Wtf?

suggestion noted....but was already covered many pages ago.

productive ideas i have seen so far:
- always have a buddy at a track event
- track/race orgs need to consider a count-on, count-off system at all events
- ensure proper qty/training cornerworking staff at events
- minimize/eliminate spots on tracks where riders can dissappear
- riders help enforce the above by supporting orgs that practice safety and not supporting those that do
- add thin orange contruction fence (that rubbery stuff) all around outside perimeter of track so that it is noticable if someone goes out beyond the normal track boundaries.

any more any of you want to add?

 

I PM'd it to greg

for the 20-25' prior to the trees plow a warning track.

 

i think that's covered under the 'minimize/eliminate places where riders can disappear' and i was thinking a little more globally.....not just specifically for this instance.

whatever we learn/apply from this.....should be applied to all orgs/tracks.

 

bubba, what is it exactly you do?

I haven't heard of another track local, so...plaintiff's atty.? retained by cavin's family, perhaps?

that's a friggin' huge ax you're grinding there. dude's dead. I think jgp will respond to any future 'missing rider' issues with the utmost expediency.

the trees outside of 6 aren't going anywhere, there's always a cw between 6 and 7, and another at 6 would only serve to note riders going off. if we're going that route, get 20 more and have them face away from the track, looking for off-ed riders.

'left' does imply negligence, and you keep saying it because you know it. instead of 'left alone in the woods' try 'alone in the woods'.

again, enough. melka isn't making a good case on his behalf, but the only blame to be laid MIGHT find itself landing on whoever didn't jump when told the rider was missing. I can clearly see some kewl dude trolling up to Whoever and saying, "Dude, my, um, like, um I can't find my friend, like, can you page him?"

I bet they *do* get that 1000 times a weekend and if I were in that position I'd say go comb the pits too.

now, if it was what I would've said, which was, "look, my bud hasn't come in off the track, his bike's not in the pits, and HE IS STILL OUT ON THE TRACK SOMEWHERE" and they ignored it, then yes, that's negligent.

I--again--know none of jgp management personally and only kinda on sight, but I'm willing to bet it was scenerio (a) and not (b), because even as 'loose' as they can be, I suspect (b) would have people hopping. (a), prolly nothing, and I can understand that.

I wasn't there, you weren't there, the staffing levels are fine, and the guy in 6 post-incident was clearly knee-jerk. I will not feel any more comfortable knowing there's a cw there next weekend, which is really all you need to say on the subject.

the only question in my mind is the one mentioned above, and that's answered in that now we'll have the track closed everytime someone goes to the bathroom and jumpy janice (who didn't note her boyfriend come in to begin with, or else he didn't make a point of telling her he was in) runs to control freaking.

further spewing from you only serves to inflame the subject. when you open *your* own track, then you can run it however you wish, and we can ride it or not. until then, or until you ride jgp enough to know what the hell you're talking about stfu, dumbass.

when (if) who said what (and how they said it) to whom is known, then you can look for someone to recompense becky (or whomever it is you're so worried about). until then, close your hole.

damn, I'm not even looking to defend jgp (I'd be worried if control blew off someone trying to tell them the guy was *really* gone, but then again, this is now so big I'll never have to worry about someone not taking me or my buddy seriously if this ever happens to me) but you're such a dick I can't help myself.

to close: dude is dead. that sucks. no doubt things will change at jgp. shut up now.

 

Its nice to have buddies at track-days with you - but they should NOT be part of the planned fall-back measure for finding missing riders.


What if:
- This guy rode his bike to the track, like I used to for my first few track days,
- He did not come with any of his buddies, much like myself in the early days.
- He brought no more than a backpack with him.

...would he STILL be in those woods today I wonder? Would the forgotten backpack be in the lost and found at the office, with its owner in the forest?

My point: is simply that many people here are focusing on the chain of events involving his buddies. The problem/issue should start and end with the on-track procedures.

 

I'm not so sure I agree. If you go solo to the track, you are taking incremental risk. Whatever safeguards are a part of the SOP for any operation are subject to human error. Under those circumstances, whatever happens, you will not be able to say to yourself that you did everything within your power to mitigate it.

 

Well said Mark , I agree . Yes this sport has inherent risk but when we sign on at a trackday we are trying to minimilize those risk . I don't see how everyone could miss a rider going off a relativly flat track . Left alone and Alone in the woods don't really mean a damn thing . If he was in the woods until they could get everyone off the track to get med attention to him that was "alone in the woods " but never knowing he went off , letting other sessions out etc , yes , that was "LEFT" alone in the woods . Something we never expect to happen when we pay good money to ride a supposinly safe track

 

I went to a trackday by myself and rode to the track on my bike, carrying only a small knapsack on my back.

