Road Race Death Witness...Get Involved?

Pleaseeeeeeeeee. Give me a break about tort reform and medmal caps. Insurance companies are as much to blame, if not more so, than trial lawyers. Likewise, physicians have much blame in all of this too.

Insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums and paying out as little as possible. There is a lingo among insurance adjusters in the way they handle all claims, including meritorious ones that goes, "defend, delay and don't pay." Furthermore, the reason insurance premiums have risen so significantly over the last several years has to do with the poor rate of return insurance companies have received on their investments, not due to runaway juries. In fact, the number of tort claims and the size of verdicts and settlements is down. More importantly, after caps were recently enacted in a few states including Florida and Nevada, medmal insurance premiums increased. The insurance industry has stated that tort reform will not lower rates. The first comments out of the insurance industry in Florida and Nevada is that rates will NOT come down.

Caps on non-economic damages only hurt those victims with the most serious injuries and disproportionally hurt women, children, seniors and the poor. Caps on damages do not attract doctors. States without caps have 4.4% more physicians.

Additionally, doctors are the worst about policing their own. I have a number of friends who are physicians and they agree with me that there is no system for keeping bad physicians out of the healthcare system. Legislation requiring public disclosure of all disciplinary procedures for physicians would be a huge step. Physicians brought much of this upon themselves. For years, they drained the health insurance cos. by charging exorbitant fees and failed to institute a method of weeding out the bad apples. By the way, more than 50% of all medical negligence is committed by less than 6% of all they physicians.

Trial lawyers are not innocent in all of this. There are many frivolous suits filed everyday, including the one referenced above. However, the system is fairly good, not great, at weeding these out and attorney discipline by the courts and the state regulatory authorities throughout the country is vigorous.

In order to fix this problem, there must be reform of the insurance industry. In particular, encouragment of the formation of doctor-owned insurance vehicles, reform corporate managed care and increase doctors? HMO and Medicare reimbursement rates. Likewise, instituting a neutral method of review of all medmal claims prior to filing would go a long way toward getting rid of the frivilous cases.

I could go on and on, but I will stop here.

There is a standard of reasonableness when it comes to the actions of the race director. Did the race director take the necessary steps to insure the safety of the participants. The size of the race doesn't matter. When you take responsibility for hosting a race there are certain expectations. If the litigants persist, the courts will have to determine if the race host failed to meet those standards.

Was consideration given to medical emergencies, was there a plan, and was the plan articulated to the people expected to carry it out.

The best help the original writer could provide would be if he could provide testimony concerning quick and adequate respone. By all means he should contact the race director if he wants to help but he probably isn't needed.

What is disturbing is when a grieving family end up with a lawyer who uses the shotgun approach - aiming at as many different deep pocketed individuals as he can find. This doesn't appear to be an attempt to seek justice. It looks more like an attempt to reduce pain through money. If the family wants to do something lasting in his memory they should remember why he was there - because he wanted to run - and use this unfortunate incident to push for reform, national standards or the like. Maybe even sponsor a race in his memory.

All this is easy to say because I'm not feeling their pain. I hope he left them with adequate insurance. That could also prompt the need for monetary compensation if there was indeed negligence.

Yeah I'm going to sue the highway dept. if I ever have a wreck and there are no portable de-fibulators on the side of the road waiting for me. I sure hope when I do wreck I run over all your family members so their sorry @ss does not run in any marathons. I would rather them die that way then have you take away from the sport. Get a life you geek and stay away from running your not welcome anymore. Than you can go sue someone because they made you fat.

The trial lawyer industry generated revenues of 40billion last year - which makes it 'bout as big as procter and gamble.

the way to 'get involved' is to demand legislatures enact tort reform. Trial lawyers and their political benefactors -- golden boy John Edwards among them, not to mention erstwhile Senate maj. leader Tom Daschle -- are a blight upon our free land. Victims are incidental to the process. This happens within a legal environment which encourages the blame game and turns blind bad luck and misfortune into commodities which line the pockets of these vultures.

http://www.triallawyersinc.com

I have to agree with Dougruns26, medical malpractice caps are not the answer, Florida has enacted caps and it has not changed the insurance rates. In addition, the caps sound great if you are looking from the outside at something that you think is frivolous, but what happens when you go to the hospital for a routine surgery and due to a hospital mix up, a doctor negligently amputates your leg (and yes this has happened and there was a lawsuit filed) and all you can recover is $500,000.00 because of a cap. As a runner, $500,000.00 is not adeqaute compensation for my ability to run.

