braamfontein sptuit

[Tumbleweed]

what does the lawyer's letter actually say? has he posted the content anywhere?

[Sean Badenhorst]

 

what does the lawyer's letter actually say? has he posted the content anywhere?

 

What does the law say? Must be mountain bikers that are attorneys. Surely they can give some insight as to where this may go? I know one attorney MTBer, will call him tomorrow and see what he says.

 

[cycleq]

The law says volenti non fit injuria. No-one forced him to try the obstacle. Would a reasonably prudent man in his circumstances have foreseen the prospect of injury resulting from trying the obstacle? Would a reasonably prudent man have heeded the warning posted by the disclaimer? Feel free to guess.

The fact a letter has been sent means very little. Any claim would be a delictual action and volenti is an appropriate defence. Please remember that there is a lot of posturing in situations like this and pretty much any of the lab rats passing as humans (aka lawyers) will be happy to take a clients money in pursuit of taxed costs income, irrespective of the prospect of a successful lawsuit.

What it means is that Bezzie might be faced with raising money to secure a good attorney (or in the event of this proceeding to trial - a good advocate) to defend any action. But this will be preceeded by the issuing of a letter of demand, a summons and the formalities of a civil action. Much water to pass under the bridge first and I'd personally like to see how the plaintiff is going to establish causality between anything Richard might have done and the patrimonial loss suffered.

[ukethi]

I think also they will have to prove intent, was the intention of the obstacle to cause injury?

 

 

 

Lawyers aside we have to remember someone has a severe injury, self inflicted but an injury none the less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The law says volenti non fit injuria. No-one forced him to try the obstacle. Would a reasonably prudent?man in his circumstances have foreseen the prospect of injury resulting from trying the obstacle? Would a reasonably prudent man have heeded the warning posted by the disclaimer? Feel free to guess.

 

The fact a letter has been sent means very little. Any claim would be a delictual action and volenti is an appropriate defence. Please remember that there is a lot of posturing in situations like this and pretty much any of the lab rats passing as humans (aka lawyers) will be happy to take a clients money in pursuit of taxed costs income' date=' irrespective of the prospect of a successful lawsuit.

 

What it means is that Bezzie might be faced with raising money to secure a good attorney (or in the event of this proceeding to trial - a good advocate) to defend any action. But this will be preceeded by the issuing of a letter of demand, a summons and the formalities of a civil action. Much water to pass under the bridge first and I'd personally like to see how the plaintiff is going to establish causality between anything Richard might have done and the patrimonial loss suffered.

[/quote']

[Tumbleweed]

The law says volenti non fit injuria. No-one forced him to try the obstacle. Would a reasonably prudent?man in his circumstances have foreseen the prospect of injury resulting from trying the obstacle? Would a reasonably prudent man have heeded the warning posted by the disclaimer? Feel free to guess.

 

The fact a letter has been sent means very little. Any claim would be a delictual action and volenti is an appropriate defence. Please remember that there is a lot of posturing in situations like this and pretty much any of the lab rats passing as humans (aka lawyers) will be happy to take a clients money in pursuit of taxed costs income' date=' irrespective of the prospect of a successful lawsuit.

 

What it means is that Bezzie might be faced with raising money to secure a good attorney (or in the event of this proceeding to trial - a good advocate) to defend any action. But this will be preceeded by the issuing of a letter of demand, a summons and the formalities of a civil action. Much water to pass under the bridge first and I'd personally like to see how the plaintiff is going to establish causality between anything Richard might have done and the patrimonial loss suffered.

[/quote']

 

 

 

i, for one, am glad we have you around. you calmly settle a lot of niggling questions like these. hub needs more like you

[Sean Badenhorst]

 

The law says volenti non fit injuria. No-one forced him to try the obstacle. Would a reasonably prudent man in his circumstances have foreseen the prospect of injury resulting from trying the obstacle? Would a reasonably prudent man have heeded the warning posted by the disclaimer? Feel free to guess.

The fact a letter has been sent means very little. Any claim would be a delictual action and volenti is an appropriate defence. Please remember that there is a lot of posturing in situations like this and pretty much any of the lab rats passing as humans (aka lawyers) will be happy to take a clients money in pursuit of taxed costs income' date=' irrespective of the prospect of a successful lawsuit.

