IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL (Page 9)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2009-07-10 9:22 AM in reply to: #2275818 |
The Original 7834 Raleigh/Durham | Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL Black Spandex Man - 2009-07-10 10:15 AM runnergirl - 2009-07-10 10:08 AM But I can see where weaker/beginner swimmers might have struggled with the IM FL swim that day- it did get rougher as the morning progressed. You made the point, but I'll stress that "weaker/beginner swimmers" don't have much business entering a 140.6 race. And really...for an ocean swim, the conditions that day were pretty mild. I'm a good swimmer and comfortable in the ocean, but the winds were offshore so the waves were small. A little choppy, sure, but nothing close to conditions a swim should ever be cancelled for. Ditto- it's good that the sport is gaining interest and popularity, but it's bad because so many people think they are invincible and can do anything. I wonder why for IM's you dont' have to submit race times from a 1/2 IM or something? Kinda like for ultras- alot of 50 mile races won't let you register until you've completed a marathon or 50K. I think most 100 milers require you to complete a 50 miler before registering. I wonder why for IM's they don't make that a requirement to be safe? |
|
2009-07-10 9:40 AM in reply to: #2275858 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL runnergirl - 2009-07-10 10:22 AM Black Spandex Man - 2009-07-10 10:15 AM runnergirl - 2009-07-10 10:08 AM But I can see where weaker/beginner swimmers might have struggled with the IM FL swim that day- it did get rougher as the morning progressed. You made the point, but I'll stress that "weaker/beginner swimmers" don't have much business entering a 140.6 race. And really...for an ocean swim, the conditions that day were pretty mild. I'm a good swimmer and comfortable in the ocean, but the winds were offshore so the waves were small. A little choppy, sure, but nothing close to conditions a swim should ever be cancelled for. Ditto- it's good that the sport is gaining interest and popularity, but it's bad because so many people think they are invincible and can do anything. I wonder why for IM's you dont' have to submit race times from a 1/2 IM or something? I guess that could conceivable be a result of all this. But, on the flip side, considering the number of people that do these races, there are exceedingly few incidents. So you could probably argue that past results indicate a qualifying system isn't needed. |
2009-07-10 10:05 AM in reply to: #2175921 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2009-07-10 10:09 AM in reply to: #2275922 |
Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL Black Spandex Man - 2009-07-10 7:40 AM runnergirl - 2009-07-10 10:22 AM Black Spandex Man - 2009-07-10 10:15 AM runnergirl - 2009-07-10 10:08 AM But I can see where weaker/beginner swimmers might have struggled with the IM FL swim that day- it did get rougher as the morning progressed. You made the point, but I'll stress that "weaker/beginner swimmers" don't have much business entering a 140.6 race. And really...for an ocean swim, the conditions that day were pretty mild. I'm a good swimmer and comfortable in the ocean, but the winds were offshore so the waves were small. A little choppy, sure, but nothing close to conditions a swim should ever be cancelled for. Ditto- it's good that the sport is gaining interest and popularity, but it's bad because so many people think they are invincible and can do anything. I wonder why for IM's you dont' have to submit race times from a 1/2 IM or something? I guess that could conceivable be a result of all this. But, on the flip side, considering the number of people that do these races, there are exceedingly few incidents. So you could probably argue that past results indicate a qualifying system isn't needed. Didn't the article Fred quoted state he had done a half ironman? So requiring a 70.3 as a result of a potential adverse ruling doesn't make much sense |
2009-07-10 10:11 AM in reply to: #2175921 |
Champion 8936 | Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL I'm not so sure these are caused by people being weaker swimmers. Most of them seem to be cardiac events from what's being reported. Some are swimming along just fine right up until a sudden moment of trouble. Not sure how I feel about qualifying standards, but it doesn't sound like it would have changed what happened in most of these cases. |
2009-07-10 11:33 AM in reply to: #2175921 |
Regular 80 Ft. Bragg, NC | Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL When will we find the results of the trial? I also was looking for a IM FL waiver online to read what it says, but couldn't find one. Because (I THINK) in most waivers I've signed I thought it said that the organization holding the competition can't be held accountable for injuries/death caused by a competitors personal fitness/health or lack there of. Plus the lifeguards and rescuers are there for more of a preventive purpose in the water. The lifeguards did exactly as they were trained and in a fairly timely matter from what I've read. Only reason why the paramedics weren't directly at the seen is because they're used for the run and bike portions; where injury due to crashes and such are much more likely. I dunno maybe I'm missing something but I still don't see why this has gone as far as it has already. Figured the waiver itself would have covered this from the start. |
|
2009-07-10 11:50 AM in reply to: #2276324 |
