NHMS Lawsuit

[kb1]

Well, by him trying to sue NHMS is the reason that pricing can go up for all of us to run track days. I feel bad for the guy, but I peronally dont have time to worry about everyone in the world's misfortune. It just so happens to be at a place that we all have a lot in common. When it comes to lawsuits, most go after everyone and in the end, get very little. People have to take responsibility for their own actions. If I was standing on the back seat of a bike going down the track and fell off and got hurt, should I sue NHMS for letting me do it or because there were no posted rules about this? Gimme a break... Rules only get imposed after the fact, and that is how everyone ends up suffering...

This dude needs help and his misfortune was caused at the hands of somebody else while he was doing VOLUNTEER WORK which makes the track cheaper for us to use because they don't have to pay those employees.

From everything I've read the guy was doing a job and and not screwing around, there is no correlation at all to going down the track standing on the back of a bike.

[GixerJockey]

I wouldn't have filed against the golf cart company or the various others that had absolutely nothing to do with the incident.

Just as one FYI for those bashing the injured guy;

He and the family have no input to the law suit now. It's in the lawyer's hands now. It's pretty standard to list anyone/company that could be even remotely be tied to a suit in the initial filling. Most will be dropped of the list of defendant's after awhile. I'm surprised the gasoline, oil and tire companies weren't listed.

What he said...

[Paul_E_D]

I wouldn't have filed against the golf cart company or the various others that had absolutely nothing to do with the incident.

Your lawyer would have. It's called deep pockets approach. The driver of the golf cart won't have enough money to pay for a nurse for the rest of this guys life, but if you tap into the deeper pockets surrounding the incident, each one kicks in a little and the guy is covered. It's not a slimy thing to do. That's how it works when someone is disabled due too negligence.

[kb1]

Your lawyer would have. It's called deep pockets approach. The driver of the golf cart won't have enough money to pay for a nurse for the rest of this guys life, but if you tap into the deeper pockets surrounding the incident, each one kicks in a little and the guy is covered. It's not a slimy thing to do. That's how it works when someone is disabled due too negligence.

Lawyers know what they're doing on these types of things, most times their clients don't even know whose listed on the suit.

[newgixxerchic]

technically the guy's wife went to a lawyer and said help. Who knows if the guy has enough cognitive function to speak....

[brendanp]

Unfortunately, lawsuits like this do not work on contengency, unless there is some kind of a policy the lawyer can go after, and in this case, I dont see it. The lawyer will prolly grab their life savings in an effort to recover money for this guy. That is why they sue everyone they can think of. Slowly, the accused parties will all go to court for a summary judgement and most of them will be booted out. Very sad situation.

[BLACK SQUIRREL]

Unfortunately, lawsuits like this do not work on contengency, unless there is some kind of a policy the lawyer can go after, and in this case, I dont see it. The lawyer will prolly grab their life savings in an effort to recover money for this guy. That is why they sue everyone they can think of. Slowly, the accused parties will all go to court for a summary judgement and most of them will be booted out. Very sad situation.

Most Cases like this ARE on contengency. Thats why there are so many of them.

[brendanp]

Most Cases like this ARE on contengency. Thats why there are so many of them.

I'm not gunna argue with you, but you have no clue what you are talking about on that. I've been involved in lawsuits. Been there, done it.

[jtaylor719]

^^ Yeah we have to keep in mind that this guy went to a lawyer and said "help". Everything else about this case was most likely the lawyer's move.

Absolutely correct.

I stuck my foot in my mouth with the first post, but it certainly wasn't meant to be insensitive to his injury.

I was going more for the fact that everyone under the sun was getting dragged into the lawsuit (the golfcart manufacturer, and snack shop??), and it's most certainly the lawyers doing it.

[butcher bergs]

Come Hell or high water, someone's going to pay that man.

[OreoGaborio]

Brendan, I HIGHLY doubt this guy's gonna end up with brain damage AND an empty bank account if that's what you're saying.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I work with a lawyer that specializes in Personal Injury & I get to hear all sorts of stories... and from what I've heard there's almost ALWAYS some sorta insurance policy that they can go after, especially with big corporations like the ones they're suing. If they don't get a settlement, the Lawyer most likely won't get a dime. Get a good enough lawyer & you'll get somethin... might not be much, but it'll be somethin.

[Gecko]

Unfortunately, lawsuits like this do not work on contingency, unless there is some kind of a policy the lawyer can go after, and in this case, I don’t see it. The lawyer will probably grab their life savings in an effort to recover money for this guy. That is why they sue everyone they can think of. Slowly, the accused parties will all go to court for a summary judgment and most of them will be booted out. Very sad situation.

Most Cases like this ARE on contingency. That’s why there are so many of them.

I'm not gunna argue with you, but you have no clue what you are talking about on that. I've been involved in lawsuits. Been there, done it.

