings.  We don't have any, remember?

As far is cherry picking what you agreed and didn't agree with Karl about, I'll let your own words speak for themselves.

"very well said Karl, I agree 100%."

Yet you now say you don't know whether the lawsuit is valid or not.... hmmmm.... just what Brandt and I said originally.  Interesting, that

ETA - btw, I've got no issue with lawyer bashing, doesn't bother me in the least.  The point of my post, if you care to know it, was that you and Karl have become judge, jury and executioner with respect to this lawsuit about which you've read, what, 5 paragraphs on the 'net?   I could only wish to be as smart as that.  I jsut went back and re-read Karl's post and, to be honest, it's a little disgusting, the reasons he gave for why the family is suing.  Again, he can call lawyers wahtever he wants, but to call the surviving family those things is over the top.

But, I could be wrong

But I am not surpised with your response, it is not the 1st time nor it will be the last time you do that...

jsklarz - 2009-05-27 11:08 AM



First, any death like this is tragic and none of us should judge why the family is suing.

Second, we can look at the merits of the case and the methodology for analyzing the case.  In this regard, I'll make 2 lawyer comments (if nothing else to play devil's advocate) and then shut up: the above statement is true and may be a valid reason for finiding negligence (which is a violation of a reasonable standard of care).  Thus, the judge (and perhaps a jury) will need to determine whether the start method is reasonable under the circumstances (i.e. why no wave starts, etc.).  Also, the doctrine of "assumption of the risk" has largely been replaced with a doctrine called "comparative negligence" whereby the victim's wrongful conduct is weighed against the perpetrator's (tortfeasor) conduct.  In Connecticut if one's one misconduct is more than 50%, you don't recover.  Sorry to be lawyer guy, but there is a case here: mass starts with thousands of people are dangerous and known to be so.  Wave starts reduce the risk and there is a substantial question as to why wave starts are not done in large events like these.  

Fire away.

bel83 - 2009-05-27 7:05 PM I just had a thought. And I have not had time to read all the responses here or the original posting, but does it say the family is sueing for money and how much? Could it be that they are sueing in order to get stricter regulations and requirements at Iron Man events to keep this from happening to someone else? IF I was doing an IM and I died due to some form of preventable negligence (again I don't even know if this case falls into that category) I might want my family to make a stink to get it changed so it never happened to someone again.

But for Money though...I would not want them to sue for that.