PMP 4/26 Races or Track Day

[Snazzy]

That is, right up until the owners face a lawsuit from an injured, or deceased person's, party seeking damages for inadequate safety practices resulting in said serious injury or death. At which point, even if the owners are not found liable, the costs of mounting a defense will surely seal their fate. Having EMS and adequate corner-workers is as much a safety net for them as it is for us.

You signed your life away on the dotted line.

[Drano]

You signed your life away on the dotted line.

Even so, a waiver of liability will only shield the owners as long as findings show that they were not grossly negligent in the management of their end. Unfortunately for the owners, those findings usually come at the end of a gavel's strike. Either way it means a day in court, lawyers fees, and so on. If they can't afford an ambulance, I wish them luck affording a lawyer.

[The Black Knight]

Even so, a waiver of liability will only shield the owners as long as findings show that they were not grossly negligent in the management of their end. Unfortunately for the owners, those findings usually come at the end of a gavel's strike. Either way it means a day in court, lawyers fees, and so on. If they can't afford an ambulance, I wish them luck affording a lawyer.

The problem with that is, when you sign a waiver that says basically, "Ride at your own risk", it means just that. You can't really go back on someone when you've signed a waiver that says you are assuming all responsibility for your actions and riding.

Could someone force the issue and try and sue?? Sure, but their lawyer would say, you signed the waiver.

They don't have to be "grossly negligent" when all their lawyer has to say is, "no one forced you to ride at their track", and "you rode the track of your own volition." I mean it's not like someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to ride at PMP.

It's the same situation as you can't seek damages and compensation from another rider on the track just because they slammed into you and caused you both to go down. Yeah on public roads you can, that's what insurance is for. Someone hits you, they get a ticket and you get repairs, damages and any medical bills taken care of. At the track it doesn't work that way. You both signed the same waiver and both willingly decided to "Ride At Your Own Risk" on the track.

Example: you and I are riding at PMP. You're in front of me going into a corner. I'm following you and wanting to pass. I end up going into the next corner to hot and take both of us out. Both bikes and gear are damaged. Back in the pits you ask me to pay for the damages to bike and gear. You know what I'm going to tell you?? To go pound sand or sit on it and rotate, and I ain't paying for sh*t. It's a track incident and nothing more.

O.k., so now we flip roles and it's you who slammed into me. Guess what? I'm not going to be that douchebag that's going to ask you to pay for my bike that you damaged. You know why?? Because I know the cost of riding at the track. I know what the consequences can be from having a crash at the track.

That's life at the track man. Take it or leave it. Some people want an ambulance and others aren't bothered by the lack of one.

[Slo]

Even so, a waiver of liability will only shield the owners as long as findings show that they were not grossly negligent in the management of their end. Unfortunately for the owners, those findings usually come at the end of a gavel's strike. Either way it means a day in court, lawyers fees, and so on. If they can't afford an ambulance, I wish them luck affording a lawyer.

This is true.... PMP already went through this in the past.

[Drano]

The problem with that is, when you sign a waiver that says basically, "Ride at your own risk", it means just that. You can't really go back on someone when you've signed a waiver that says you are assuming all responsibility for your actions and riding.

Could someone force the issue and try and sue?? Sure, but their lawyer would say, you signed the waiver.

They don't have to be "grossly negligent" when all their lawyer has to say is, "no one forced you to ride at their track", and "you rode the track of your own volition." I mean it's not like someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to ride at PMP.

It's the same situation as you can't seek damages and compensation from another rider on the track just because they slammed into you and caused you both to go down. Yeah on public roads you can, that's what insurance is for. Someone hits you, they get a ticket and you get repairs, damages and any medical bills taken care of. At the track it doesn't work that way. You both signed the same waiver and both willingly decided to "Ride At Your Own Risk" on the track.

