Road Race Death Witness...Get Involved?

MoatBuilder wrote:

Now if the race director gave the person a choice between paying $15 and the runner assumes all risks or paying $30 and the race will "insure" the runner, then anybody who chose the $15 option would be out of luck. The race director could take the extra $15 per runner who wants the insurance and by an insurance policy.

Do many races get additional insurance for runners, aside from the liability insurance? How much extra does that cost? Is it really $15 as you suggest?

The paramedics should have a portable de-fibulator. Not having such a device, especially at an event such as this, is negligent.

First of all, the paramedics HAVE to have a defib machine with them. If you look at the original post, he said that they didn't USE it, not that they didn't have it.

Actually, there are valid reasons for not using an AED (automatic external defibrillator) in this case. First, you have to have a shockable rhythm. When a person is in ventricular tachycardia (the ventricles are contracting uncontrollably) or v-fib, shocking is advised. If the person is flat-lined (asystole or no electrical activity at all) shocking is not correct. In the case of asystole, using epinephrine or another drug may help restart the heart. If you weren't there, you don't know, and if the EMTs decided that shocking wasn't going to work, they were probably right. Just because you have the technology doesn't mean that you need to use it. It's on a case by case basis.

As for suing... blame-shifting is one of the dumbest thing that people do in the country. No one wants to take responsibility for anything anymore.

I was sorry for the family, but my empathy just went out the window when they called a lawyer.

That was an example of what could be done to make the waiver binding. It would probably be a way to make a little extra profit for the race. As far as I know, offers a rental-car-like insurance waiver.

Moat wrote:

That was an example of what could be done to make the waiver binding. It would probably be a way to make a little extra profit for the race. As far as I know, offers a rental-car-like insurance waiver.

good idea. but do insurers offer this kind of coverage for runners, aside from the standard race director's liability insurance that you can easily get through usatf?

CGrad wrote:

I was sorry for the family, but my empathy just went out the window when they called a lawyer.

Typical dumb ass physician.

The world will be a better place when it's rid of every single one of the dumb ass physicians.

Or polly pureheart.

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.

I agree; such lawsuits are not "frivalous," though they are "frivolous," and more importantly, ridiculous.

Part of the event director's responsibility is to ensure that paramedics are on the scene to assist, and perhaps save, anyone whose health takes a turn for the worst. As I understand it, the paramedics were responsible for taking action at such time, not the event director.

Your analogy is non-sequitor because water is not specialized equipment. The race director should make sure easily-obtainable materials such as water are available at all aid stations and medical tents. It is not his or her job, however, to provide specialized equipment to trained professionals.

Polly Pureheart wrote:

Typical dumb ass physician.

The world will be a better place when it's rid of every single one of the dumb ass physicians.

I'm not a physician. I just have a significant amount of knowledge about cardiology. I am not a dumbass either. I just think that people should actually take responsibility for their actions, instead of blaming others.

If the gentleman's family didn't understand that he was taking a risk by running the race, that is their problem. Their frustration and reactions do not need to be expressed in a lawsuit.

With charity runners, first timers with no racing experience, the Penguin's army of unfit devotees, and the like, are we seeing the beginning of the end for competitive running? Will organizers of small to medium sized races known for high quality go out of business and leave only huge, expensive "MegaFunFitnessRuns" on the schedule?

Will the threat of lawsuits (if this and others succeed) drive most races to extinction? What shop owner or running club wants to risk civil prosecution because Joe Lardass keeled and his family wants financial revenge?

Roadie wrote:

Moat wrote:

That was an example of what could be done to make the waiver binding. It would probably be a way to make a little extra profit for the race. As far as I know, offers a rental-car-like insurance waiver.

good idea. but do insurers offer this kind of coverage for runners, aside from the standard race director's liability insurance that you can easily get through usatf?

I don't know about any specific insurance offered by insurance companies--I'm just a poor law student. But the standard liability insurance offered to race organizers would work. The point of the choice would be to make the waiver valid. So if a runner chooses to save money and waive liability by selecting the $15 option, that waiver would be legally valid. It would be valid because he had the option to select the $30 entry fee that includes coverage by the race's liability. Since the runner had an option, the waiver is no longer an adhesion contract and now would be legally valid.

MoatBuilder wrote:

Roadie wrote:

good idea. but do insurers offer this kind of coverage for runners, aside from the standard race director's liability insurance that you can easily get through usatf?

I don't know about any specific insurance offered by insurance companies--I'm just a poor law student. But the standard liability insurance offered to race organizers would work. The point of the choice would be to make the waiver valid. So if a runner chooses to save money and waive liability by selecting the $15 option, that waiver would be legally valid. It would be valid because he had the option to select the $30 entry fee that includes coverage by the race's liability. Since the runner had an option, the waiver is no longer an adhesion contract and now would be legally valid.

hmm, interesting. standard rrca/usatf liability insurance rates arent that expensive, comes out to less than $1 per runner in a race of several hundred people. it all makes sense to me, but im not tuned into the law, so excuse the ignorance, but why havent RD's gotten into the habit of giving runner's this option of having insurance if it's to the RD's benefit to do so?

