Should Cheruiyot Sue?

Head injury. Immobilize. First Aid.

Not jerk him about quickly and violently.

it was an unfortunate accident.

though i dont think its their nature to be so quick as to sue. he'd have to be talked into doing it im sure, as they probably dont even know the meaning of the word. fortunate for them.

poor guy i hope he recovers quickly. i know about falling and hitting hard.

it was piss poor. seriously it was crappy out and who would put a slick decal on the road? awful.

If that was Pinkowski picking him up and touching the back of his head, I'm aghast. Skuj is spot on, Immobilize is the first thing. Could be big trouble if the right schyster lawyer gets ahold of it.

I have watched a guy fall weird before. He was still able to move around/move his arms and legs, etc. He spent the next 6 hours in surgery getting a titanium plate put in his neck because his vertebrae were crushed. You don't have to be unable to move to have a very serious neck injury. If we had not imediately imobalized the guy, even though he could move, he would have been screwed.

He signed a waiver

Running is potentially hazardous and he accepted it

Yes, ethically it shouldn't have happened

Sponsor logos are dangerous

Here's the problem with the whole "can he sue" thing.

What are his damages? Yes, he fell, bumped his head. That's horrible, whatever, I hope he's feeling OK.

Unfortunately, this fall did not cost him the race and he didn't suffer anything that can be financially compensated for. You know the Chicago group is going to do everything possible to right this, so there is nothing else he could really do.

Yes I recognize there are crafty lawyers out there who would talk about the mental trauma of falling, the embarrassment, etc... Once again though, this would be a tough one to really get a lot of money for.

And now I just found out his brain is hemmoraging ... please ignore my previous post now.

Thats why your a student, next time STFU

who knew wrote:

it was an unfortunate accident.

though i dont think its their nature to be so quick as to sue. he'd have to be talked into doing it im sure, as they probably dont even know the meaning of the word. fortunate for them.

poor guy i hope he recovers quickly. i know about falling and hitting hard.

Do you think we can teach THEM to sit at the table and use silverware?sarcasticiconhere

C-Bus wrote:

I don't think they messed that up at all. If they thought he had broken a vertebrae then he should have been immobilized, but he was obviously moving around after the fall.

STFU. You are ignorant.

Head trama protocal:

BSI/Scene is safe

C-spine (physical immobilization of the head in a neutral inline position)

CMS (check of Circulation, Motor control, and Sensory function at all extremities)

C-collar (neck brace applied so that head can't move)

Backboard (patient carefully moved onto backboard and headblocks and straps applied)

Repeat CMS

Evac to hospital

Just because he remained conscious and was moving around does not preclude serious injury.

What should have been done:

He falls

Medical staff rushes to his side

Someone stabilizes the head

Someone talks to him, tells him to remain still and determines his level of consciousness

Medical staff determines from trama assessment, patient responses, and witness accounts that this is a potentially serious injury.

CMS/C-collar/Backboard/CMS/get to hospital

check pupils, throw on an o2 mask, establish IV, reassess injuries, etc, in the mean time.

I recall laughing my head off when Fidel Castro tripped and fell after giving a speech. People rushed over, grabbed his arms and helped him to his feet. It turned out that he had broken his arm and they caused more damage.

Robert C. should not have been helped up, he should have remained supine and immobile until properly treated and loaded on a backboard.

You do not move injured people (especially head and spine trama) without proper medical procedure

(unless an emergency move is required, ie: he is on a train track and a fast train is 20 seconds away, or he is near something that is about to blow up (gas tank), or some other immediate danger that is going to kill him. If a 10 second delay will cause something to kill him, to hell with backboarding, you grab and go)

What I saw happen at the finish line was medical negligence.

If this affects his racing then he should definitely be compensated for the loss of potential earnings.

Don't races come with disclaimers?

runningEMT wrote:

Head trama protocal:

><

At what point should a medic intervene? If forinstance Cheruiyot had gotten to his feet under his own power and did not remain on ground longer than 10 seconds or so. Or if while on the ground he lifted his arm and said "hand up buddy?' and the ribbon holder helped him up.

