Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Crash rider's dad sues for shock

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Mouth, May 6, 2005.

  1. "A MAN who watched and heard his motorcyclist son fatally hit a concrete wall at high speed has suffered "nervous shock" and a resulting psychiatric illness, court documents claim.

    Peter Magee is seeking damages from Motorcycle Australia Limited after his son, Liam, 19, died during a qualifying round of the Australian Superbike Championship at the Mallala race track, north of Adelaide, in 2002."

  2. Oh fer F#@k's sake!!!

    Man - I'm really sorry for the guys loss, but TOUGH TITTIES!! That sounds really callous, I know. The kid was RACING A MOTORCYCLE!!!! There is a certain element of very high risk in this - and everyone who does these type of things realises and accepts it. And if they don't or can't then what the bloody hell are they doing RACING on a racetrack!!

    My job is a high altitude mountain guide - guiding on mountains like Everest. YES it's a risky job! YES people die every season. But everyone who's on that mountain knows the risks and knows the price. People who race motorcycles are the same.

    My friend just a week ago had his brother die in his arms after a fall into a crevasse. You don't see him sueing anybody...... This kid's father needs to realise that shit happens when you do risky stuff and not try and lay blame with anyone.
  3. yup, some ppls will do anything for a buck :evil: i wonder what the pricks son would think if he was alive still, i'm sure he'd be farkin appalled....
  4. Hang on a minute. If you read the article, you'll see that Liam Magee's death occurred when he hit a concrete wall at 100 km/h.

    It's claimed that a tyre barrier had been removed from the spot, and a concrete wall built to make more room for a grandstand. On the day of the accident, the concrete wall was not padded or covered by an airfence. The coroner found that Magee's death could have been prevented.

    I don't know whether or not any of this is correct, but for the sake of argument let's assume it is. Seems there's an argument that the wall either shouldn't have been there, or it should have been padded - and that's why this young man died. Not just because "motorcycle racing is dangerous" - although of course it is.

    If I saw one of my sons hit a concrete wall at 100 km/h with fatal consequences, "nervous shock" would probably be a pretty mild description of my state of mind. I have every sympathy for Liam Magee's father.

    Maybe he is just trying to get someone to be held accountable for his son's death. If you take the view that the only person responsible was Liam Magee, you're pretty much saying that track owners, promoters, administrators etc have no responsibility for racetrack safety. (And you probably think Barry Sheene was a wuss for not wanting to race GPs at the IoM, too.)
  5. Okay, I'll bite...

    I think the whole worlds gone litigation crazy.

    I feel for the family and friends for their loss, i cannot imagine how it must have felt for them to go through this horror.

    But, I'm pretty sure he knew the concrete wall was there before he started tearing throught that corner at 200km/h. He would have done a slower warm up lap at the very least.
    He willingly went through that corner, at that speed, knowing that an "off" is a very real possibility in racing. It was his choice to take that risk.

    And for that reason, i don't believe the father should be able to sue.

    At the most, the track should get a fine for not complying with the guidelines about haybales, airfences etc, and be closed to racing until it complies .

    I think in all sports or activities, players should be made to sign a simple waver:

    "If i die whilst doing this activity, no matter what the cause, I assume all responsibility and fault for that death and therefore negate any possibility of litigation" Signed__________

    No sign, no particate.
    Wouldn't that free up the court rooms.
    Wouldn't that open up the world to a whole lot more fun (and yes dangerous) activities. But hey, its up to you to decide if you do that activity, not someone else.

    Lastly, If the dad wanted to make money from his son's death, then he should have taken out insurance.

