Jogger sues NIKE for broken ankle

How is the husband entitled to $250K when all us married guys know he is suffering from post-nuptial shutoff? Dude was getting it maybe once every 3-4 months anyway.

not a coyote wrote:

If whoever at. Nike organized this run event did not have the runners sign a waiver for risks like this he will likely his his job and Nike may have to pay her medical bills and lost earnings. How does JDF come up with a quarter million dollars for hid wife breaking her leg

If she signed the wauver, do not see how she has a case.

You can't waive negligence.

jjjjjj wrote:

people like this ruin it for everyone else. sounds like they botched the guiding, but they can't make her fracture her ankle.

Ruin what? The blatant advertising for "proving" their outdoor gear.

Anyways, what do you think the waiver is for when you enter events? Surely this event had a waiver.

Negligence. Goldmine. They will win.

nutshell wrote:

not a coyote wrote:

If whoever at. Nike organized this run event did not have the runners sign a waiver for risks like this he will likely his his job and Nike may have to pay her medical bills and lost earnings. How does JDF come up with a quarter million dollars for hid wife breaking her leg

If she signed the wauver, do not see how she has a case.

You can't waive negligence.

Or wauve it even.

Seriously, many waivers are worthless. I don't know the specifics here but some waivers just won't hold up in court. Some rights you just can't sign away even if you try.

I just read the lawsuit and 10 bucks says this couple is pulling for Bernie Sanders.

Frivolous or not? wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/03/us-nike-lawsuit-idUSKCN0SS2OR20151103#k4xdC1v1lxFzIwEj.97

Jogging in Iceland was too much for this hobbyist. Does she have a case?

Nope. F*ck her. People dont like taking accountability anymore and it is the most frustrating thing. She should of used her brain and prepared correctly.

here is a picture of the gal. In a way she is kind of cute.

http://www.socalcoyotes.com/uploads/3/2/2/3/3223530/1413241781.png

Interested to hear from other participants

Seriously people - you can sure for whatever you want $1M $100M whatever that does not make it realistic. Its a bit like entering a negotiation, you would never start with what you would settle for. Also, just because you sue for something does not mean you will win. Maybe the strategy (likely laid out by the lawyer not the couple) is to sue for a ludicrous amount & get a ton of attention to get Nike to settle quickly for a reasonable amount. One thing is for sure, it is very unlikely that Nike will ever end up paying out anywhere near those amounts even if they somehow lose the case. And if they don't like what they are asked to pay, b/t appeals and other tactics will make any payments occur far in the future.

I'm loving the armchair lawyers here.

Lawyers don't get paid on frivolous lawsuits. Therefore they don't file frivolous lawsuits.

dickchaneyisnothere wrote:

here is a picture of the gal. In a way she is kind of cute.

http://www.socalcoyotes.com/uploads/3/2/2/3/3223530/1413241781.png

If you find ugly people attractive

the claims in the suit are of a technical nature, being an employee is one way that Nike could be on the hook, there are others. She was using their products and was injured so I'm not sure why everyone on this thread is loosing the trees for the forest. maybe the requested damages sound excessive (they usually do and there is no problem with asking for the most that the law allows or that you can substantiate). the trees here are obvious, nike invites "lucky" runners to a "trail event," requires participants to use their products bc that is the whole point of the "event" meaning it is not really designed for the participants but for the marketing and advertising purposes of a billion-dollar corporation, Nike. one hapless participant SEVERELY injures herself in the course of this event and while using said corporations products, exclusively. so none of you think that Nike should pay some damages for this?? get real and talk to an atty, this is easy and nothing about this lawsuit "shows what is wrong with america" or any of the other b.s. mentioned in this thread.

As a full blood Mainah, I approve.

fisky wrote:

Memo to Nike: Only invite runners from Wisconsin or Maine to your next Iceland run.

I personally know both of them and have for some time. Her leg was messed up; $300k is high, but if it was about half that or more it would not surprise me. Historically, they are two of the nicest people I know in the local running community and very genuine. Not that it's worth $1 to me, but the smart money says they still do it, and often, so his claim is a complete joke.

This has me disgusted and will likely lead to me never talking to these two again. She runs, she runs fine (see baby stroller record). She had insurance or at least should have. Nike shouldn't have to be her insurance policy. But to me, waiver or no waiver, there is a defense to negligence when you assume the risk of something like this. You're going to run around on ice in the middle of no where. If your guide is a dips**t and can't find his way, call it a day. If you keep going, you get what is coming.

Welcome to America, where you get to do something stupid and someone else can pay for it. I hope Nike doesn't settle and defenses this crap.

Get over it. They will settle. This is what legal depts deal with on the daily in corporate america. This is not significant news.

I have never met them. I have seen them at races and on youtube and facebook. They seem like they want to portray the idea that running is fun social activity, which is good with me. But I get the vibe with JDF that he portrays himself as everyone's friend and he can motivate you to do amazing things. Like he is some sort of fun running guru. It seems a little corny but people like that stuff. He coaches runners. I think he coaches a group now training for the LA Marathon. I wonder what would happen if on a really wet day a lady he coaches sprained her ankle on one of the training runs he puts on. Is he or the organization he coaches for liable for all medical costs and will he be liable to the husband suffering?

I could see Nike being liable for medical costs and loss of wages. The amount they are asking for seems very high and greedy and against the image that JDF tries to portray. But I admit I am an anonymous yahoo outsider and don't know them or the facts of the case.

Bingo wrote:

I'm loving the armchair lawyers here.

Lawyers don't get paid on frivolous lawsuits. Therefore they don't file frivolous lawsuits.

THIS!!!!!!

an actual lawyer wrote:

Bingo wrote:

I'm loving the armchair lawyers here.

Lawyers don't get paid on frivolous lawsuits. Therefore they don't file frivolous lawsuits.

THIS!!!!!!

I think many are saying it is frivolous by merit (i.e. it was the runners own stupid mistake and the average person in the same situation would assume they are responsible for not breaking their leg while running down a mountain) and not based just off of the letter of the law or how likely it is that Nike will settle.

I'm genuinely curious here, you guys don't ever see cases where you think there is no chance for the plaintiff to win, or times where the lawyer is paid a healthy up-front fee, or might be taking a dubious case for less than obvious reasons (e.g. to get media coverage and make a name)?

I realize that a lot of times these "frivolous" lawsuits are severely mis-represented by glib media that just wants to get views, e.g. the McDonalds coffee case or, more recently, the case last month with the aunt suing her 8 year old nephew for breaking her arm while hugging her. Do you think something like that is going on here?