A small detail in this story is that John Coleti is the attorney. He is an avid runner who has been at the center of a Portland running community love triangle that has played out over the last couple of years.
To see a prominent runner in Portland suing a prominent running company in Portland, with this personal drama as a backdrop will be pretty entertaining.
another funny aside, is that jdf used to be a nike ambassador, always wore nike head to toe, nike shoes, all his team's shirts were always dri=fit shirts screened with the coyote logo, etc. just kinda funny, imo. good guy but this is a little odd.
Fauk face. Spill the dets if you're posting shiet nobody outside of the Portland "running" community has any idea about. Are you new here?
A grown, supposedly intelligent man who intentionally chooses the name "Jimmy Dean" raises the red flag to me immediately. Nike should pay the medical bills/work comp claim, and that's about it.
We don't even bother to fix fibulas most of the time as they only contribute 5% of the strength to the lower limb.
Slap a cast on that and stay off of it for 8 weeks with regular follow up for a year.
A good buddy of mine is a personal injury lawyer, so I've had a lot of debates with him on the nature of personal responsibility when he tells me about interesting cases he's working on. I usually fall on the side of people taking responsibility for themselves rather than blaming it on other people.
But a takeaway I've gotten from our talks is that business owners have a legal responsibility to provide a safe environment. Doesn't matter is your have people sign waivers or not. A business owner for example, can't have you sign a waiver to go running around on a driving range while people are trying to hit you with golf balls. You're gonna get hit in the head. Yes, you should be smart enough to not do this type of activity, but a business owner also cannot put you in that situation. It's not the wild west where anything goes as long as you can get someone to sign a waiver.
So think about it from that perspective. What (reasonable) responsibility does Nike have as a business to make their event a safe one? Proper safety gear, guides who know what they're doing, and a trail that has been carefully chosen all seem like reasonable safeguards. It is not overly burdensome to expect Nike to provide these things.
Just my two cents.
Here's the reality--this is why we have courtrooms. If the parties can't work this out, eventually a jury of people just like you will hear ALL of the evidence and make a decision. There are many things we don't know, that might be important. Nike appears to have take runners to a foreign place to have them use Nike gear. What representations did Nike make about the area they would be running in. Did Nike say "this is a really safe run" "footing is excellent" "feel free to run hard" ? Was the woman then unexpectedly running in area of poor footing suddenly? Or did Nike say "this could be treacherous, be careful." Those could be two very different cases. To think that anyone here can read a newspaper article on a case that has just been filed and think they know how it should be resolved is ignorant. Remember, all of the jurors and the judge on the McDonald's coffee case, thought the case was dubious, until they heard the evidence. No one here has heard a single piece of evidence. As we tell jurors: "keep an open mind."
These people want the gravy train - and this is their opportunity. Big rich company. End of story, really.
I do find it impressive that the woman went from a 5 hour marathon to a sub-3 hour marathon. That's a pretty huge drop:
Blah Blah Blah wrote:
The lawsuit is valid if she was running while an employee of Nike. It would be an on the job work injury. However, I don't think she was an employee.
are you an attorney because....
this would actually be one clear instance where the lawsuit would be completely dismissed.
worker's compensation would cover the injury but it would be the exclusive remedy. it bars any lawsuits.
Bingo wrote:
I'm loving the armchair lawyers here.
Lawyers don't get paid on frivolous lawsuits. Therefore they don't file frivolous lawsuits.
Yeah they do. You see, there is this thing called "billable hours" Lawyers make money win or lose. You want to file an asinine lawsuit? Sure, I will file it for you, but it is still going to cost you 100 bucks per billable hour per lawyer and legal assistant for paperwork, pretrial, trial hours, etc....
Yeah they make more money when they win a case, but lawyers have no problem taking a case that they clearly aren't going to win. They still get paid.
M.C. Confusing 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.
Yeah they do. You see, there is this thing called "billable hours" Lawyers make money win or lose. You want to file an asinine lawsuit? Sure, I will file it for you, but it is still going to cost you 100 bucks per billable hour per lawyer and legal assistant for paperwork, pretrial, trial hours, etc....
Yeah they make more money when they win a case, but lawyers have no problem taking a case that they clearly aren't going to win. They still get paid.
Actually, cases like this are handled on a contingent fee basis. No recovery, no fee. All costs, and they are significant, are lost.
say what? That's a weird post RE:
M.C. Confusing 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.
Yeah they do. You see, there is this thing called "billable hours" Lawyers make money win or lose. You want to file an asinine lawsuit? Sure, I will file it for you, but it is still going to cost you 100 bucks per billable hour per lawyer and legal assistant for paperwork, pretrial, trial hours, etc....
Yeah they make more money when they win a case, but lawyers have no problem taking a case that they clearly aren't going to win. They still get paid.
You have no idea of what you're talking about.
any update on this case?
Just curious.
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
Looks like she has not been suing for a broken ankle, but for a broken cankle.
Damn Daniel! Jimmy Dean Freeman is a fairly respected dude in the ultra community! I've head him on a trailrunnermag podcast I think and definitely seen him on a GingerRunner live show... I'm sure there must be some logical reason for this thing...
mitchellmac2 wrote:
Damn Daniel! Jimmy Dean Freeman is a fairly respected dude in the ultra community! I've head him on a trailrunnermag podcast I think and definitely seen him on a GingerRunner live show... I'm sure there must be some logical reason for this thing...
What's illogical about greed?
It's the way of the world now. Vote Sanders in 2016!
Anyone have update to this story?
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, I do not see how she has a case.
Waivers aren't worth the paper they're printed on once you're in court. But they do a great job of convincing the unwashed that they don't have grounds to sue when they most definitely do
