Unregistered MudRun participant sues when paralyzed

I can't understand how any style of construction could be at play. He dropped to his hands and broke his spine. A flat, unaltered piece of ground could have led to that outcome.

Also, the waiver could come to play because it would suggest someone in his 50s in 30+ 5k shape may not be able to handle the course.

European wrote:

Welcome to America, where stupidity is rewarded and people are proud of it!

you were saying?

Mint Berry Crunch wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/01/fan-injured-by-hot-dog-suing-kansas-city-royals-despite-baseball-rule/?intcmp=latestnews

you were saying?

"You have this competition with teams engaged in pushing the envelope trying to make the experience at the event better than what you can experience at home," said Jordan Kobritz, a professor in the Sports Management Department at SUNY Cortland. "You also have the fan mentality in which risk today is more tolerable than it's been in our history."

Actually risk is less tolerable than it's been in our history. People think everything should be risk-free.

luv2run wrote:

joho wrote:

In most cases I don't believe in accidents. Usually someone is at fault. But this does seem to be an accident. It sounds like he fell (or dove perhaps?), into the mud and it was not as deep as expected? Either way, just an accident or his fault. Can't reallly blame the organizers for that.

I spoke with an OSHA investigator years ago and he said there are no accidents. If a person is injured someone is responsible. In this case, it was the runner. (If dozens of others had been hurt, then I could see blaming the RD).

On the above: I asked about lightning strikes. The OSHA guy said something to the effect of: the person should have been aware of weather conditions and taken precautions.

Im agine that! A government agency that things there should be blame for everything...that is, until the blame is placed on them.

Here's how the lawsuit ended:

Robert Fecteau, who was severely injured in the May 2010 Filthy 5K Mud Run in Richmond VA, has settled his lawsuit against the Run's organizers for $300,000.00. Most of those dollars will be paid to medical care providers. It's not clear how much will be paid to Fecteau.

Fecteau is married and has two children. He is an Army veteran.

Fecteau, who had run in other races, did not register for the Run. Instead, he used a friend's bib. He claimed he asked a (never identified) Run volunteer if he needed to register in his own name and was told it was unnecessary. The Run website expressly forbade the transfer of registrations.

Every Run registrant acknowledged that the Run was a potentially hazardous activity and assumed all risks and waived any claims arising out of participation in the event. The safety instructions on the website warned participants not to dive head first into the mud pits.

The Run had three mud pits, each 6" to 12" deep. When he came to the third pit (which was identical to the first two), Fecteau went in head first. He claimed it was a "slip-and-slide" motion. Witnesses (confirmed by a video) described his entry into the pit as like "diving into a swimming pool."

Fecteau's hands hit the tarp liner at the bottom of the pit, his arms collapsed, and his chin/head struck the bottom, causing a cervical spine fracture.

The fracture caused damage to his spinal cord, paralysis, and permanent injuries to his neck. He was left with no feeling or movement in his legs and severely decreased movement in his arms and hands. He is able to breathe on his own and is able to drive.

At the time of the settlement, Fecteau had medical bills in excess of $977,000.00 and estimated future medical bills of $8.5 million.

Fecteau sued the race organizers for $30 million. He claimed the organizers were grossly negligent in the way they designed, constructed, and supervised the Run. He claimed the organizers failed to adequately warn about the dangers of entering the mud pits hands and head first and should have prohibited racers from entering the obstacles head first altogether.

The organizers responded that they had not been negligent (none of the other 1,294 finishers were injured in any of the mud pits), that Fecteau should have known it was dangerous to dive head first into the pit, that (because he had not registered for the Run)Fecteau was a trespasser - which reduced their standard of care, and that Virginia's charitable organization immunity law barred any recovery.

The case settled one month before the hearing on the organizers' motions to dismiss the lawsuit. Fecteau's lawyers did not receive any of the settlement funds and were not reimbursed for over $100,000.00 in expenses.