Example: you and I are riding at PMP. You're in front of me going into a corner. I'm following you and wanting to pass. I end up going into the next corner to hot and take both of us out. Both bikes and gear are damaged. Back in the pits you ask me to pay for the damages to bike and gear. You know what I'm going to tell you?? To go pound sand or sit on it and rotate, and I ain't paying for sh*t. It's a track incident and nothing more.

O.k., so now we flip roles and it's you who slammed into me. Guess what? I'm not going to be that douchebag that's going to ask you to pay for my bike that you damaged. You know why?? Because I know the cost of riding at the track. I know what the consequences can be from having a crash at the track.

That's life at the track man. Take it or leave it. Some people want an ambulance and others aren't bothered by the lack of one.

All it takes is one person to contest the waiver. Even in cases with an assumption of risk, "reasonableness" is the key word. In that contest, all it takes is for the plaintiff to argue that their incident was not considered a reasonable risk within the context of the activity and they will have grounds for suit. Is it a reasonable risk that oil/coolant may be present on the apex of turn 4? Is it unreasonable to expect the track ownership to have staffed a corner-worker there to warn riders of the danger? It all depends on what the judge deems "reasonable". It would be foolish for any party to presume that a waiver of liability is a cut-and-dry exemption from any and all conditions of culpability.

Assumption of Risk
When a plaintiff assumes the risk involved in an obviously dangerous activity but proceeds to engage in the activity anyway, he or she may not be able recover damages for injuries. In order for this doctrine to apply, the plaintiff must have actual, subjective knowledge of the risk involved in the activity. The plaintiff must also voluntarily accept the risk involved in the activity. The assumption of risk defense would not apply to any additional, unknown dangers.


An example might involve an amusement park ride that flips passengers completely upside-down. A passenger who saw the ride and knew what would happen on the ride assumed the risks associated with the ride. On the other hand, a plaintiff does not assume the risk of something unexpected related to the ride, such as where a loose bolt causes the ride to throw the plaintiff in a violent manner.

http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-i...ce-claims.html

[The Black Knight]

This is true.... PMP already went through this in the past.

Well if it really has happened in the past and PMP faced legal problems. Then I would recommend that PMP shut down, because that waiver you sign at the office means absolutely nothing then. If they really can be held liable for issues at the track, they should shut down. I know I would, no point in opening yourself up to a possible problem in the future from some whiny people that can't accept responsibility for riding at the track.

[The Black Knight]

All it takes is one person to contest the waiver. Even in cases with an assumption of risk, "reasonableness" is the key word. In that contest, all it takes is for the plaintiff to argue that their incident was not considered a reasonable risk within the context of the activity and they will have grounds for suit. Is it a reasonable risk that oil/coolant may be present on the apex of turn 4? Is it unreasonable to expect the track ownership to have staffed a corner-worker there to warn riders of the danger? It all depends on what the judge deems "reasonable". It would be foolish for any party to presume that a waiver of liability is a cut-and-dry exemption from any and all conditions of culpability.

I think a judge or jury would have to weigh all sides of evidence. On one hand, I agree with you. Oil slicks or coolant leaks should be addressed.

But I would say, that level of expectation is probably reserved for a specific event. A race, I agree completely. Corners workers, safety personnel and ambulance should be present. It's a racing event and expectations are higher. However, on just a normal track day, one could speculate on the amount of attendants or attention a track should receive. Open lapping days are more relaxed and people aren't in competition. Things can happen at track days but then again, anything can happen to you when you walk out the door of your home.

In my opinion, when it comes to Open Lapping track days at PMP. You should show the utmost diligence and ride within your own limits. Open lapping isn't about racing, it's about improving as a rider and enjoying the day at the track. I think if more people could get that through their thick heads, then track days would become safer because people wouldn't be pushing their limits.

