Paralyzed Douglas files suit v. Arlington

[pointman]

If Illinois law is anywhere near New York law, I am afraid Douglas has very little chance of recovery. Most likely they are trying to find a way to blame the polytrack since they are trying to get over the assumption of the risk doctrine that tends to apply to jockeys, i.e., a defect in the polytrack being something beyond the normal dangerous conditions that Douglas assumed when he got on the horse.

The law regarding assumption of the risk for jockeys tends to have harsh consequences to those that sustain serious injuries. I wish Douglas the best of luck in his pursuit.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pointman

If Illinois law is anywhere near New York law, I am afraid Douglas has very little chance of recovery. Most likely they are trying to find a way to blame the polytrack since they are trying to get over the assumption of the risk doctrine that tends to apply to jockeys, i.e., a defect in the polytrack being something beyond the normal dangerous conditions that Douglas assumed when he got on the horse.

The law regarding assumption of the risk for jockeys tends to have harsh consequences to those that sustain serious injuries. I wish Douglas the best of luck in his pursuit.

Wouldnt the fact that the other rider was given a harsh sentence for careless riding hurt their case that it was some kind of incidental contact? Or the fact that the horse landed square on him? And wont the defense trot out a bunch of other cases of jockeys paralyzed on regular tracks? It seems like they want to argue that the maintenance was lacking but how do you maintain a track so that it is "safe" for people to land on it at 35mph?

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Wouldnt the fact that the other rider was given a harsh sentence for careless riding hurt their case that it was some kind of incidental contact? Or the fact that the horse landed square on him? And wont the defense trot out a bunch of other cases of jockeys paralyzed on regular tracks? It seems like they want to argue that the maintenance was lacking but how do you maintain a track so that it is "safe" for people to land on it at 35mph?

Chuck, my point was that I doubt he stands much of a chance of recovery. I don't know Illinois law as I practice in New York. If it is assumption of the risk as it likely is, he has a tough road to hoe for the very reasons that you cite which are the normal risks assumed by a jockey. I have a hard time believing that they will be able correlate a defect in the polytrack with the cause of his injuries.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pointman

Chuck, my point was that I doubt he stands much of a chance of recovery. I don't know Illinois law as I practice in New York. If it is assumption of the risk as it likely is, he has a tough road to hoe for the very reasons that you cite which are the normal risks assumed by a jockey. I have a hard time believing that they will be able correlate a defect in the polytrack with the cause of his injuries.

yeah it seems like a stretch. Think they are just trying to force a settlement?

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

yeah it seems like a stretch. Think they are just trying to force a settlement?

Possibly, but my guess is that even that is remote as the law tends to be pretty clear in this area which generally leads to such suits being tossed out in the early stages. It may even to some extent be to draw attention to the situation in an attempt to either change the laws or bring attention to the drive to provide adequate insurance to jockeys who sustain serious injuries.

I seriously doubt the defendants will be interested in putting any money on the table.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pointman

Possibly, but my guess is that even that is remote as the law tends to be pretty clear in this area which generally leads to such suits being tossed out in the early stages. It may even to some extent be to draw attention to the situation in an attempt to either change the laws or bring attention to the drive to provide adequate insurance to jockeys who sustain serious injuries.

I seriously doubt the defendants will be interested in putting any money on the table.

thanks

[Patrick333]

Originally Posted by pointman

Possibly, but my guess is that even that is remote as the law tends to be pretty clear in this area which generally leads to such suits being tossed out in the early stages. It may even to some extent be to draw attention to the situation in an attempt to either change the laws or bring attention to the drive to provide adequate insurance to jockeys who sustain serious injuries.

I seriously doubt the defendants will be interested in putting any money on the table.

Thanks for the legal information.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

yeah it seems like a stretch. Think they are just trying to force a settlement?

They might get $3.50 and a Rene Douglas day.