This information comes from: (1)an August 9, 2013, on-line article in the Richmond Times; (2) an August 5, 2013, article (by the plaintiff's lawyer) in Virginia Lawyers Weekly; and (3) an August 12, 2013, article (by the defendants' lawyer) in Virginia Lawyers Weekly.

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=5629487&thread=5629487#5629487#ixzz2thFyLZld

Bill Walker wrote:

The case settled one month before the hearing on the organizers' motions to dismiss the lawsuit. Fecteau's lawyers did not receive any of the settlement funds and were not reimbursed for over $100,000.00 in expenses.

This part makes me particularly happy. Plaintiff's lawyers are the real drivers of these kinds of suits. Seeing them lose money by bringing a claim like this makes such suits less likely in the future. Participants should be able to assume risks.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Bill Walker wrote:

The case settled one month before the hearing on the organizers' motions to dismiss the lawsuit. Fecteau's lawyers did not receive any of the settlement funds and were not reimbursed for over $100,000.00 in expenses.

This part makes me particularly happy. Plaintiff's lawyers are the real drivers of these kinds of suits. Seeing them lose money by bringing a claim like this makes such suits less likely in the future. Participants should be able to assume risks.

How does that even happen? The lawsuit is absurd, but how did they let a settlement go through and not be paid anything?

Thanks for the rest of the story.

It's too bad they paid anything because it encourages these kinds of stupid lawsuits against races, but I assume the insurance company thinks it's getting away cheap by settling for much less than the cost of defense.

As far as the plaintiff's lawyers not getting paid, that could probably only happen if the lawyers chose to give up their fee and let all the money go to their client or the medical providers. It's also possible that the lawsuit was actually brought at the impetus of the plaintiff's own insurance company, if he had insurance.

Looking at the big picture, even if the Mud Run's insurers don't pay, somebody is still paying this guy's medical expenses, and those expenses get passed on to others, whether through uncompensated medical provider's or the plaintiff's own insurance if he has any.

tycobb wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

This part makes me particularly happy. Plaintiff's lawyers are the real drivers of these kinds of suits. Seeing them lose money by bringing a claim like this makes such suits less likely in the future. Participants should be able to assume risks.

How does that even happen? The lawsuit is absurd, but how did they let a settlement go through and not be paid anything?

Thanks for the update to the person who posted.

I figured it would be settled. I would say the MudRun folks got off pretty easily on this one.

As for the assumption of risk, there are areas where you assume risk but negligent actions by the organizer could still be actionable.

For instance, let's say you are doing an obstacle race that involves crossing a plank several feet off the ground. I think we would all assume that the plank is capable of holding our weight. Instead the organizer decides to save some money and gets a cheap and thin piece of wood. The first few runners go across fine, but you get on the plank and it breaks. I would call that negligence and damages be awarded.

luv2run wrote:

As for the assumption of risk, there are areas where you assume risk but negligent actions by the organizer could still be actionable.

For instance, let's say you are doing an obstacle race that involves crossing a plank several feet off the ground. I think we would all assume that the plank is capable of holding our weight. Instead the organizer decides to save some money and gets a cheap and thin piece of wood. The first few runners go across fine, but you get on the plank and it breaks. I would call that negligence and damages be awarded.

This is a very complicated area of law. Generally people are allowed (and expected) to assume the risks that are inherent in an activity.

In most states participants are allowed to waive ordinary negligence by the organizer. Ordinary negligence is a lack of expected diligence by the organizer. In no state can participants waive gross negligence--care that is so far below the standard of care that injury/death or foreseeable consequences. Waiving gross negligence is against public policy in all states.

States will differ no exact precedents and definitions and whether such actions can be declared assumed as part of a pre-trial motion to dismiss or whether it is a finding for a jury.

One of the things that may have led to this settlement is that in Virginia dismissal on the basis of a waiver is extremely unlikely. Mostly it is considered a fact for the jury to consider. So even to win on the basis of assumption of risk you have to bear the entire trial expense.