Expert 828 | Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL Patch-Adams - I dunno maybe I'm missing something but I still don't see why this has gone as far as it has already. Figured the waiver itself would have covered this from the start. You'd think...but I am in medicine and we see it a lot. No matter what the patient signs, if something doesn't go just right, many have a lawyer on speed dial. 99% go by the way side. But some are pursued and cost us $$$ to have lawyers show there is nothing to go after. From what I've read, nothing at all was improper and in any way led to the organizers being liable for an unfortunate death. My wife and I have discussed this type of thing and both agreed that if one of us dies in a tri, the lawyers would be wasting their time calling us....the risk is inherent and we know we are volunteering.... |
2009-07-10 3:04 PM in reply to: #2175921 |
Extreme Veteran 3177 | Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL Is it possible the volunteer that brought him in/did the CPR was a lifeguard just not being paid for their service? The 5 minute ambulence time seemed a bit long yes but think of the crowds, positions, the fact that the course IS so long etc and it seems a bit more reasonable. I also think the prosecuters will have to prove, without a doubt, that those 5 minutes would have made a difference in the long run for someone who had a massive cardiac event. I know that in some cases five minutes can make a difference but is this case one of those? It sounds like even after being revived (though probably not conscious) on the way to the hospital his heart was still so damaged from the initial event that is what caused him to pass on a short while later (from stories I read relating to this previously). Could their be better organization? Probably but that does not mean the family will be entitled to a settlement if everything in this case was done optimally IMO. This is a sad case Looking forward to the Jury's desicion soon though. |
2009-07-10 3:07 PM in reply to: #2175921 |
Champion 6046 New York, NY | Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL I have not read through this whole thread, but he WAS well trained, and the cause of death was drowning. The complaint and suit are about the fact that they did NOT have in place what their stated plan was: only one ambulance not five, many fewer lifeguards than stated, no planned exit point, no drills were done..... so this is not about being a newbie, - you can be slow and get through just fine. The issue had to do with their was a safety plan that they did not execute. |
2009-07-10 3:25 PM in reply to: #2276364 |
Champion 8766 Evergreen, Colorado | Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL My wife and I have discussed this type of thing and both agreed that if one of us dies in a tri, the lawyers would be wasting their time calling us....the risk is inherent and we know we are volunteering.... Yup. After reading this thread when it originally came out I made sure to let my family know my wishes...no suits unless there was some ridiculously gross negligence like they just let me lay there for an hour and didn't do anything. I think if more people had this discussion before the race we wouldn't see stupid lawsuits....or at least maybe not as many. For some reason people don't like to talk about death, but you have to. |
2009-07-10 3:33 PM in reply to: #2276950 |
Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL jldicarlo - 2009-07-10 1:25 PM My wife and I have discussed this type of thing and both agreed that if one of us dies in a tri, the lawyers would be wasting their time calling us....the risk is inherent and we know we are volunteering.... Yup. After reading this thread when it originally came out I made sure to let my family know my wishes...no suits unless there was some ridiculously gross negligence like they just let me lay there for an hour and didn't do anything. I think if more people had this discussion before the race we wouldn't see stupid lawsuits....or at least maybe not as many. For some reason people don't like to talk about death, but you have to. This is the point of a lawsuit like this, and why even the best written waiver won't be a complete defense. Brain death occurs withing 4-6 minutes (right docs??). So... where's the line. While an hour is too long, so then is 10 minutes. Is that gross negligence? 5 minutes? Does it depend on knowledge of prior circumstances/races? Does your fmaily make the decision as to what is too long? Everyone is free not to sue. The world would be a bit better if we had less suits. BUT if having 1 ambulance would increase the risks inherent in the sport, whereas 5 would not have (as is being reported), then isn't the family entitled to their day in court to see if NAS actually screwed up and/or didn't provide adequate services? I am not a plaintiff's atty, I am actually a defense atorney, so I don't like frivolous lawsuits any more than the next guy. But I guess I just don't understand when people (not directed at you, Jen) make banket statements that a suit like this should never be brought. It's nice to say you died doing something you love, but what about if you didn't have to die doing something you loved? If a loved one died (god forbid) doing something they loved for which they signed a release (which cannot by law in most states releases gross negligence), but the provider screwed up and contributed to or caused the death, you bet your a$$ I will at the very least consider a lawsuit, if not file one. Edited by ChrisM 2009-07-10 3:39 PM |