The way I look at it, when I'm doing an Open Lapping track day. I'm riding to have fun and improve as a rider, slowly and lap by lap. I'm not paid to race or win races. So I'm not going to push past my limits to ride on the ragged edge. Honestly, I wouldn't ride on the ragged edge even in club level racing. Unless I'm a professional racer where someone else is footing the bill, then I'm not risking everything for nothing. Yeah if there is a nice fat paycheck involved, then I'll go to hell and back for my team. If I'm the one who's doing all the maintenance, pays for everything, then I'm going to take it nice and easy and have fun. I'll work on being a better rider and care less about setting record laps.

When riding at the track, it's all relative what's important to you.

[hcr25]

A few years back a spectator got hit by a race bike at Pueblo. The rider was coming through turn 7 and highsided. The rider came off the bike and the bike somehow stayed upright. The bike then ghost rode off track hitting the dirt embankment and basically jumped into the back of a pickup truck. The spectator was injured pretty bad but not life threatening.

The spectator signed the waiver just like everyone else who went through the gate. That didn't stop him from sueing or threatening to sue. The MRA's insurance settled out of court from my understanding.

I was told the family of the guy who died a Lajunta in 2006 sued and got a settlement for negligence on the tracks part. This was not Gene's (the MRA racer) family.

In 2013 a spectator was hit by a race car during the Pikes peak hill climb. She was told several times to stay off the road while taking pictures. She ended up losing one of her legs from the knee down. She sued and the hill climbs insurance paid out. She had signed the waiver just like I did.

That insurance company wouldn't cover the race in 2014. A new insurance company came in and made big changes. That is why spectating areas were so limeted (4 fenced in areas).

[UglyDogRacing]

I think a judge or jury would have to weigh all sides of evidence.

They never make it in front of a judge or jury.

[Nolan]

Isn't the owner of PMP the city of Pueblo?

[Aaron]

Isn't the owner of PMP the city of Pueblo?

Yes, the city owns the park and contracts with Judy and her company to manage all operations.

[Ezzzzy1]

So I wonder... I was an EMT for a while. I wonder if there was a way to hire off duty EMTs/Paramedics to be "on site" durring track days. I've never thought about it like this but I know that cops do it all the time. Basically every cop that's working downtown at the bars and clubs is off duity. Why couldn't an EMT/Medid get paid a couple hundred bucks for the day to be on site with their basic bags ready to help in an emergency until the ambulance showed up. That's the win/win.

If I was still an EMT I would be down to make some extra $$ doing this.

[madvlad]

A few years back a spectator got hit by a race bike at Pueblo. The rider was coming through turn 7 and highsided. The rider came off the bike and the bike somehow stayed upright. The bike then ghost rode off track hitting the dirt embankment and basically jumped into the back of a pickup truck. The spectator was injured pretty bad but not life threatening.

The spectator signed the waiver just like everyone else who went through the gate. That didn't stop him from sueing or threatening to sue. The MRA's insurance settled out of court from my understanding.

I was told the family of the guy who died a Lajunta in 2006 sued and got a settlement for negligence on the tracks part. This was not Gene's (the MRA racer) family.

In 2013 a spectator was hit by a race car during the Pikes peak hill climb. She was told several times to stay off the road while taking pictures. She ended up losing one of her legs from the knee down. She sued and the hill climbs insurance paid out. She had signed the waiver just like I did.

That insurance company wouldn't cover the race in 2014. A new insurance company came in and made big changes. That is why spectating areas were so limeted (4 fenced in areas).

Gotta love how the system is flawed and makes idiots think their behavior is okay, damn shame

[tecknojoe]

right up until the owners face a lawsuit from an injured, or deceased person's, party seeking damages for inadequate safety practices resulting in said serious injury or death.

fuck people that bring up lawsuits like that

[tecknojoe]

In 2013 a spectator was hit by a race car during the Pikes peak hill climb. She was told several times to stay off the road while taking pictures. She ended up losing one of her legs from the knee down. She sued and the hill climbs insurance paid out. She had signed the waiver just like I did.

everything that's wrong with this country

[Drano]

fuck people that bring up lawsuits like that

To be clear, I'm not advocating that I would like to see this happen, but in our system there are two sides to every coin. Not every person who files suit is wrong for doing so, and not every settlement is an injustice to the defendant. I hate frivolous litigation just as much as the next guy, and there are plenty of greedy predators looking to game the system. I agree, they are a blight on our society.