    Again, its a terrible loss, but lets move on.
  6. sheen WAS a wuss, there isn't a safer race than the IOM :LOL:

    maybe the tyre manufacturer is responsible for not providing enuff grip? or bike manufacturer for making a bike that goes fast enuff for someone to get killed on a race track?

    i totally feel for the guy, but if he wants action, i reckon this is the wrong way about it. i still reckon that sonny would be pretty upset if he could know his daddy was trying to hurt the sport he loved so much. ok, i dont know the circumstances that led to the accident, but i'd be pretty certain that no-one forced him to get out on the track that day. and he would have seen that wall a few times too and still he kept hammering, didn't stop cos he thought it was too much of a risk. and no-one else died there either did they?

    i'm not saying its his own fault or anything, or that i dont feel for the family and friends. i'm just saying i wish some ppls would just learn to accept that shit happens sometimes. and like it or not, its not always gunna happen in a way youd like :?
  7. Cool. I'll open an indoor climbing centre then. Money for jam - cause I won't have to budget anything for equipment maintenance, and no-one can sue me for their fractures. Sweet!!!
  8. Firstly, their has to be a negligent party to sue so if the bike was faulty, the barriers weren't protective enough etc. his son's death may have been preventable.

    Now assuming that an external factor caused the accident to occur, do you think it was fair if his Dad was compensated for at least the money he is spending on counselling & treatment?

    Now what if the dad was a complete wreck and couldn't function as a person so he was unable to work, should be be paid his past & future economic loss?

    and the last question is should he be awarded a sum of money for his pain & suffering? How much?

    That is what the Judge & Jury will be assessing..... If they feel that the negligent party is partially to be blamed they reduce the amounts of damages accordingly. ie. They were half to blame then he would get only 50% of the assessed damages.
  9. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't agree the father should be entitled to anything.

    OK - the people who run the race track maybe should've had that wall protected, but that doesn't change the fact that Liam CHOSE to go onto the track, and it doesn't change the fact the his father CHOSE to allow and support him in doing so......

    People need to be responsible for their own actions and actually start thinking for themselves again!! It really isn't that difficult! Particulary if you are well aware of the risks you take.

    I would have a different veiw IF this kid had never been on a racetrack before, and was a total beginner..... Clearly he wasn't - nor was his father. They knew the risks and decided to proceed despite. The fact is they proceeded blindly ahead with absolutely NO risk assessment - assuming it'd been done by the track managers. Why didn't they see the wall, say "hey this is dangerous" and have something done about it. People can't expect their wellbeing to be in the hands of another and then sue when it all goes wrong!!
  10. Cool. I'll open an indoor climbing centre then. Money for jam - cause I won't have to budget anything for equipment maintenance, and no-one can sue me for their fractures. Sweet!!![/quote]

    THEN you'd be in trouble if someone got hurt.... But an experienced climber would notice your breaches of safety and make an informed choice. He would climb and risk it, or chose to do something about the risk. That's my point with Liam - he was an experienced racer with the knowledge and ability to make an informed choice about what he was about to do! He chose wrongly... Nobody's fault there but his!
  11. You can't sign away your constitutional right to sue under Australian law. Waivers don't do anything in a court of law. Alternatively, signing something that says you acknowledge the risks of the activity prevents you from suing and saying the organisers didn't let you know the risk involved, but you can still sue if they didn't take "reasonable" preventative measures.
  12. The team i have join recently have been talking to 17 guides about 24+ climbs over the last 6 months, but funny how none reside outside certain countries. Work must be slow for you then....

    back to the question, yeap totally agree sue the crap out of MA that's why there insured and set up for!
    Waivers mean shyte in court, when it comes down to judges law most things mean shyte!
  13. "Waivers mean shyte in court"

    Yes, currently. The laws should be changed to allow this kind of waver though.

    If you participate in the dangerous activity, then you knowingly accept the risks involved when you begin the activity. You knowingly accept that one of those risks is that somewhere, somehow, someone may have not done their job properly, and has made the already deadly activity (that you chose to participate in) a little more deadly.

    This sueing for pain and suffering is a joke. If he's dead, i'm pretty sure his pain has stopped. in this world at least. As for the suffering, yes his family probably are. But how's a big wad of cash going to make them feel better? - retail theropy to the extreme. My sons dead but this new WRX STi and Ducati 999 go some way towards easing my pain.
    "You've upset me, you've made me angry, now give me some money." What a causality.

