Paralyzed Douglas files suit v. Arlington

[Honu]

Originally Posted by iamthelurker

So Rene is supposed to sue Jamie Theriot is what your saying? Obviously hes looking for a settlement and I'm pretty sure Jamie doesnt have the kind of money that Rene is looking for (money to feed his family that is). I know I most certainly would act the same way if I was paralyzed with no way of earning money, as I'm pretty sure you would in that situation too.

I understand what you are saying but Rene had rode on that track for years without incident until some negligent fool dropped him. Im saying its a bogus lawsuit ,its bogus to blame the surface when the surface wasnt what caused the accident it to happen in the first place.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Honu

I understand what you are saying but Rene had rode on that track for years without incident until some negligent fool dropped him. Im saying its a bogus lawsuit ,its bogus to blame the surface when the surface wasnt what caused the accident it to happen in the first place.

I agree with what you are saying. They are blaming the surface since it is the only chance they have at any recovery. Since a synthetic surface is relatively new it is unlikely that the surface issue has been litigated in Illinois (or anywhere for that matter), so they are going to give it a try in attempt to make new law. In order to get over the assumption of the risk defense, Douglas has to argue that his injury was caused by a risk that he did not assume when he got on his mount.

The risks of another jock riding like an azzhole, falling off a horse at 35 mph, a horse falling on top of you after you fall off, are all risks that a jock knowingly assumes when they get on the horse, the law is clear here.

To have any hope of recovery Douglas has to somehow assoicate the surface itself as the cause of his injury, or a contributing factor of the injury, though he likely stands little chance. Dirt surfaces have been litigated and recovery has failed for jocks even on issues of poor maintenance. Therefore, any allegation that the surface was poorly maintained is likely to fail. Combine that with the other normal risks he assumed, even if they can show that the surface somehow contributed to his injury, the normal risks undoubtedly contributed more to, if not entirely caused, his injury and would ultimately diminish what percentage the synthetic surface was of the cause of his injury. The fact that he rode on that surface x number of times without getting injured certainly does not help his cause.

Kind of ironic that the surface which has been billed as safe will now be litigated in court as being so unsafe that a jock should be entitled to a recovery he/she would not ordinarily be entitled to. However, I doubt the result will be any different than the no recovery a jock gets when they get seriously injured on a dirt/turf surface.