However, let's say, for argument's sake, that a rider at a track day hits a patch of coolant and it causes him to high side. His bike is ruined. As for him, he breaks a couple fingers, his wrist, collarbone, and one of his lungs has collapsed. Let's assume his situation is dire. Now because the track organization claims they have no money, EMS had to be dispatched from across town. Also, there wasn't a marshal in the vicinity to red flag the event and warn him of the danger. While he lays there, in pain, struggling for every breath, he's also conscious and aware of every second it takes for the ambulance to get there. Eventually the ambulance arrives and gets him to the hospital where he will spend a couple days at least. While there, it was discovered that the rider who left the coolant on the asphalt had mistakenly used Engine Ice, which is against MRA rules, at least, but he got away with it because it was overlooked during tech inspection.

In the end, the crashed rider is faced with the total loss of his motorcycle, bills from the EMS ride, diagnostic, hospital, and doctor's services. Fortunately he has insurance, but he has a $5,000 deductible to pay. Is he really going to be in the wrong if his thoughts turn to thinking that all of this could have been avoided if there had been a marshal at that corner? What if the rider with Engine Ice had not been allowed to ride that day because he didn't pass tech inspection? Those thoughts would cross any rider's mind in the same position, and believe me, laying in a hospital bed there is plenty of time to think about it. I would have a hard time faulting that rider for expecting the track organization to take some responsibility for the negligence on their part.

When a rider signs that assumption of risk waiver, they are signing a two-party agreement. The rider agrees that there are certain, expected risks involved riding a motorcycle at high speeds. The track also agrees, through their rules, and supervision thereof, to limit the manifestation of those risks. They hire marshals, and have tech inspections, not for the rider's benefit, but to cover themselves from lawsuits such as this. I imagine the track would love it if they didn't have to pay people to do these things because it's money out of their pockets. But, most learned the hard way that eventually disaster strikes. Sometimes it is the wronged party making appeals for just compensation, and sometimes it is the wolves coming at the gates seeking blood. If the track organization didn't have the foresight to expect things like this to occur, then there's a good reason they don't stay in business for long.

As a disclaimer, I assure you I have never been personally involved in any civil litigation or lawsuit in any form, and the motorcycle crash I experienced was on the street. The scenario in this post is all hypothetical, except for my experience of laying in a hospital bed with plenty of time to think. That was real, oh so very real, and it sucked, a lot.

[tecknojoe]

That's why, based on all variables, I don't ride pueblo unless they bring the ambulance. Even then, I'm still not stoked about that place, and it's rare I will go there

he has no right to go after pueblo or the emt crew. Maybe the guy with engine ice

[Drano]

he has no right to go after pueblo or the emt crew. Maybe the guy with engine ice

That's a distinction best left for the lawyers to argue. Though I doubt the ambulance service would be in any danger, perhaps the other rider, but even that is a little iffy because mechanical failures happen and it could have just as easily been an engine/fork oil spill. However, in the situation I presented I'm pretty sure the crashed rider is within his rights to pursue litigation against the track and, as has been mentioned earlier, that he would most likely be awarded damages in the settlement.

The track has a responsibility to ensure the safest conditions possible for the riders. That's what track day attendees are paying for. As soon as fluid spills onto the track surface it becomes the track's responsibility, not the rider's, to notify others of the danger and to clean it up. Similarly, if the track establishes specific rules, they are equally responsible for enforcing them. Failures in these areas establish cause that there was gross negligence by the track, hence, the plaintiff wins. It doesn't just suck for the track operator, but injured rider isn't having a picnic either.

Obviously, none of this should replace common sense, but as with pretty much every rule in existence, they are tailored to the lowest common denominator, not the other way around.