Sad to see that they settled. That idiot got what he deserved. The race organizers:

1. clearly said not to dive head first on the website

2. said that transfers were prohibited on the website, so he was banditting anyway

3. fine print waived all responsibility from the organizers

4. his idiotic head first swan dive was even caught on video!

The organizers didn't need to settle. He was guilty of his own stupidity.

How much do you think that it would cost the race organizers to litigate this? the Plaintiffs attorneys were into it for $100,000 and they hadn't reached the pre-trial motion to dismiss hearing yet. Based on the law in VA it would likely have to have a full trial to win on the basis of the waiver and/or assumption of risk.

Of course they could have counter-sued for fees (and I am sure they did) but good luck collecting fees from somebody with $9 million in medical expenses.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

How much do you think that it would cost the race organizers to litigate this? the Plaintiffs attorneys were into it for $100,000 and they hadn't reached the pre-trial motion to dismiss hearing yet. Based on the law in VA it would likely have to have a full trial to win on the basis of the waiver and/or assumption of risk.

Of course they could have counter-sued for fees (and I am sure they did) but good luck collecting fees from somebody with $9 million in medical expenses.

It is a little frustrating to think a grown man can dive headfirst into a mudpit, on video, and get $300,000 for it, all because it would cost more to defend yourself in court.

Not a lawyer ... what is the standard for a civil case like this going to court, vs a criminal case where there's a vetting process including a grand jury etc etc?

Interesting thread. Keep the good stuff coming, Mr. Obvious.

garland823 wrote:

My favorite part is his lawyer calls him fit because he ran a 5k at 9:49 pace.

My favorite part, is when I read the 5K pace part I immediately wondered "How long until some LRC jackass belittles the guy's 5K pace", and it happened in the very first reply. From the OP hisself. Great stuff.

beantaxi wrote:

It is a little frustrating to think a grown man can dive headfirst into a mudpit, on video, and get $300,000 for it, all because it would cost more to defend yourself in court.

Not a lawyer ... what is the standard for a civil case like this going to court, vs a criminal case where there's a vetting process including a grand jury etc etc?

The standard for going to trial in a civil case is whether the suit can survive a motion to dismiss. That depends entirely on the nature of the claim advanced and the law in that state. It is a pretty low bar usually.

The only way I can think of to limit suits like this more is to allow defendants to sue for fees and hold not just the plaintiff but the plaintiff's attorney responsible for these fees.

beantaxi wrote:

My favorite part, is when I read the 5K pace part I immediately wondered "How long until some LRC jackass belittles the guy's 5K pace", and it happened in the very first reply. From the OP hisself. Great stuff.

I'm glad I met your expectations.

I do feel bad for the guy. I don't know how one goes on living after being paralyzed (especially somebody that apparently was active), and having a nearly $10 million cloud hanging over you for the rest of your life has got to be daunting. That said, sometimes bad things happen to you and it's not anybody else's fault. You can't always make somebody else pay for the bad things that happen.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

The standard for going to trial in a civil case is whether the suit can survive a motion to dismiss. That depends entirely on the nature of the claim advanced and the law in that state. It is a pretty low bar usually.

The only way I can think of to limit suits like this more is to allow defendants to sue for fees and hold not just the plaintiff but the plaintiff's attorney responsible for these fees.

Funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing ... if you want to reform plaintiff attorneys exploiting these cases, it might be necessary for the plaintiff's attorneys themselves to have some skin in the game.

Not sure how you would protect against legit plaintiffs being underserved, if attorneys would then be reluctant to take on any but the most sure cases.

This past weekend I listened to a satirist on NPR recalling a European vacation he took. The final & highlight event of this trip was the Running of the Bulls in Pamplona Spain.

Before a live audience he tried to compare the Running of the Bulls to running a 5K in America.....to much merriment.

He said in Pamplona you just climb through a fence and start running. At the 5K you have to enter, wear a bib, and most importantly sign a WAIVER.

He figured that the Spaniards "assumed" that all participants would know that the Running of the Bulls was dangerous, and had inherint risks.

Summary - what does this say about Spain, and more importantly, what does this say about America?