|
2009-07-10 3:42 PM in reply to: #2276971 |
Champion 8766 Evergreen, Colorado | Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL ChrisM - 2009-07-10 3:33 PM jldicarlo - 2009-07-10 1:25 PM My wife and I have discussed this type of thing and both agreed that if one of us dies in a tri, the lawyers would be wasting their time calling us....the risk is inherent and we know we are volunteering.... Yup. After reading this thread when it originally came out I made sure to let my family know my wishes...no suits unless there was some ridiculously gross negligence like they just let me lay there for an hour and didn't do anything. I think if more people had this discussion before the race we wouldn't see stupid lawsuits....or at least maybe not as many. For some reason people don't like to talk about death, but you have to. This is the point of a lawsuit like this, and why even the best written waiver won't be a complete defense. Brain death occurs withing 4-6 minutes (right docs??). So... where's the line. While an hour is too long, so then is 10 minutes. Is that gross negligence? 5 minutes? Does it depend on knowledge of prior circumstances/races? Does your fmaily make the decision as to what is too long? Everyone is free not to sue. The world would be a bit better if we had less suits. BUT if having 1 ambulance would increase the risks inherent in the sport, whereas 5 would not have (as is being reported), then isn't the family entitled to their day in court to see if NAS actually screwed up and/or didn't provide adequate services? I am not a plaintiff's atty, I am actually a defense atorney, so I don't like frivolous lawsuits any more than the next guy. But I guess I just don't understand when people (not directed at you, Jen) make banket statements that a suit like this should never be brought. It's nice to say you died doing something you love, but what about if you didn't have to die doing something you loved? If a loved one died (god forbid) doing something they loved for which they signed a release (which cannot by law in most states releases gross negligence), but the provider screwed up and contributed to or caused the death, you bet your a$$ I will at the very least consider a lawsuit, if not file one. I define gross negligence as 1. Not even trying to help the person or 2. Doing something so incredibly stupid that even the dumbest person you could find would think it was wrong. But if it took them an extra minute to get to me because they had 4 ambulances instead of 5? STOP WASTING THE COURTS' TIME. I knew what I was getting into. |
2009-07-10 3:51 PM in reply to: #2276983 |
Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL jldicarlo - 2009-07-10 1:42 PM ChrisM - 2009-07-10 3:33 PM jldicarlo - 2009-07-10 1:25 PM My wife and I have discussed this type of thing and both agreed that if one of us dies in a tri, the lawyers would be wasting their time calling us....the risk is inherent and we know we are volunteering.... Yup. After reading this thread when it originally came out I made sure to let my family know my wishes...no suits unless there was some ridiculously gross negligence like they just let me lay there for an hour and didn't do anything. I think if more people had this discussion before the race we wouldn't see stupid lawsuits....or at least maybe not as many. For some reason people don't like to talk about death, but you have to. This is the point of a lawsuit like this, and why even the best written waiver won't be a complete defense. Brain death occurs withing 4-6 minutes (right docs??). So... where's the line. While an hour is too long, so then is 10 minutes. Is that gross negligence? 5 minutes? Does it depend on knowledge of prior circumstances/races? Does your fmaily make the decision as to what is too long? Everyone is free not to sue. The world would be a bit better if we had less suits. BUT if having 1 ambulance would increase the risks inherent in the sport, whereas 5 would not have (as is being reported), then isn't the family entitled to their day in court to see if NAS actually screwed up and/or didn't provide adequate services? I am not a plaintiff's atty, I am actually a defense atorney, so I don't like frivolous lawsuits any more than the next guy. But I guess I just don't understand when people (not directed at you, Jen) make banket statements that a suit like this should never be brought. It's nice to say you died doing something you love, but what about if you didn't have to die doing something you loved? If a loved one died (god forbid) doing something they loved for which they signed a release (which cannot by law in most states releases gross negligence), but the provider screwed up and contributed to or caused the death, you bet your a$$ I will at the very least consider a lawsuit, if not file one. I define gross negligence as 1. Not even trying to help the person or 2. Doing something so incredibly stupid that even the dumbest person you could find would think it was wrong. But if it took them an extra minute to get to me because they had 4 ambulances instead of 5? STOP WASTING THE COURTS' TIME. I knew what I was getting into. What if that extra minute meant that you would not have died, and that any reasonable race director would have had more than one, and didn't have one because they didn't want to spend the extra money? What if that left you brain dead? And how would you even know unless you sued them (NAS is certainly not going to freely give up such information). I guess the point I am trying to make (which I'll stop doing) is that it's very easy to sit in our offices and homes and say I signed up for that, when not a single perosn here knows what actually happened and for what reasons. But I know this opinion isn't shared by most BTers so, I'll shut up now. ETA - just for the record, your definition of gross negligence is not the same as that applied by the courts in such cases Edited by ChrisM 2009-07-10 3:54 PM |
