He didn't feel threatened by anything for the first 9 laps
...and the defense moves for an order of dismissal with prejudice on the basis of "informed acceptance of foreseeable risk".
There are some very poor quality judges out there. "Justice" is not as frequent an outcome of an obvious case as we would like to believe. California's 9th Circuit is notorious for deciding on the basis of "social justice" (what decision will advance the fight against sexism, racism, transgender phobia, immigrant hatred) rather than facts or law.

to turn left at speed, push forward on left handlebar
Learned to do that intuitively 50 years ago, no one believed me until I did it while cruising next to them: push left, wait 1 second, push right, end up parallel in the next lane over almost instantly.
Wrong with this picture: if they're not fairly well tuned in, they won't realize that reversing the process quickly is needed or you'll run out of road.

You can't fix stupid - but stupid can find a lawyer to file a lawsuit! Most of these cases are about a settlement to make the perceived problem go away - and I agree Judges are not helping this extortion style of lawsuit go away.

What I find sad is the % of attorneys who will encourage a plaintiff to file, when as a matter of law he has no basis. Example: slip-n-fall, height-related workman's comp, sovereign immunity, and (of course) statute of limitations.
Someone I know lost a personal injury case worth easily $200K because the attorney didn't file in time (NY is 2 years from discovery). Not fixable - not by a judge, or Congress, or Trump, or the Pope.

At the risk of hijacking here, I had the pleasure of being called for jury duty some time back. The case involved a lawyer being sued for malpractice. The lawyer had represented a guy on a workplace injury incident. He bungled it pretty badly for the client.

It was a fascinating case, almost worthy of a TV show. The defense attorney was young, arrogant and aggressive. The plaintiff's attorney was old, soft spoken and subtle.

He cleaned up on the young guy so many times we were having trouble keeping a straight face in the jury box.

The defense called an expert witness, yet another lawyer who at the request of the defense attorney rattled off all his degrees, credentials, memberships, awards, etc.

On cross, the old guy reads all the credentials from the record back to the expert witness, who replied smugly that was accurate.

His comeback: " Do you actually hang all these certificates on your wall?". This threw the expert witness off so bad he fumbled from then on with answers.

I think it took us all of a half hour to determine guilt and define damages.

Sounds like "My Cousin Vinnie"

I have been selected for Jury Duty 3 times and the last case was a girl that wanted a jury trial. On a sunny Sunday afternoon she ran into a farmers (around 68 years old) tree that fell across the road. The local road crew had weekends off and the farmer saw the tree on his way home from church. He grabbed his chain saw and was about ready to head out to cut the tree when a girl ran into it totaling her car and requiring many trips to her Doctor. It came down to the farmer was guilty of not blocking the road BUT the girl admitted the sun was in her eyes preventing her from seeing the tree across the road. We were instructed that one or the other had to be found 100% at fault which we couldn't do. If you can't see you can't or shouldn't be driving so she lost her case.

We were instructed that one or the other had to be found 100% at fault which we couldn't do

Never heard that, but my experience is limited to NY.

Kinda surprised me to but the other cases I served on were criminal cases.

Most of the "jury instructions" are just made up stuff to force the jury to come up with an answer.

The judge can tell you all he want that you must judge the case on the facts and you can't judge the law and all the rest, but you don't have to violate your conscience.


Sat on a 6 man jury on a 12 count sexual crime case. It was a couple that got married and blended a family. The woman had a daughter and the man had a son. They were married about 5 years and split the sheets.

Then they found out the boy was having some time with his "step sister" where they had kissed and groped each other. They were both 16.

The mom went berserk and sued her one time step son.

The deputy DA went wild when we came back with a not guilty, even though by the judges own words the kid was guilty.

Not one of us thought it was ok to hang a sex crime charge on a boy who had actually done nothing wrong.

Eventually the deputy DA made it to DA. He was a real piece of work.

This must be the case in PA.