Thanks for the clear way you explained the protocal.

[Now as I re consider this situation, with the assumption he is fine and that it did not cost him the race and subsequently his pay for the win it is apparent, in my view a lawsuit does not seem appropriate or productive for anyone accept a unscrupulous attorney. It seems that any costs involved with his medical examination would be handled by the races insurance or handled by the deductible or out of pocket expenses. I imagine the "Chicago Marathon" is being well advised how to handle this.If however, for the sake of argumentation, he did end up losing the race for not finishing or he is hurt in a material way, it seems the placement of a sponsorship logo or paint that was placed there by the marathon organizing committee or a representative of theirs would make the "Chicago Marathon" materially responsible. Based on that, in my estimation, it would seem to be their responsibility to pay damages, even with a waiver signed, because it would be assumed the course was set up to preclude any danger. The lawyers of the marathon and the lawyers that represent the agent for Robert Cheruiyot, I imagine would find a settlement before it went to trial. Undoubtedly, I am sure no one wanted or expected this to happen; however, it does seem that the race has a responsibility to assure a safe racecourse under their direction and control. With that said, I would retract my earlier statement based on intent of safety, as it does become really a matter of choice of materials that would have been considered. This would be similar to a homeowner who painted his or her porch with paint that became slick in the rain. The property owner would be liable for any damages that happened to anyone who was hurt because of the slick surface. If for the sake of a second argument there happened to be an oil slick or a slippery patch of slick leaves, it seems in this case a fall would not be a result of an unsafe racecourse set up. It seems the courts would have some flexibility in what one would consider reasonable for liability purposes. In the case of leaves it seems this would be, "assumed risk" by a participant and the waiver would in this case protect the marathon. An oil slick scenario may find an interesting argument for liability, if one "assumes" the course was inspected prior to release of the runners; however this would be a little more difficult to argue. It does seem outside the scope of a race organizing committee to be reasonably sure all 26.2 miles are oil slick or debris free, especially if an oil slick would occur after the race began. In conclusion, the race does seem to bear responsibility for the imposed risk that was created by their choice of placement of a slick surface at the finish line. Perhaps it easy to say in hindsight, things should have been different or that things should have been handled differently; however, I would not argue any of this was caused with harmful intent, which then makes this it a moral argument rather than a legal argument. It would be interesting to get the point of view of an attorney that deals with these types of situations.

The waiver does not absolve the organizers of liability. The doctrine involved is "assumption of risk," as has been mentioned here. A person assumes the risk of harms that he knows/should have known about. The waiver is proof that the runners knew/should have known about those risks, i.e. you signed something that warned you about these dangers, so your knowledge is presumed.

Despite the waiver, the test for negligence here is what is accepted as reasonable in the marathon community. So evidence would include whether other marathons have paint at the finish line, and if so whether this led to accidents.

But really, who cares. He probably isn't going to sue. I hope he is ok. The takeaway lesson: paint is slick, especially in the rain. Don't put it at the finish line. Put the logo on something else.

I read people saying paint on the ground, it is my belief from watching the videos that some sort of sheetgoods with a logo of some sort was placed on the ground just before the mat, as RC was on the ground you can see in the background someone picking up what looks to be a 30 to 36 inch square and moving it to the far(top in video) side of the finish area.When it was picked up it seems to be somewhat flexible like a wet piece of oaktag would be*.

It does not look like any thing was painted by the race people nor that the motorlane stripes made of a rubberish plastic like stuff were involved in this.

One poster on another board thought the paper(?) was placed on top of the wet road stripe causing a layer of water to be trapped under it and making the thing slip. Possible I guess, hard to see with all the people milling about exactly what was on the ground exactly under the spot he slipped on..

*oaktag,cardboard,posterstock,semi-thick plastic or high glossphotostock(my bet) .

Comments?

*posterstock or single ply cardboard.

Robert Cheruiyot just got punked.

YES YES YES YES....5 MILLION AND THEM RETIRE!!!F*** THAT DIRECTOR ASSHOLE!!!