2009-07-10 4:02 PM in reply to: #2277004 |
Expert 973 Berkeley, Calif. | Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL ChrisM - 2009-07-10 1:51 PM But I know this opinion isn't shared by most BTers so, I'll shut up now. I agree with you 100 percent. |
2009-07-10 6:49 PM in reply to: #2175921 |
Champion 7595 Columbia, South Carolina | Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL Suppose, for the sake of argument, that: (a) The NAS did not follow its own safety plan. (b) That safety plan is what knowledgeable people say is minimally required to run the race responsibly. In that case, I'd suggest that a lawsuit is almost required, if it appears to be the only way to ensure that the NAS gets its safety act together. I would personally feel very disinclined to sue, but I would probably feel that it is necessary. For the record: I have NO IDEA whether (a) and (b) are true. |
2009-07-10 7:14 PM in reply to: #2277275 |
Champion 8936 | Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL Experior - 2009-07-10 6:49 PMSuppose, for the sake of argument, that: The alternate answer is that there is nothing that can be done to save people in many cases matter what measures are in place.(a) The NAS did not follow its own safety plan. (b) That safety plan is what knowledgeable people say is minimally required to run the race responsibly. In that case, I'd suggest that a lawsuit is almost required, if it appears to be the only way to ensure that the NAS gets its safety act together. I would personally feel very disinclined to sue, but I would probably feel that it is necessary. For the record: I have NO IDEA whether (a) and (b) are true. |
|
2009-07-10 7:15 PM in reply to: #2175921 |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL Might "mass swim starts" in generally be considered inherently dangerous and therefore be considered negligent? A TT start like IMKY is safer. Not only are swimmers on top of one another beating the crap out of each other vying for position but they are spread out enough for safety personnel to keep an eye on swimmers in peril. Of course some will say it diminishes from the "race" aspect of the competition but AG waves might be a good compromise? ~Mike |
2009-07-10 7:40 PM in reply to: #2277301 |
Champion 7595 Columbia, South Carolina | Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL DerekL - 2009-07-10 8:14 PM Experior - 2009-07-10 6:49 PMSuppose, for the sake of argument, that: The alternate answer is that there is nothing that can be done to save people in many cases matter what measures are in place.(a) The NAS did not follow its own safety plan. (b) That safety plan is what knowledgeable people say is minimally required to run the race responsibly. In that case, I'd suggest that a lawsuit is almost required, if it appears to be the only way to ensure that the NAS gets its safety act together. I would personally feel very disinclined to sue, but I would probably feel that it is necessary. For the record: I have NO IDEA whether (a) and (b) are true. Good point. I agree with that. That requires a third point to be in place, which I should have noticed anyway since it's what ChrisM has been emphasizing (among other things), namely, that the gap between what they actually did and the 'safety plan' can reasonably be blamed for the death. Still, even if just (a) and (b) are in place, one would surely like to see that situation changed. (b) doesn't assert that running the race responsibly guarantees no deaths. |
2009-07-10 8:41 PM in reply to: #2175956 |
Regular 281 | Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL ashort33 - 2009-05-27 1:31 PM they will not settle out of court - that will only encourage others to file frivolous suits. Isn't there a group suing the Chicago Marathon after last fall? What happened to personal responsbility? That went out the door a long time ago. Everything now is always someone else's fault or worst of all responsibility. Someone should pay for my healthcare, schooling, children, retirement, and if something bad happens then it wasn't me but them. (Just saw the new post) My original guess is the family would win becuase the trial lawyer will convince the jury that unless there is a kayak per person that if everyone suddenly started drowning they'd be too overwhelmed and therefore USAT, et al were not properly prepared. Luckily they didn't win (though I'm sorry for their loss). I'm also guessing someone who does a full Ironman has had triathlon experience before and was very well aware of the risks. It's not like someone just jumping into a sprint tri with no experience. |
2009-07-10 8:48 PM in reply to: #2277403 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2009-07-11 3:26 PM in reply to: #2175999 |
Master 1848 Canandaigua | Subject: RE: IM NA is being sued for death at IMFL JorgeM - 2009-05-27 1:44 PM Yikes, I did NOT know I could end up hurt (even dying) by choosing to participate in a triathlon by my own free will. OMG, that's horrible, I am hanging the sneakers and selling the bikes ASAP... (sorry for the affected family but I really really really hope the lawsuit is discarded...) Send pictures of bike. |
|
|