State Restrictions on Recovering Compensation If You Were Careless
Comparative negligence is applied in three slightly different ways, depending on the state where the accident occurred. The more generous states allow you to recover compensation for your injuries in an amount based on the other person's fault no matter how great your own fault was. Most states, however, use a slightly more restrictive rule under which you can't recover anything if your own carelessness was 50% or more responsible for the accident. And a handful of tight-fisted states don't allow you to recover any compensation at all if your fault is any more than "slight" compared to the others involved -- or, worse, if your own carelessness contributed in any way to the accident. (This is called "contributory negligence.") You can find the rules for your state in How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Joseph Matthews (Nolo).

My brother-in-law graduated from West Virginia Law Shool. At the finish of the graduation the head guy told them, "there's plenty of money out there waiting, go get it". To heck with who's innocent or guilty, it's all about the money.

Heard this argument so many times on traffic accidents it's not even funny. People saying "it's not my fault, I only blew the light and hit the other car because I slid on ice". I can understand this when it's a case of black ice on a a mostly dry roadway, but not during blizzards or ice storms. People don't seem to understand the idea that it's your responsibility to adjust your speed in accordance to the weather conditions, your vehicle's abilities and your driving skill. A byproduct of this litigious society seems to be a complete disregard for common sense. If it isn't explicitly stated on neon yellow "CAUTION" sign, it's as if people believe they have no responsibility to consider it. If the speed limit says 55mph, it can't possibly their fault for crashing in ice/snow/fog when they were doing 55mph. Surely, the town/county/state should have changed the sign if conditions required speed to be reduced.

It HAS to be somebody else's fault, because the lawyers say so!

This is actually a common argument in TX and Southeastern states after a snow or ice storm, and guess what? It actually holds up. I've seen police reports written that no one was at fault because of the road conditions. It's total garbage, and it screws the people that weren't actually at fault. In these cases, it's not because lawyers said so (well, I guess it is, since most of the state representatives are lawyers), it's the general population in that area being to wussified to admit that they can't drive, and public officials not wanting to hurt the feelings of those that vote for them.

"“especially repurposing a professional race track for amateurs to ride in a racing fashion.”



This is the core element of the case, everything else is fluff and deflection.

If there is no case law existing, there will be afterwards.

Back to the simplicity of turning left handlebar makes one go left, that is a sure way to go right, if one does not lean the bike simultaneously the necessary amount while turning the handlebar, otherwise lawsuits arise it appears.

Sorry, repurposing a preofessional racetrack??? There are a lot of amatuer events held on these track all year. It's a racing facility. They aren't specific to "professionals". That's just fancy wording to convey emotion. Closed course is really what it is.

Or, my poor, lack of skill client couldn't ride a motorcyle at 50-70% speed through a corner without running off the pavement.

Where are you planning on holding an event like this if not on a Closed course facility... the walmart parking lot.

I wish I was on the jury in this one.

Jury of there peers, maybe all motorcyclist that race on a track and you'll get a fair verdict. The clueless, emotional ones they pick..not a chance.

"especially repurposing a professional race track for amateurs to ride in a racing fashion.”"

This means to me, ride "like" a racer, and don't wreck, by not driving beyond your skill or bikes level, and if you do wreck, don't blame gravity, the ground or the sun, or a track were real racers do just fine racing every event.

The insurance impact as already mentioned ,would be huge if this goes south for the track. Sadly, the insurance company will likely settle for the policy limits, and move on, with all the ramifications that means, as they can now point to this case to justify an annual 10x policy rate increase, with a take it or leave attitude.

And the reason why there still is not an iron-clad, copper-bottomed, unbreakable, bomb-proof if-you-signed-it-you-must-eat-it waiver and informed consent that has passed SCOTUS?

The (largely Democratic) tort lobby of personal injury & product liability attorneys who control all the legislatures has decided that they make more money permitting, excuse me, encouraging, oh wait, manufacturing frivolous "how was I to know what THIS MAY KILL YOU meant?" lawsuits.

What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.

Great line from "Nashville" (Robert Altman): "You ever ask a lawyer the time of day? He told you how to make a watch, didn't he?".

Insurance companies and attorneys are the root of a lot of our problems in this country.