Widow sues USAT (Page 2)

Who were you (collective you) FORCED to pay?  You weren't forced to do anything.  That's just ridiculous.

Yeah, I pay it, voluntarily.  I also get in the water voluntarily. I also know what conditions would probably be a good idea for me to sit out.  I am responsible for myself....it's a simple formula.

And yeah, saying I'm forced to do anything by USAT is not only ridiculous, it's wildly ridiculous.

They don't actually have to provide me ANYTHING.  You've read the "no refund" policy right? 

I am responsible for myself.

Obviously speculation here but it would appear this guy may not have had life insurance on himself. Anyone who has a family and doesn't have a 7 figure bank account should have life insurance. If I die in a race my wife will be living the high life.

This guy made the decision to get in the water, he is responsible for the consequences. I have had two races with bad weather, the first was questionable and many dropped out, I decided to go for it and knew it was my problem if things went bad. The second race the swim was cancelled, the strong swimmers were peeved, I was relieved because I was planning on sitting out if they went ahead with it. I knew what my swim abilities were and I observed the water with my own eyes, then I made the decision that it wasn't a good idea for me, the RD also made the decision for me but I didn't need him/her to do that, I would have made the decision on my own. 

And yeah I find the line about additional pain and suffering due to slow notification time to be pretty laughable as well. Sounds like she was spared an hour or two of pain and suffering. 

I don't see how anyone can comment on the merits of a particular case simply by reading a newspaper article.  Must be a bunch of legal genuises.   Either that, or someone is of the opinion that every case lacks merit.  Which is not true.

I've no idea whether there is a valid case or not.  Neither does anyone here. 

Sure you can.......since everybody but him is still around to talk about it.  That makes forming an opinion on how dangerous it was pretty easy, especially if you know someone who was in the same race. 

I don't have an opinion one way or another on this specific case but I have to disagree with that statement LB.  Just because 99 out of 100 people make it out of any given situation alive does not automatically qualify that situation as "safe".  What if a gunman opened fire on a crowd and only hit one person?  Does that mean that since 99 other people walked away unscathed that was a "safe" environment?  I don't buy that argument.

That's pretty far out there Noelle.  You can't really compare the two.  Here, if 1 home out of 100 gets burglarized does that make it an unsafe neighborhood?  No.  See my point?

The fact is.....in a situation like this drowning, a grown man made a decision to swim.  In your example nobopdy made a decision except the guy with the gun.

I can stand on the beach, look at the water, and decide if it is safe for me to swim based on my experience and training.........and so can everyone else.  If lawsuits like this are winnable.....you can kiss organized triathlon for AG'ers goodbye. I dont' want to see that.  This was not some small, local, understaffed race.  This was at the top end of the scale.

It really does not take a whole lot of imagination to come up with scenarios that show the lack of logic there.  You're focusing on the swim going forward in the conditions.  Myopic

Assume there was no AED device around, which would be IMO negligent.  No one else had a heart attack.  This guy did.  Quick use of AED would have saved him.   

Assume that the RD did not hire enough lifeguards, and it took an extra 10 minutes to get to him.  No one else needed guards

etc.

No one here knows whether the case has merit.  If you say you do, it's just your own bias showing. 

If I have a heart attack at the grocery store and there is no AED are they liable?  How about at a professional sporting event that I pay for....do they need to have an AED in case I keel over? 

Sure I have bias.....I have bias against liable suits that stem from voluntary participation.  HUGE BIAS.

As for your other comment.....uh.....show me where it says he had a heart attack.  He drowned.  If I drown, please don't use an AED on me......I'll have my wife sue you for negligence.

I agree Chris...which is why I was curious as to what the other people in the race thought about the conditions and if the plaintiff was trying to embelish the actual conditions, or if they "possibly" had some grounds to sue on.  That alone doesn't make this lawsuit valid, but I was at least curious to know and I figured there may have been some other BTers at the race that may shed some light.

I generally agree that you shouldn't be able to sue for things like this, but there are instances where people show gross negligence.  Take the McDonald's coffee incident for example.  Upon first hearing the case, EVERYONE thought it was a stupid lawsuit.  And by LB's theory, nobody is FORCED to buy coffee from anyone.  But when someon gives you coffee hot enough to give you 3rd degree burns...then you uncover the fact that McDonalds purposely made their coffee too hot for initial consumption...then you get to see a whole new side of the story.

Yup, people crow about that case all the time, without ever actually researching what really happened.  Lots of legal experts on the internet.

Well, it's hard to argue with stupid analogies, so I'll let you figure out why the supermarket one isn't even close.

As for cause of death, how do you know he didn't drown as the result of a heart attack?  Oh yeah, sorry, you're an internet doctor AND lawyer.  Impressive. 

I know you won't be reasonable about it, it's not your way as you are very opinionated.  That's cool.   Doesn't mean you are right, nor am I right.  Again, no one, not even BT legal experts, knows if the case has merit

The point is that just because a certain number of people survive a situation or even if those people feel it was safe does not automatically mean the situation was safe, nor does it mean a court of law will deem it safe.

Chris.....the cause of death is drowning.  Read the article.  Oh....maybe every kayak or surfboard on the course should have an AED huh?  There is no evidence that he had a heart attack.....evidence is pretty crucial in a lawsuit.

Do you want me to tell you why your analogy of the McDonald's case is stupid or should I let you figure that one out on your own?

If you don't want to swim, then don't.  If you decide to swim the only person liable if you drown is you.  You knew damn well when you went in the water that you could.  I am responsible for my own actions and activities.  So are you.

Just a point of order, wrong about the waiver.  Well written waivers stand up in court all the time, can't simply say you did not understand something that you signed.