Remember, those \\\"run away juries\\\" are made up of individuals just like us, who have heard all the evidence (not just what the media gives us) and have decided the matter. That is our justice system, like it or not, but I will take that any day over a system where legislators, with no basis in facts, set a recovery. Remember, doctors have powerful lobbies too!

it's interesting that the lack of defibrillators entered the debate. a few weekends ago i was back at bucknell for a track meet and mounted on the wall of the fieldhouse, in a glass case, was a set of defibrillators. they had recently been put there. so apparently this is a concern that some places are addressing....like the need for fire extinguishers.

One final thought, it occurs to me that a lawyer may file suit against every possible defendant because if he leaves some out, then the sued defendant will attempt to place blame on the party not sued, i.e., the paramedics in this situation will use as their defense that fact that the race director never advised them of all the facts surrounding the race, including the possible fitness level of entrants.

Having all of the parties involved holds the defendants accountable to not shift blame to someone else, if there is any blame to be shifted. It may be that in this case (as it sounds to me) that no was to blame, but obviously, we don't and cannot know all the facts.

In addition, most lawsuits are thrown out of court or dismissed before they ever get to a jury.

I agree that people try to place blame on everyone else, but in some circumstances, blame does need to be placed on some else because that is where it properly lies.

One final thought -- why in the heck are we discussing medical malpractice caps, our civil court system, and justice reform in ths forum. My advice to the gentleman who witnessed the unfortunate incident at the race is for him to contact the store manager/race director and tell him your willingness to talk with his lawyer if necessary . You are not going to get sued for being a witness -- and you cannot be sued for anything yuo say in court (i.e., slander) unless you committ prejury of course, i.e., lies under oath, but even then you may avoid charges is your misunderstanding surrounds the meaning of "is". I'm just joking so please don't start a string on Clinton.

There is a case wrote:

The paramedics should have a portable de-fibulator. Not having such a device, especially at an event such as this, is negligent. The event director is likewise responsible. Such lawsuits are not frivalous. They ensure that next time the proper considerations will be made for the paying participants. I would certainly sue if a family member died in a marathon from simple dehydration because the med tent was not prepared to provide IV and/or they ran out of water at mile 10. Not all lawsuits are a result of greed.

Then maybe your family member should have properly hydrated themselves. If you get into trouble because you don't take care of yourself properly, it shouldn't be someone else's responsibility to make up for your stupidity.

Man, this country is going down in flames. Nobody wants to take simply responsibility for their actions anymore. It's always someone else's fault. There's always someone to sue for it...

next time you are sick +/- injured, see your attorney for treatment.

4rnnr007 wrote:

When you pay your $30 to register for a road race, how much of that goes to cover the organizer's liability insurance?

In Canada it is $1.50 to $2.00 per runner. Not sure about US amounts but I doubt it is a major expense.

I have organized several races and will organize several more and I can tell you that situations like this are always on my mind.

All a race organizer can do is be prepared.

A previous post suggests that no on-site paramedics were needed for a race of about 100 participants. That's complete bull. As soon as you charge a fee for your event the duty of care goes up tremendously.

For me to have road/pathway permits issued I must have my insurance, first aid and police to control intersections (if needed) in place. Even if your event does not require a permit you would be foolish not to have these in place.

Not that I believe that this case has merit (the runner is ultimately responsible) I can say that if the race did not have on-site designated first aid support they are in for trouble.

Better yet, why don't you report some of the bad docs that you practice with everyday.

More importantly, why don't you fight your battle with the HMOs and insurance companies to pay you reasonable reimbursements. Oh yeah, I forgot, you all took advantage of them and the system in the 1960-1980s and made yourselves a bundled. If you are a new doc, look to your older collegues and ask them to supplement your medmal ins. premiums.

Sehon, you're a great guy. And I admire what you and Dave did a whole lot. But I think you're wrong on this in several ways.

First, tort law is a matter of State law. It always has been and, under our system of government, always should be. Washington has no business telling Pennsylania how its tort system should be set up.

Second, insurance companies have voluntarily opted in to their place in this current system because they can make money by doing so. In fact, they still do make money or else they would leave the business. In fact, one of the reasons why medical costs are so high is because of the costs of of our entire liability and insurance-based regime. A New Zealand-type scheme, wherein everyone who is injured by an accident is compensated a reaonable amount, without having to establish fault or liability, would be much more efficient, but would cut out the private profits of the insurance industry.

