60 year old Man sues 8 year old Child.... (Page 2)

OK, Car situation, driving to work, it's risky, yes?  You are out ont he road, someone might skid into you? Or, as happened to me a few weeks ago, girl chatting on her phone rear ends me.  It's an accident.  No criminal intent.  No intent at all, infact, criminal or civil.  Total, 100% negligence.  I's a risk of driving.  (Let's take insurance out of the discussion)  SO I am responsible for the $1300 repair bill?

This applies to ALL human activities, so it doesn't matter if you bring up a tri sceanrio, or a golfing scenario, or whatever.  If someone else is negligent and injures another person or their property, they should have to be responsible for those injuries/damages, if the injured person chooses to seek compensation.

As for the tri, I liken it to the skier, the person overtaking has the responsibility, if a newbie, or hell, anyone, swerves into their path, it's likely the overtaking person's responsibility (of course, there is no bright line, this is why there are lawsuits, unfortunately).  The bonehad move is perhaps the overtaking person for not calling left, or passing too close, or... who knows.

I guess my overall point is it's too simplistic to say "well you were skiing/mountain biking/racing a tri" therefore you've assumed all risks of injury without taking into account the particular facts involved.

BTW, there is an (unofficial) SKier's Code Of Responsibility that says what I did above (the upslope person must yield to the downslope person)

Anyway, enough lawyer talk out of me this morning

Out

I wouldn't say all these types of suits are frivilous either, but this one (according to the news story) did seem as such.  One takes an inherent risk when participating in a sport.  Under the _normal_ conditions of the sport, one should fully assume that risk.  That is my opinion, of course... courts could decide differently, and there is probably case law out there to prove me wrong!  (gasp!) 

Sorry, one more (I can't help myself, you cited to a statement of law).  The Colorado law (as summarized, can't vouch for its accuracy) doesn't make the distinction you did between moving and non-moving downhill skiier - emphasis added below

"Colorado law presumes that the uphill skier is at fault in an accident, because the overtaking skier has the primary duty to avoid the skier below him or her. Thus, one of the key issues in any skier/skier case is who was the uphill or overtaking skier. The nature of the injury often gives substantial clues as to how the accident occurred, the speed at which the skiers were skiing, and the relative angles to each other"

Nothing about uphill guy hitting someone standing

Now I am really Out

Hijacking this a bit since this scenario happened within the last week here.  A 16-year old was driving home and hit an elderly gentleman, around 80 years old or so, that was walking across the 2-lane, not heavily traveled, county highway to check his mail across the street.  The kid didn't see the guy right away (dusk), and killed him.  The kid isn't going to be charged due to the circumstances.

Sad thing to happen, and I bet the kid is shaken up tremendously and will never forget this.  The family to the gentleman that was killed I feel sorry for, too.

Mine too.

I don't believe Karma exists, but maybe "bad Karma" is the closest idea to why I wouldn't want to sue.

I've seen some friends and family members who have gotten caught up in certain kinds of lawsuits, and it seems to eat them up inside in a way.

I guess for me, it would have to pass the "look at myself in the mirror test".  As I get older, it's hard enough to look at myself in the mirror, what with all the new lines and all, without adding the burden of suing someone because I got hurt in a voluntary recreational activity. 

truly, honestly, really, my last post on the topic...

FTR, my posts have nothing whatsoever to do with lawsuits.  Merely responsibility (lawsuits are for another thread).  If someone chooses to shoulder the burden of repairing their own property/injuries caused by another's negligence, I totally respect that decision

To be consistent, I would also expect that same person would not seek to recover from the negligent party's insurance company  (An insurance claim and a lawsuit are differrent only in their titles and the amount of money it costs to resolve.  It seeks to place someone "at fault."

no more tempting me with juicy posts, OK?

Yea, you wish...

I agree that to be consistent you shouldn't go after their insurance company as well.

Look, I'm glad we have the right to sue in our system. I just think it's over used. I don't understand all that is involved in the call for tort reform, but when I hear the phrase "tort reform" I think, "yea, go for it".

Exactly!!!

I always wear a helmet, not because I'm afraid that I'll plow into a tree, but rather to protect myself from someone who is going to plow into me.