Widow sues USAT (Page 3)

Looks like ~3000 people raced that day. Article on line states about 10 people were pulled from the water (0.33%). Also states that the deceased suffered from cardiovascular disease. The article isn't clear on what the autopsy revealed. Quite possible he had a heart attack resulting in drowning. The article is very specific on lack of AED.

The event website advertised swim practice - not that that alleviates a heart issue on race day. I am attaching a USAT study on triathlon deaths that I found interesting.



Attachments
----------------
USATFinalReport_24OCT12.pdf (257KB - 24 downloads)

I am sort of hijacking this thread but I want to ask if anyone knows - is there a standard for minimum safety measures that need to be covered for the water portion of a triathlon? I know there are a few race directors on here.

I recently volunteered at a race where I personally thought the waterfront was understaffed. People were cutting the course (perhaps unintentionally) and totally swimming the wrong way because there were so few paddle boards in the water to direct them. Nothing bad happened to anybody in the water. It got me to thinking can a race director just arbitrarily pick what s/he thinks is reasonable coverage for the water portion of a race or is there guidance?

My condolences to the family, but I'm in the "we're too litigious" camp.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd really like to see liability tort reform in our legal system. I understand the UK has a "loser pays" system, where the losing side of a civil suit pays court costs.

That way the plaintiff side has some risk, beyond just filing something and looking for an out of court settlement.

I was in a car accident a few years ago, and I have pretty high levels of automotive insurance. The car that I hit had rolled over several times, and was on it's roof, sideways across the road, in the dark (no street lights). It was very difficult to see, until I was up close, so I ended up hitting it, sliding it about 10 feet. The driver was killed PRIOR to me coming along. The ME at the scene determined this based on evidence on the ground. I won't go into details...

Two years later, I get a subpoena from the local sheriff, I'm being sued for wrongful death. Yay!

They wanted "nothing less than full policy coverage". The accident report had the statement from ME, and stated that the driver of that vehicle was DOA when I came along. I didn't get a ticket, was doing everything right, etc.

Once more evidence came out, they changed their tune, and my insurance company settled out of court. They offered the amount they had budgeted to defend me. Most of that went to the law firm if I recall. My lawyer was pretty confident we would have won, but the risk/reward wasn't worth taking it to trial. It becomes a financial decision at that point, and I didn't have a choice, it's up to the insurance company.

So I don't know if/how tort reform could reduce something like this. But something needs to change.

Just because someone drowned doesn't mean the race unsafe in the same way that everybody's survival in a race doesn't mean it was safe.

Nobody here, certainly, can say whether the case has merit or not. If there were enough lifeguards and the guy died simply because he couldn't swim that far, then I hope it gets thrown out. If it's found the company who put on the race didn't provide enough lifeguards and/or life-saving equipment, then perhaps it's better that this particular race no longer happens. Given the facts I have right now, I can't make that determination.

Do you understand that anybody can sign up for AG Nationals? Or is that just another fact you didn't have when you started making assumptions?

Yup, this.  He got up that morning and put on his big boy pants.

I found this journal article while I was killing time today (aka, trying to work on my lit review for my dissertation but getting distracted).

Sudden Death During the Triathlon - http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185622

they used stats from 2006-2008 and 2971 USAT events - of those, 14 participants died in 14 tris - 13 while swimming and 1 on the bike - the stats were interesting to read - especially that most of the swimming deaths occurred in short course races, vice longer ones (which would have been opposite to my expectation)

from an atty's perspective:

1. signing a waiver does not mean you are signing away the event organizers responsibility in keeping people "reasonably" safe. you CANNOT just throw a waiver in front of people and call yourself safe. when signing a waiver, you accept the normal peril, not unreasonable peril

2. that said, taking the facts as presented in the article - there is no way to prove having a defrib wouldn have made a difference. that claim is gettin tossed

3. sooo, according to other person that was there, things looked good and worsened as the day went on. for god sake's people, you have some responsibility to keep yourself safe too - and while you can sue and fingerpoint, and people complain about juries, I have never, in more than 100 juries, thought, gee, the jury really got that wrong based on the evidence. I have been in a swim with 4-5 foot chop. I stopped and found a boat because I knew my limits. paying money does not give you some superman cloak. race organizer never represented that they will keep you safe from your own health issues, pushing it too far, etc. it is NOT the race organizers responsiblity to decide what your limits are for you provided they are reaonsable in their expectations -- telling people the water is safe when in fact you know bacteria levels are dangerously high, or there is an oil slick or alligators and you know othewise IS something an organizer would be responsible for - things they can't know for themselves. you know when the swells are high. if that makes you uncomfortable, then don't swim it.

4. it took the boat forever to get to him? how do we know this? it may have seemed that long, but in truth, took a minute. maybe it did take that long because they also had a responsbility to the other athletes to keep them reaonsably safe. barreling through the water without being very careful to run over other swimmers IS an unreasonable risk created by the organizers, and one which the other swimmers could not know poses a risk.

