Widow sues USAT

Welcome to the "It must be someone else's fault" society of today. I have no first hand knowledge of the event or the conditions. I do know that having started this sport, at the tender age of 55, I talked to my wife and family about this very aspect. I made sure they knew that nothing in this world is totally safe. If I get pulled from the water or scraped up off the pavement, the decision to compete was mine. The article implies that this person drowned due to choppy water. It does not say whether he had severe cramps, cardiac issues or something else going on too. Being in "excellent" shape means nothing. Hindsight is 20/20, on race day, the participant chose to enter the water knowing the conditions, his abilities and the potential for risk. He acknowledged the risks when he signed the waiver. No one forced him to sign the waiver or start the race. One thing we can take away from this tragic incident is that we all work hard (or should) to perfect our swimming skills. How many work on drown proofing techniques? What will you do when a severe cramp or chest pains hit you suddenly? What will you do if you suck down a bunch of water, instead of air, just as someone swims over top of you. Now is the time to think about it AND practice for it. It is also the time to sit down with your family for a serious talk, if you haven't already, regardless of your age or ability.

All I can say is that I hope the case gets thrown out of court.

x3

My thoughts and prayers go to his family and the article does not present enough facts for me to comment on. Was he one of the few that were that far off course or were there lots of people off course? And a person can be very fit, but not necessarily swim fit. I have been in a few choppy swims (to where people were pulled out, hung on bouys, rafts etc.) but still managed a good swim. Eventually accountability and self awareness have to be addressed.

if "it took approximately seven to nine minutes to reach Angelo" is true then they might have something -

but we sign a waiver for a reason.
I know I would much rather die racing than on the couch!

I believe this is why the life insurance industry exists.

The suit implies that there is a predetermined number of people that should have been on-hand and they should have been qualified to a predetermined standard.

If this predetermined number and standard wasn't met then the organisers have a case to answer.

If these numbers have been put together after the event then it shouldn't be heard.

My opinion and judgement would rest on that single factor.

I can see both (many) sides to this. On the one hand, we do sign waivers and make choices to enter the water and thus we bear responsibility. At the same time, I participated in this event and some of what is claimed was true. First, when the sun came up, the water was flat, there was no wind. Shortly thereafter, the wind picked up, and for the first half to 2/3rds of the waves, there were 2-4 foot waves within the harbor. It was the toughest swim I ever experienced, and when checking out the course before the race, all looked fine. I was also keenly aware during the swim that the course 'monitors'/supporters were few and far between. I've been in many races where there were anywhere from few to almost too many kayakers/SUPers/boaters along the way, and this one had the fewest in the worst conditions. And there was no way to know ahead of time how many rescue folks are on the course. Many if not most of us ended up off course due to the winds and currents. So yes, I signed the waiver and I choose to go in the water. And, I didn't know just how bad it was until I started swimming, nor did I know how many/few support personnel were around during the swim. I remember thinking very clearly that I was on my own out there and hence had to swim like heck and get it over with. From what I understand, the last several waves had no wind and great conditions. It's a bad situation all the way around. I'm glad I'm not the one having to make the decision on this case. It's easy to write this off as frivolous in an unfortunate situation, but there are some merits to the case, IMHO.
Robin

My deepest sympathy goes to the wife and family who lost a loved one but my big concern is who is expected to pay for this tragedy. Just the cost of defending this suit is going to hurt USAT. The one day insurance coverage has already gone up this past year and if USAT looses the suit, I would expect the charge to be even higher next year. To mitigate damages in the future it may be reasonable to offer an optional one day life insurance policy for sue happy families but to pass the cost to other athletes is unreasonable. I'm sure the fellow who lost his life knew the risk involved.

There is no way you can hold the RD responsible for a change in weather conditions. It is "an act of God" It happens and can be dangerous. Every athlete needs to know their limitations and know when to get help or abandon a swim

Lawsuits like this can easily kill the sport similar to the way they have pushed manufacturing jobs overseas and cause skyrocketing increases in healthcare cost and pharmaceuticals.

Everyone looses except the lawyers.

X2

Very sad to hear. That said I agree with others, you sign the waiver, and you get in the water. I know people that have shown up in top shape to a race and backed out based on rough water. They can do everything possible but accidents can still happen...... I for one am paranoid about sighting and staying on course. It may or may not have saved this mans life but staying on course means volunteers can see you, swim distance is less, and if you get knocked out other swimmers can signal for help if they notice you.

Thoughts and prayers with the family. Feel bad for them. Suing is not the answer.

This is tough and I feel sorry for the family.
I think one solution is mandatory testing before licenses are issued. OWS have higher risks than running races or cycling events.
It is amazing how underprepared many people are when showing up for a tri.
In my first tri many years ago I panicked badly in the swim. I recalled my swim training from Scouts and rolled over on my back until I calmed down.
Scouts required certain skills to be evident before participation in certain events. It was and still is a good idea.

a few thoughts:

1) I think not having an AED at the site is unforgivable, that being said, it took 7-9 minutes to reach the body, even if they had an AED and were able to revive him, after that long without oxygen, he likely would have been brain dead.

2) 3-4 foot waves - if accurate, I think should have been a cancelled swim, or at least an optional du - doesn't say in the article if this was the case. personally, it would p*ss me off, if they cancelled the swim, but you have to do what is safe for the majority of swimmers. 3-4 foot waves in a lake is very very different from 3-4 foot waves in the ocean.

3) not enough lifeguards - I find this one hard to believe.

4) overall suing - we sign a waiver, not sure there would be much of a case.

Edited by Daffodil 2013-07-28 5:26 PM

reports are that it was not as bad as many of the races around the country

I vote Left Brain for King!!

Life is inherently dangerous, as are lawyers.

i know this is breaking things down too detailed... but even if there is an AED on site there will be no affect on a drowning victim. it is a respiratory issue not an irregular rhythm that causes the death.

How come the 100s of other people who swam that day did not die from "choppy water"?

He decided to get in. She decided not to make an issue out of him doing tris.

I know what I am getting in to. I could die doing this. Not likely but it could happen. If it does, my wife had better not be suing anyone or I will come back to haunt her (unless some jack wad in a car runs me down. Then she has my permission to rain down her fury and the might of the legal system upon them.)

Obviously tragic turn of events. Could have been one of us. Think how powerless, helpless, and despondent the spouse must be. Really awful.

That being said, I'd be curious for any references on "drown proofing techniques" for the different scenarios you laid out.

yes, my friend was in this race...I recall she saying it was a rainy day, probably cold and windy too.

definitely experienced and qualified triathletes in that race.

I really feel for this family, and I am sure that if this man was like the majority of Triathlete's, his death has caused not just a great deal of emotional pain but some fairly significant financial issues too (lets face it you have to have some spare cash to do this sport) but that isnt reason to sue.

If I remember correctly from my undergrad law units if USAT have done everything that a "responable person" would have done in the circumstances then they dont have a case to answer. The problem is that the courts get to decide what is reasonable (at least this is how it works in Australia).

If find it interesting that the story says that she is also suing for the the additional pain and suffering that resulted from not being notified straight away. The sarcastic side of me wants to say that the delay in knowing there was an issue would have actually lessened her pain and suffering, but that would probably be inappropriate.

Please everyone talk to your family about the risks invovled in our sport and make sure that you have adequate life and income protection insurance to cover your family's requirements no matter what the cause of your injury/death is. If you can afford to participate in triathlons then you can afford the insurance.