And third, most recent studies have shown that the so-called "tort crisis" is mostly a bunch of anecdotal nonsense propogated by the editors of the Wall Street Journal and their friends at the Heritage Foundation. In fact, with the possible exception of punitive damages (which are rarely in play in the medical malpractice area), the tort system is functioning pretty much as it always has, with no recent unexpected spike in either the numbers of cases or the size of jury awards (adjusted for changes in population and inflation, respectively). Instead, that vast majority of cases involve real people with real damages. And most of the frivolous cases that you read about are just that -- frivolous. And the lawywers that bring them get paid nothing (1/3 of zero is zero). The market, left to itself, has a way of discouraging good lawyers from bringing frivolous cases. And the bad lawyers are even less likely to succeed bringing borderline cases than a good lawyer would be.

I'm not saying that there aren't lawyers out there that bring cases that shouldn't be brought. There are. But the way to solve the problem is not by denying those with real injuries the full extent of their damages. Artificial caps on damages may sound good if you work for the insurance industry. They sound a lot worse if you or someone you care about is severely injured through someone else's negligence.

Tryon,

Isn't the strategy employed in most of these cases to file suit, threaten the defendant with some obscene amount of damages sought, then sit back and watch the defendant settle for six or seven figures rather than risk litigation?

It seems to a layman like me that most of these suits never seea courtroom because the insurance companies will settle then pass the costs on to policy holders. Why? Because they have little or no faith in juries to make fair decisions based on law.

Portland Runner wrote:

Tryon,

Isn't the strategy employed in most of these cases to file suit, threaten the defendant with some obscene amount of damages sought, then sit back and watch the defendant settle for six or seven figures rather than risk litigation?

It seems to a layman like me that most of these suits never seea courtroom because the insurance companies will settle then pass the costs on to policy holders. Why? Because they have little or no faith in juries to make fair decisions based on law.

Tort cases are no different than any other cases. If the parties are accurately gauging the likelihood of success or failure on the merits, and the consequences of both, the outcome that is generated through settlements should (over the long run) be no different than the outcomes that would have been generated through trial, other than the efficiencies generated through the settlement process itself (which has to be a good thing). If the insurance companies are paying out more, on balance, to settle cases than the plaintiffs would have recovered after trial, it's because they are not very good at analyzing risk. If that's true, I would argue that the blame lies with the insurance companies, not the tort system.

Dougruns26 wrote:

By the way, more than 50% of all medical negligence is committed by less than 6% of all they physicians.

Wow, makes me hope I have one of the 94% doctors.

if the race got its insurance through RRCA or USATF, the provisions for medical care are supposed to be followed.

for a dinky little race i put on last year, i got liability insurance through USATF. it was like $150 for up to 250 runners. they required at least one paramedic (EMT-1 certified) on site, and i got one to volunteer his time with equipment. the permit cost another $150. fortunately, we only had one incident for the paramedic--some guy needed ice for his ankle.

additional note--last year, i ran bay to breakers with a couple of friends from school--one collapsed and died on the spot. he was only 28 and in decent shape. the paramedics got there almost immediately and did their thing, but they didnt seem altogether very organized. the chronicle called my other friend and me b/c they were interested in highlighting this story in an article on paramedics and emergency treatment in the city. the family of my friend didnt want to go there and requested that we not talk to the reporter about it. i dont think the paramedics couldve made a difference, though, and there was no suit filed against anyone--the guy was only 28 years old and probably had a genetic condition (i still dont know all the details). paramedics can only do so much.

I have to disagree with the "waiver shouldn't let everyone off the hook". I think it should. It is a contract, and even though we never read it we are entering into a contract. Death is rare in our sport, but it is not unheard of. Although very sad he knew the chance he was taking. I have had to be taken to the emergency room from passing out in a race before resulting if pretty large amount of medical bills. The thought of trying to make anyone related to the event liable never crossed my mind. I knew the chances and I ran it. People have to take ownership of their actions.Our society is too lawsuit happy.

Rufus wrote:

That's rough business. You have to obviously pain for the family, as I'm sure the lawsuit is a result of their grief. As you said, the waiver shouldn't let everyone off the hook, but should it not remove the liability from the race directors/running store? You can sue anyone these days. Although you have good intentions, do you think your testimony would make a difference?

Well said. You are responsible for your own choices and actions......period!

TC

Thanks for chiming in!!! You are right on the mark.