5. number of rescue people? again, why do people think paying some money means they can push themselves way beyond their capability and expect to be saved? like the knuckleheads that go hiking in the wilderness without water or sense of direction then need saving. i started doing triathlons on the East coast. always TONS of boats out. then I did some elsewhere in the U.S. and it initially freaked me out and stayed in my head through the first 1/4 of the swim, until the voice of reason popped into my head and said, 'wait, what's wrong with you. they can't expect that you don't know how to swim very well. if you don't know how to do it, then why are you out here?!?' AH-GREED. again, a race organizer is not expected to pamper to every person that has an issue, doesn't know their limits, can't swim well, wrong place wrong time, had a panic attack - whatever. NOTHING stopped the man from wearing one ot those swimmit things. there was technology available to him that would have made him safer. he didn't use it. Every swimmer saw how many support people were out there before they got in. they got in anyway. once he got in, he could have turned around, flippin on his back, waived down the boat, pulled his swimmit that he wasn't wearing. court will not find that race organizer had to account for everything he did not do.

8. McDonald's: to set the record straight. the McD's coffee was 180 degrees! humans cannot consume 180 degree coffee. 100 degree coffee would still have been hot, but not so hot it scalded. McD had been warned numerous times it was dangerously hot via hundreds of law suits. they didn't change the temp. when they gave the woman the coffee, they handed it to her without the lid on it, requiring her to take a cup of 180 degree coffee, in the drive through, sitting in a car, and put a lid on it while the coffee was wayy too hot to sip some coffee out first so it was less likely to spill while she was putting the cover on. when she burned herself, she only asked for money to cover medical bills. that's it, nothing more. McD's refused. the jury award represented ONE DAYS WORTH OF COFFEE SALES, ONE DAY. it wasn't going to bankrupt them, it was just the jury saying, this is what it took to get you to finally turn down the temp? the media blew it wayy out of portion and now people more than a generation later still complain about the case without ever looking at the facts. McD's knew there was danger, they had been told over and over there was a danger to coffee drinkers, they were given a chance to make things right, they said, no, no, no the entire way. Nothing in the triathlete death equates to McD's kind of behavior. if there was an aggressive alligator that had attacked someon the week before in the water and they knew it, but said nothing and did nothing and someone was bitten, then it would be the same. it's not.

9. telling her there was an emergency: she would have sued either waive. emotional distress becasue they told me there was trouble before they knew for sure - suing. you didn't tell me soon enough. suing. either way, she would be suing on this because he died and she wants to blame someone. i do feel sorry for her loss, but blaming the race organizers is just going to run up the bill, not bring him back, and unless there are facts left out, i.e. he told race organizers he has medical issues and they said, it's ok, swim anyway and we will have a boat right next to you; or there is some study they should have been aware of that says with swells of a certain hight, you are guaranteed someone will die, then MAYBE some merits, but as the facts stand. this is a loser case -- or should be provided the race organizers have a half way decent atty.

Very sad for this family, but cannot agree with the suit and the demand for seven figure damages. Like many outdoor activities, tri has inherent risks we all freely accept to participate. For many reasons, inc future of AG tri, I sure hope this gets tossed straight away.

I googled the case to find out a little more. It was the Olympic-Distance Race at USA Triathlon Age Group National Championships.

Judging by the picture on the BFP site, it looked to be wetsuit legal. So there is much less of a chance that a seasoned swimmer would drown without another trigger - over-exertion, panic, heart problems, or a combination.

I feel badly for the family, but I don't think having an AED would have made lick of a difference if someone's lungs are full of water.

Burlington Free Press: "An autopsy determined Angelo died of drowning with the contributing condition of hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease."

Slowtwitch: His goal was to finish in the top-20 in order to make it to Worlds.

First of all, I agree with most that it is difficult to draw a conclusion about this particular event based off of articles and some third hand accounts. However, I do think there is a good debate to be had about what we expect from race directors and events sanctioned by USAT.

I think we can all agree that racing in a triathlon has inherent risks and we all know that going into it. Accidents happen, bike crashes, freak weather, seemingly random heart attacks… all of these are bound to happen at some point and at a minimum are unfortunate or in some cases can be tragic.

On the other hand, if we would have read this story and it said that there were no lifeguards on the swim course at all, then I think we would all agree that the race director and USAT should be 100% liable and get their a**es handed to them in court.

So since (presumably) we agree on these two extremes, there must be a reasonable expectation of what to expect from a race director and anything with the USAT logo on it. I would think (hope) that there is some sort of standard for lifeguards and boats given a course length. We have similar expectations in other areas too; i.e. that my bike not be stolen and that there are enough port-a-pots.

So here’s my question for everybody- has anyone been to a race where they saw something run poorly or even dangerously and complained to USAT? Did you get a response? Did you go back next year and was it corrected? How often do race directors loose USAT approval? My presumption is that there is a race review procedure at USAT but I don’t actually know this.

like everyone else my heart goes out to the family for their loss. However, I don't get a lawsuit. I am a very strong swimmer but having said that, the responsibility to know if conditions are such that I can swim safely are mine and mine alone. I would never relinquish that responsibility to anyone else.

Earlier this year I went for a swim in particularly cold water. I had a wetsuit on. As soon as I hit the water I know the conditions were too severe for me to be safe. So I hauled my sorry backside out of the water and, if you will excuse the expression in light of the context, lived to fight another day. Later I learned the water was in the 40s.

I love this sport. I also have a wife and 2 children. My wife knows the risks of the sport as I sit here recovering from hip surgery after a cycling accident involving a car. She hates it when I ride alone. However, if the conditions on race day were unsafe I guarantee the only she would hold responsible for continuing on is me so I take that responsibility seriously.

Someone else mentioned life insurance. It goes to the same idea, MY responsibility to my family. That is why I have insurance.

Bottom line is I am very sorry any time something like this happens but you know the risks when to sign up.

This was the Olympic distance. You have to qualify.