The track was Cayuga, in Ontario, and was in a big field that was an old WW2 era air base. It was very, very FLAT, with two foot high weeds around much of the course.

I knew not a single person at the track, although I made a couple of new friends that day.

They had maybe three or four cornerworkers that day.

I could have ridden off and crashed at a couple different locations and my body might have been there for a day before i was found, maybe longer.

 

And oh yeah, if this is the only waiver signed by Cavan, Jennings could be in trouble if his family wants to sue: http://www.jenningsgp.com/waiver.pdf

My "law clerk" did some online research that reveled that in order to be legally effective the waiver needs to explicitly state a variety of things, including that the rider releases the track/organizere for their negligence.

Of course even if there is a legally effective waiver that Cavan signed, I believe that his attorney could argue that under the circumstances the culpability of the track/organizer reached the level of recklessness or gross negligence that a waiver might not cover.

Just my off the cuff opinion, not taking sides.

 

You also sign a waiver at the gate...different format...don't know if it is the same statement.

 

Rodger. In the UK you ask people to sign whatever you want, but if your negligence causes death or injury to another person, then you remain liable. There is nothing you can make someone sign before hand that will get you out of death resulting from your negligence.

Is is similar here???

 

Mark: In most of the US, a properly drafted waiver will offer some protection against negligence suits.

 

Waivers only help with ordinary negligence.... not gross..

Gross Negligence vs. Waiver case example:

Gross negligence is conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results. If plaintiffs could demonstrate such negligence, then there could be a cause of action against the defendants. The liability waiver signed by Yan could release defendants from liability for ordinary negligence, but would not apply in case of gross negligence, which would have to be demonstrated at trial. The fact that the liability waiver signed by Yan did not specify that the facility would not be liable in case of ordinary negligence does not affect its effectiveness; its language was clear enough to indicate to a patron what was being signed.

--Xu v. Gay, 668 N.W.2d 166 (Ct. App., Mich., 2003)


Definition of Gross negligence: - Failure to use even the slightest amount of care in a way that shows Recklessness or willful disregard for the safety of others.

It is VERY difficult to prove gross negligence.
Law classes rock!

 

well put......err....i mean....well quoted.

 

OK, now finish the job and tell us what the rule is in Florida on waiver of "gross negligence" .

(The case you cited was a Michigan case and would not apply in Florida.)

 

As a rider and cornerworker up here in the cold...

We suspected a rider went off (mid summer this season) and we could not account for them. everything shut down instantly and Sandy (our cornerworker/race coordinator) sent ALL cornerworkers out to seach.

The rider was in thier pits and did not here the PA.

We were glad that is where we found them.

Safe to say, we stop and search until all are accounted for.

 

I couldnt find any good case law from FL on the subject. There isnt much coming out of the 11th circuit that I could find either. But here is a links if you really want to look..

http://www.law.emory.edu/simplesearch/search.php3

Here is some relivent FL Law:

768.041 Release or covenant not to sue.--

(1) A release or covenant not to sue as to one tortfeasor for property damage to, personal injury of, or the wrongful death of any person shall not operate to release or discharge the liability of any other tortfeasor who may be liable for the same tort or death.

(2) At trial, if any defendant shows the court that the plaintiff, or any person lawfully on her or his behalf, has delivered a release or covenant not to sue to any person, firm, or corporation in partial satisfaction of the damages sued for, the court shall set off this amount from the amount of any judgment to which the plaintiff would be otherwise entitled at the time of rendering judgment and enter judgment accordingly.

(3) The fact of such a release or covenant not to sue, or that any defendant has been dismissed by order of the court shall not be made known to the jury.

 

Actually, that statute is not really relevant as it deals with releases issued in settlement of a case, or against one defendant in a case, if i understand it correctly.

But if i have a chance I'll do some searching tonight or tomorrow night.

 

O’Connell v. Walt Disney World Company

University Plaza Shopping Center, Inc. v. Stewart

Parkham v. East Bay Raceway

Hardage v. Enterprises, Inc. v. Fidesys Corp. N.V.

Theis v. J & J Racing Promotions

Banfield v. Louis

L. Luria & Son, Inc. v. Alarmtec International Corp.

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Mid-Valley, Inc.

 

Gross negligence in racing enviornment would be difficult to prove though. Right...

I could see riding a wheelie through traffic and causing a massive accident as being "Gross Negligence"...

???