Jump to content

MTB Instructor sued for 4 million Quid!


Mojoman

Recommended Posts

Posted

"He had been riding a mountain bike for several years but this was the first time he had any training.

Although experienced in cycling and mountain biking, he was a novice to "rough terrain" and "descents"."

Sounds like 99% of MAMILS entering a Trailseeker race.

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted

Yes but personal insurance should have covered him. And as a lawyer he should have had some in place. Unless he was a skint git.

 

that's not the point, either.

 

This is a claim for DAMAGES.  If damages were suffered by a party, surely that party is entitled to be compensated for those damages?

 

That is the entire point of insurance, isn't it?  Also, an elementary principle of our law and most legal systems.

 

Everyone is calling the claimant all sorts of names, which is hilarious.......until you're faced with millions of unpaid bills, future medical expenses and (not least of all) facing the rest of your life in a WHEELCHAIR.

Posted

Speak for yourself, mate :P .

 

So I fall of my bike, and it is someone else's fault? LOL.... why not go whole hog and sue the bike manufacturer when you faceplant. If I choose to get on a bike, I assume responsibility. Nobody else. Pretty farked up how as a society we have come to a point where we get to sue people because of our own stupidity/inability/lack of skill. 

 

If you suffer an accident, cannot work and thus can't support your dependents, what would you do?  

 

FFS, the guy is in a WHEELCHAIR - the Court will determine which party was negligent and consequently liable to pay damages.  There is, of course, also the matter of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.

 

A basic principle of our legal system and most others is that you get compensated for damages suffered if there was negligence.

 

To say that you wouldn't claim if in the same situation...that would then only be you and the Pope.

Posted

Oi easy on the Mamil jibes - we're sensitive creatures ..... see you at Bosman Trailseeker 4!!! The times when I'm the muppet holding everyone up on the descent are getting further and further apart these days.

 

Sounds like 99% of MAMILS entering a Trailseeker race.

Posted

Everyone is calling the claimant all sorts of names, which is hilarious.......until you're faced with millions of unpaid bills, future medical expenses and (not least of all) facing the rest of your life in a WHEELCHAIR.

Nonky....I am sorry.....

If this guy thought about the millions of unpaid bills and medical expenses and wheelchair etc, surely he would not have done what he has done? 

I would not have?  I think before I do something....irrespective of who says what I can or cannot do. 

Apply brain.  Decide is it worth the risk.  Take responsibility for your action. 

 

 

Posted

that's not the point, either.

 

This is a claim for DAMAGES.  If damages were suffered by a party, surely that party is entitled to be compensated for those damages?

 

That is the entire point of insurance, isn't it?  Also, an elementary principle of our law and most legal systems.

 

Everyone is calling the claimant all sorts of names, which is hilarious.......until you're faced with millions of unpaid bills, future medical expenses and (not least of all) facing the rest of your life in a WHEELCHAIR.

yeah, but the rider is the only person responsible for those damages. HE piloted the bike. HE rode into the "grassy mound" - HE went over the bars on what I see now is a beginner's trail.

 

It's not equipment failure, it's not gross negligence (taking him down a black route when he's a rank beginner) and it's not as if there's no inherent risk in the act of MTB either. 

 

Typical act of not taking responsibility for his own actions. 

 

EDIT: Look, I agree that where there is negligence, there should be blame. Things like having brakes fail on a recently serviced car, a collapsing structure, other examples as well where blame is directly at the door of those responsible for either the upkeep or maintenance or design of a product, the failure of which resulted in a loss (whether monetary, functional or any other) is a claimable event. 

 

But riding down a hill and hitting a grassy mound, then going OTB, whilst in a skills training session? No. If an obstacle had been placed there by the instructor and he had told the person to ride over it before they were able to show that they can handle smaller obstacles? Yes. Then that may be a negligent act. But if they had shown progression sufficient to warrant a step to the next level (riding down a hill) - and they themselves steered into a grassy mound, lost control and went OTB? Nope. As a "reasonable person" - I don't see any fault there whatsoever. 

Posted

If you suffer an accident, cannot work and thus can't support your dependents, what would you do?  

 

FFS, the guy is in a WHEELCHAIR - the Court will determine which party was negligent and consequently liable to pay damages.  There is, of course, also the matter of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.

 

A basic principle of our legal system and most others is that you get compensated for damages suffered if there was negligence.

 

To say that you wouldn't claim if in the same situation...that would then only be you and the Pope.

Maybe he should sue the pope's boss for making the downhill where he fell...

Posted

His is a lawyer. . . .  

He should have has PPS with associated medical aid and  income protection insurance . . . .

("is that what insurance is for")  :devil:  :devil:

 

He should be sued for negligence of  not having income protection insurance . . .  :thumbup:

Just have to show he know  such insurance exist and chose ignore it, that is very negligent . . 

Posted

I am so confused.. I don't see a drop off in that video or did I miss it?

the terms he used were "slope, dropoff, bombhole" - which are 3 totally different things. 

 

I *think* it's just a section which is slightly slopier than average, and has a gully section. Sort of like a bomb-hole, but FAR smaller. 

 

A bomb-hole is a piece of terrain that is almost literally as if a bomb had hit the ground and left a divot. Slope in, depression, climb out. If taken at speed, it is quite a difficult feature to get right. 

 

I don't see any bombhole on the trail, which leads me to believe that it's just a short steeper section into a slight depression. Which cannot be categorised as a bomb-hole, or a dropoff. 

Posted

the terms he used were "slope, dropoff, bombhole" - which are 3 totally different things.

 

I *think* it's just a section which is slightly slopier than average, and has a gully section. Sort of like a bomb-hole, but FAR smaller.

 

A bomb-hole is a piece of terrain that is almost literally as if a bomb had hit the ground and left a divot. Slope in, depression, climb out. If taken at speed, it is quite a difficult feature to get right.

 

I don't see any bombhole on the trail, which leads me to believe that it's just a short steeper section into a slight depression. Which cannot be categorised as a bomb-hole, or a dropoff.

So basically he got scared and grabbed a handful of brakes and went OTB?

 

 

Also not sure if the trail had changed etc since incident.. but that just looks like a nice flowing fun trail to me.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout