How many local tracks are getting sued?

spooge,as of this year, birth cert. will be required at the first few dist. 5 events....check their website, it's on the main page...don't understand why only the first few races,but it's there....the D5 arenacross on the 8th of feb. wouldnt let any youth rider sign up w/out one....i'm assuming u haven't raced yet in '03, coz if u ran a youth class u needed a certificate.

Originally posted by bclapham
things are getting bad in CA. we now have to buy this ISMA card, but no one knows who they are or if they are legit, its a complete mess.

Click to expand...

WHats this card?? Never heard of this one, how much will i have too pay??

About a year ago, my freinds son got airlifted out of a track, the paramedics (called by the track operator) requested the CHopper.. Turns out he only had a broken arm, but never once did his parents think of suing.. The kid took a risk and he was responsible for it, not the track owner..
RIck

My opinion is sue happy people should be used as speed bumps in trailer parks. So should their lawyers. Ill stop right there!

regarding psycho69's cousin's case,

from black's law dictionary:

negligence is the failure to use such care as a resonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances; it is the doing of some act which a person of ordinary prudence would not have done under similar circumstances or failure to do what a person of ordinary prudence would have done under similar circumstances. the term refers only to that legal delinquency which results whenever a man fails to exhibit the care which he ought to exhibit, whether it be slight, ordinary or great.

assumption of risk means legally that a plaintiff may not recover for an injury to which he assents, i.e., that a person may not recover for an injury received when he voluntarily exposes himself to a known and appreciated danger. the requirements for the defense of assumption of risk are that: 1. the plaintiff has knowledge of facts constituting a dangerous situtation, 2. he knows that the condition is dangerous, 3. he appreciates the nature or extent of the danger and 4. he voluntarily exposes himself to the danger.


i don't think anyone can argue that the track owner took even slight care parking the tractor next to the track.

as for saying that he assumed the risk, when you sign up for a race, tractors in the way are not part of what constitutes the hazards of racing. in order to defend himself against a negligence suit, the track owner would have to prove that the rider was aware of the danger and chose to ride anyway. if i was a gambling man, based on what psycho has said, i would bet that the track owner will lose this one (as i believe he should).

OK; so far;

LSD, Quads, Dragstrips, and TRACTORS!!

Originally posted by mx547
... the track owner will lose this one.

Click to expand...

And eventually we're all going to lose! :|

Aren't the parents the responsible/irresponsible party in that matter? The track owner should sue them for negligence. As far as all tracks are concerned nobody made you come there to ride you did so on your own, so get over it. The judicial system is a joke they should slap a fine on the rider filling a suit and award the track owner a settlement without ever going to court! Morons

I had a similar experience with the tractor post, except luckily I was on the other side of the table top and the bulldozer was coming up the opposite side. Needless to say I pulled off the track and changed my shorts. Their should never be any equipment on the track at the same time as the riders period. The track in Tulsa is cool because they have adult practice, children's practice and track maintenance. These are all identified by different colored flags as you are riding and you are required to pull off when the appropriate flag is displayed.

Originally posted by mx547
regarding psycho69's cousin's case,

as for saying that he assumed the risk, when you sign up for a race, tractors in the way are not part of what constitutes the hazards of racing.

Click to expand...

I would have to agree with MX547 on this one. It really all depends on where the tractor was. Was it hidden? This is exactly what comes up in court. It came up in my case and tractors ( especially on the track) are not part of the assumed risk on an MX track. No suprise there.

Now , IMHO, when a grossly negligent track owner is running a track, collecting money , and providing a service he does have some responsibilities. Who loses if a rider gets killed by a stupid error on the track's part. The error could be as simple as apathy about what is going on around the track. Don't tell me all the riders who did not get killed/severely injured lose. They can still ride and go to work and lead a normal life. The guy that dies because of gross negligence on the part of another isn't even going to get up the next morning. There are just some responsibilites a track owner has to live up to, like any other business. Just providing a "place to ride" is not enough. Heck the state and forest service do that. Other businesses get sued and those don't seem to get shut down because all the legal aspects of running that business are addressed, and preventative measures are taken to minimize $$ spent in court. MX tracks nationwide should do the same. Lets face it, some lawsuits are valid and most are not - but they will occur regardless and if you are in that business you better be prepared for them. And in this case ( no pun intended :) ) and once of prevention will go a long long way.
If in fact , that tractor was 10 feet from the berm, - that is just too close in my opinion. And if I had know it was there I would have bitched to get it off, or not ridden the track till it was. But what if it was just parked there on the previous lap ? I don't exactly occupy my head when I am riding MX with thoughts of , "gee, I wonder where the tractor is now , and if it has pulled on to the track?" I don't know what happened , or if it deserves a lawsuit, but it very well could and should not be dismissed just because the rider was riding MX ( which defending attorneys love to point out how dangerous it is ). It does not need to be any more dangerous that it already is. :)

I know here in California there is a suit going on against a local track.

A group of people had a benefit race held at Praire City to help raise funds for the tracks attorney fee's.  They had a great turnout I hear.

It sounded like another get rich quick deal, at riders expense.

I forgot to tell everyone but all that I know is from hear say. I know I don't have the whole story and I'm not the type to pry into someone elses business. All I know is he hit a tractor wasn't suppose to be there and almost died. He can't ride a bike anymore because if goes down again he could die, he has to watch out to make sure he never gets hit hard in the head again.