What it means is that Bezzie might be faced with raising money to secure a good attorney (or in the event of this proceeding to trial - a good advocate) to defend any action. But this will be preceeded by the issuing of a letter of demand, a summons and the formalities of a civil action. Much water to pass under the bridge first and I'd personally like to see how the plaintiff is going to establish causality between anything Richard might have done and the patrimonial loss suffered.

[/quote']

 

Thanks cycleq. Very informative.

 

Utheki, I agree with you that we shouldn't forget a fellow mountain biker has a serious injury. If a fund or campaign had been started to assist him, I would have contributed. However, he has looked for someone to blame for his unfortunate predicament and instead of getting support from the mountain biking community, will get quite the opposite. The whole situation is sad.

 

One thing that doesn't seem to have been brought up on this thread is whether or not that was the first time Peter had ridden the see-saw.

 

 

[cycleq]

I think the tendency in situations like these is to postulate unnecessarily. Whether he rode the see-saw before or not is irrelevant to the injury he suffered. Obviously the close family are in the throes of the anger any wasteful loss would induce, but perhaps we might respect the feelings and rather adopt a wait-and-see. The letter sent to Bezzie might well have been exploratory in nature rather than the instigation of a suit. Either way let's see what unravels.

While I personally don't believe seeking redress in these circumstances is appropriate, compared say, with the example of a cyclist mowed down by a car driver in a hurry, it also speaks volumes about the general ignorance many participants have regarding their pastimes. I come from the old school that believes it a better proposition to take the couple hundred rand destined for that first helmet and putting it toward cycling education, bike skills and road knowledge. Statistics tell us the educational route prevents far more injuries than the trite assumption we can just plonk a helmet on our head an we're good to go.

Also, proving intent here is not necessary. Delictual actions invariably ground in negligence and not intent.

[Sean Badenhorst]

cycleq, surely if he had ridden the see-saw successfully previously, it has some bearing on this case? 

[mrmed]

Delictual actions invariably ground in negligence and not intent.

 

So, can Richard sue him for being negligent and falling off the see-saw?

[slowpoke]

cycleq, have you been in touch with Richard? Perhaps you should keep in touch with him in case he needs further legal guidance and assistance

[markStockton]

Letter sent, will also testify if required, also assist with defense fund.

 

[cycleq]

cycleq' date=' surely if he had ridden the see-saw successfully previously, it has some bearing on this case?  [/quote']

While it seems to make sense that a previous successful attempt might work against the claimant, circumstances change, conditions change, the nature of the see-saw might have changed, the fact that he had successfully ridden it before might detract from the "supposed" danger of trying the obstacle, so his unfortunate circumstances right now would be a direct consequence of him trying to cross the obstacle on that day, at tht time, in those circumstances.

Obviously you can take any view on the events, but the damages suffered will be seen as a consequence of that isolated event. Then you would look to the circumstances, apply the "reasonable man" test, consider the volenti issue, consider any other circumstances pertaining at the time before deciding where fault lies. Can you see that riding the see-saw before can work for the claimant as much as against him? Would a "reasonable man", having ridden the see-saw before successfully, consider the risk greater, or lesser, or the same?

[Madala]

Hi

 

There is a lot of interesting reading about legal issues relating to mountain biking on th IMBA web site. Although this applies to the American situation it probably still has relevance here.

 

See:-

 

http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_issues/liability_primer.html

 

and

 

http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_issues/index.html

 

Cheers

 

 

[cycleq]

Hi

There is a lot of interesting reading about legal issues relating to mountain biking on th IMBA web site. Although this applies to the American situation it probably still has relevance here.

See:-

http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_issues/liability_primer.html

and

http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_issues/index.html

Cheers
 

 

No, the US situation has no bearing whatsoever on our law.

[thefugitive]

mtbaaisikle dude' date=' your avatar scares the bejesus out of me. [/quote']

 

Step away from the samurai sword bru...

 

Im gonna sue you cause you are causing me mental anguish with that avatar of yours........

[Baaisikilist]

And is your avatar a pic of yr new binnit from V-Town...?