    How bout this waver:

    "I accept that i'm about to particpate in a potentially deadly activity and if i die, shit happens." Signed___________

  14. THEN you'd be in trouble if someone got hurt.... [/quote]

    No I wouldn't because everyone who went in the place would have signed the waiver Mcbigg was proposing.
    And I'd market the place to inexperienced climbers, because they wouldn't notice the corners I'd cut. I'd encourage people to come in and experience the wonderful world of indoor climbing. Mcbigg world is heaven for entrepreneurs like me!

    [Edit: Being a bit more serious - you have both rights and obligations, whatever you do in life. In general, you're obliged to take reasonable care not to cause injury or damage to someone else - if it's reasonably foreseeable that your action or inaction might do that.

    Just because an activity involves a greater degree of risk than most activities people engage in, doesn't let everyone involved off the hook. They still have to take reasonable care for the safety of others. And that means thinking about what they're doing, and how they're doing it. If racetrack owners can say "racing's dangerous, piss off" we'll be back to the days of hay bales, if that.

    Having said all that, most state and territory governments have passed legislation within the past couple of years that significantly reduces peoples' right to sue for personal injury arising from others' negligence. There are even provisions relating to "dangerous activities". So that should keep you happy.]
  15. And hell for the stupid fools who decide to go into dangerous sports uninformed and inexperienced.
  16. New Zealand has some great laws regarding this sort of stuff. Basically, by participating in a dangerous activity you automatically waiver your rights to sue unless someone through improper action or negligence causes the injury. If you claim you didn't realise the activity was dangerous, their point of view is that you're a moron and should be thankful you managed to get this far through life already. We need their system here.
  17. Thanks for this, very informative!. I believe that MA and the track owners certainly do have a case to answer in this matter. I think the father should amend his complaint to remove the club although.

    It is fair for any rider entering a race under MA guidelines to believe that a licensed track does meet proper safety regulations. That MA and the track allowed the race meet to proceed without the track meeting safety regulations is negligent on both the part of the track and MA.

    It is unfair to expect a rider or a club to know the full track safety regulations and ensure they have been adhered to - that is why a rider and club pays fee's to MA to do their job and ensure that tracks do meet their regulations.

    The coroners findings clearly show that the coroner believes it's highly likely the rider would have almost certainly survived if MA track regulations were adhered to.

    I applaud the father in this case. In suing MA and the track it means they will get pressure/requirement from their insurance companies to meet the track regulations, and that they will be adhered to in future so that no other rider dies un-needlessly. If the track or MA is not covered by their insurance because a term of the insurance was that the track did meet safety regulations, then that does not mean they still shouldn't be accountable for negligence.

    Shame on you all for saying that the rider (and family) should expect no adherence to safety regulations just because it's a dangerous activity. Safety regulations exist to minimise the risk, and those regulations were not met. The shame belongs clearly with the track and MA, not with the rider and/or family.
  18. Of course the compensation payout is determined in court by a jury of your peers so if juries stopped giving out these payouts then there wouldn't be a problem.

    Mind you I sat through a 2 week work place injury case, as of all things Jury Foreman, and there is a lot more to the legal system than you see on TV.

    In fact the first thing they tell you when you walk in is that "This isn't LA Law or Judge Judy".

    Oh, Does anyone have a pdf copy of the Greg Hansford finding from 10 years ago? I'd even put up with a paper copy.
  19. Mcbigg's argument can be carried across to the rest of us, of course.

    Riding a bike on the street is a dangerous activity. So if we're injured we shouldn't expect to receive any compulsory third party payments, should we?

    After all, we voluntarily engaged in a dangerous activity so how can we ask someone else to bail us out when we get into trouble? We shouldn't be trying to assign fault to anyone (eg the driver who didn't see us), because we were doing something dangerous. Money won't fix broken bones, after all. We should have stayed home drinking cocoa.

    What a load of crap!