... wrote:

http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/013104/b04w31runningsuit.html

Andy Kimerling, an owner of the Westchester Road Runner store in White Plains and an organizer of the race, said Fazzinga signed a waiver before running. He called the death ? the first he had experienced in 25 years of organizing races ? a tragedy that could not have been foreseen.

...

Kimerling said his club does not bring defibrillators to each race because local police generally have them and because he could not always guarantee the presence of someone trained to use them.

---------------------------------------------------------

Whether or not this suit succeeds rests on whether a jury thinks the parties being sued were negligent. Just from the article it looks like the race director has a couple of problems.

1) He claims that the death "could not have been foreseen." If true, that would be a good defense for not having the medical equipment present. However, more than a few runners have had heart attacks and died during races, so that statement would be hard to prove.

2) He also said that "his club does not bring defibrillators to each race..." I'm inferring from that statment that his club has defibrillators and brings them to some races. Why didn't he bring one to this race and make sure someone was there who know how to use it?

Even so, the plaintiff's still have to prove that a defibrillator would have saved the deceased. That probably won't be easy. The insurance company will undoubtably supply an army of lawyer to defend it's interest and probably has a good chance of winning.

Everyone should stop panicking. There will be no army of lawyers and races are not going to just disappear because of this one death. Relax.

For those of you w/o any experience with the civil justice system, chances of this case, or any case, going to trial are very remote. A suit was filed, that is all. In the ensuing months, the plaintiff and defendant will seek out the truth through a discovery process. Once the facts are flushed out, the case will either be dismissed (by plaintiff or court), settled (if there is a chance of exposure for the defendants) or go to trial (unlikely). That's all!!!

This is not the first lawsuit filed in regard to a road race and will not be the last. The waiver you sign on the application is put there more as a deterent, rather as a release (the release has no effect). (To the law student, it is not b/c they are contracts of adhesion.)

No, I won't relax, thank you. I've been named in two malpractice cases, the Vail skier death case outlined above and another case where everyone and their mother was named including myself, although I'd never laid eyes on the person or had even heard of her until months after her death.

Your system sucks. You can sue whoever you want, whenever you want, with or without any justification. Yes, both cases against me were dismissed after a year of discovery. But that's after $10s of thousands in insurers' legal fees and untold number of hours of my time and unmeasurable psychological distress.

Both were FRIVOLOUS cases with zero merit and no chance in hell. You can't trivialize their impact on me, the true victim, by saying they didn't go to trial. Their is no disincentive for ambulance chasers to file frivolous and damaging suits. Where is my compensation? Where are my apologies?

Guilty or not, I am marked for life. Everytime I renew medical staff privileges with hospitals, insurers, etc, I always have to answer the questions about ever being named in malpractice suits--what were the circumstances/outcomes in 10,000 words or less.

You're a lawyer. You are subject to malpractice actions too. You should know how damaging these can be to individuals and costly to society, even when completely without merit. Plaintiffs should pay damages when they're wrong, actual and punitive. It should go both ways.

Hey Doc

Don't get your panties in a twist. "Relax" was in reference to the clowns who are claiming doomsday in thinking that road races will become extinct.

Read my response on Page 2 of this thread re: presuit review. Additionally, read Tyron Creek's postings. They present the issue well.

It's not my system, it's our system. The alternative is to practice medicine elsewhere.

Goo example of a frivilous lawsuit, but one that worked for the plaintiff:

A girl was admitted to my local hospital, I don't know what for. She was about 16.

Her boyfriend sneaks in and knocks her up. She sues the hospital. Apparently she/her family/lawyer felt the hospital was responsible since she was a minor.

Settled out of court, hospital didn't even try to go to court because of the cost/.

Hey that was me who knocked her up but I got off (so to speak) a year later from the vindictive bastards.

They should know better than to mess with me after all I'm a PHYSICIAN and can do anything I damn well please!

The rest of you just go play with yourselves.

You don't have a clue about the REAL WORLD, what is really going on and how GREAT I am but if you don't know just ask ME and I will tell you!

Dougruns26 wrote:

Hey Doc....The alternative is to practice medicine elsewhere.

Well, there is another alternative. I can raise rates for my services to such an exorbitant level that many of you and your employers will have to pay $10,000/yr for health insurance premiums to cover my exorbitant malpractice premiums so you can sue me at the drop of a hat b/c you won't take personal responsibility for your own health. In fact, that's exactly what me and a million other docs did. Thanks for footing the bill for my malpractice premiums, my children's college educations, my Porsche, and my $mln house. What a country!

Wow, the doctor just schooled the lawyer in a masterfully crafted closing arguement. A tip of the cap to you sir. A lawyer beaten at his own game.

I believe the Eagles and Don Henley said it best in the song "Get Over It".

'I turn on the tube and all I see is a whole lotta people crying don't blame me... got their crooked little fingers pointed at everybody else, spend all their time feeling sorry for themselves..."

That sums up most of America. Victims. Mostly by choice I'm afraid. I agree with the Doc and a few others on here that a cap is needed. Why can't most Americans afford healthcare? Its expensive. Why? The kinds of nuts who sue Pepsi Cola for Chrissakes for the death of their family member can also sue doctors. My Lord in Heaven.