Squirrel is correct, most of the “PI” cases are contingency fee based. That is why there are so many “PI” case. While lawyers like to see some kind of a policy coverage involved, it’s not necessarily a determining factor. The financial solvency of, and the likelihood of collecting a judgment from, the defendant(s) is key to whether a lawyer will accept a case on a contingency fee basis. The reason why we see so many PI cases is because with a contingency fee, it cost a potential plaintiff practically nothing (except for his injuries) for a chance to hit some big cash (comp for pain and suffering). It’s like the lottery, you think nothing of spending $1 for a lottery ticket to win the $1m lottery pot. Brendan, while you may have “been there, done it” . . . I “am there, and live it” day in and day out.

I wouldn't have filed against the golf cart company or the various others that had absolutely nothing to do with the incident.

Your lawyer would have. It's called deep pockets approach. The driver of the golf cart won't have enough money to pay for a nurse for the rest of this guys life, but if you tap into the deeper pockets surrounding the incident, each one kicks in a little and the guy is covered. It's not a slimy thing to do. That's how it works when someone is disabled due too negligence.

Correct, but it also holds those responsible for the injuries, accountable. It makes sure that all the people who might be accountable for the injuries are together in one suit so that the jury can then asses who is liable and for what percentages each are responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries/damages. If a plaintiff fails to state a viable cause of action, a defendant can, during various stages of the litigation, file a motion to strike, motion to dismiss or a summary judgment motion to escape an improper claim or suit and get out of the case early.

Lawyers know what they're doing on these types of things, most times their clients don't even know whose listed on the suit.

Well, hopefully we know what we're doing on these types of things. While lawyers develop the theories, the client has the ultimate authority on the suit. If this guy has such an affection for NHMS, he could have easily said “no.” Here, he wisely did not. While NHMS is the named defendant, I cannot imagine they didn’t have policy coverage in place. In effect, he’s not suing NHMS, he’s suing the insurance company who’s business it is (yes, they make lots of money doing this too) to provide coverage for these types of incidents. If NHMS did not have coverage, shame on them for cutting corners. It may be the case too that at the end of the suit the jury determines that NHMS is 10% liable. Nothing says the guy has to collect the judgment against NHMS.

.

[OreoGaborio]

Yeah, what he said!

That's pretty much exactly how I imagined it all goin down but not being a lawyer I wasn't about to try & put it into words!

[brendanp]

All I am trying to say and have been saying is that if there is not a policy to go after with a dollar amount that can be had, the lawyer will want a retainer fee. Lawyers do not work for free unless they know for sure that there is "money in the bank!"

[tk]

This guy should get his medical expenses paid and thats it! Accidents do happen and thats why we pay for insurance! People get way to (sue) happy in this world today. I could see if he was only trying to collect his medical expenses, but im sure he will end up with it all, including lifetime passes to the track. What makes it even worse is that he was there for a charitable contribution. I thought these people were those of kindness and not to gain lots of $$ for an accident. IDk the press doesn't tell the story like it is most of the time anyway. This ordeal should be at the insurance level rather than the track itself.

[kb1]

Squirrel is correct, most of the “PI” cases are contingency fee based. That is why there are so many “PI” case. While lawyers like to see some kind of a policy coverage involved, it’s not necessarily a determining factor. The financial solvency of, and the likelihood of collecting a judgment from, the defendant(s) is key to whether a lawyer will accept a case on a contingency fee basis. The reason why we see so many PI cases is because with a contingency fee, it cost a potential plaintiff practically nothing (except for his injuries) for a chance to hit some big cash (comp for pain and suffering). It’s like the lottery, you think nothing of spending $1 for a lottery ticket to win the $1m lottery pot. Brendan, while you may have “been there, done it” . . . I “am there, and live it” day in and day out.

Correct, but it also holds those responsible for the injuries, accountable. It makes sure that all the people who might be accountable for the injuries are together in one suit so that the jury can then asses who is liable and for what percentages each are responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries/damages. If a plaintiff fails to state a viable cause of action, a defendant can, during various stages of the litigation, file a motion to strike, motion to dismiss or a summary judgment motion to escape an improper claim or suit and get out of the case early.

Well, hopefully we know what we're doing on these types of things. While lawyers develop the theories, the client has the ultimate authority on the suit. If this guy has such an affection for NHMS, he could have easily said “no.” Here, he wisely did not. While NHMS is the named defendant, I cannot imagine they didn’t have policy coverage in place. In effect, he’s not suing NHMS, he’s suing the insurance company who’s business it is (yes, they make lots of money doing this too) to provide coverage for these types of incidents. If NHMS did not have coverage, shame on them for cutting corners. It may be the case too that at the end of the suit the jury determines that NHMS is 10% liable. Nothing says the guy has to collect the judgment against NHMS.

.

Thanks for the info, I like seeing clear/concise information on stuff like this.

I hope the guy get's his fair share, nuff said.

[NobodySpecific]

This guy should get his medical expenses paid and thats it! Accidents do happen and thats why we pay for insurance! People get way to (sue) happy in this world today. I could see if he was only trying to collect his medical expenses, but im sure he will end up with it all, including lifetime passes to the track. What makes it even worse is that he was there for a charitable contribution. I thought these people were those of kindness and not to gain lots of $$ for an accident. IDk the press doesn't tell the story like it is most of the time anyway. This ordeal should be at the insurance level rather than the track itself.

Often you have to sue in order to get insurance to pay up. My ex-girfriend's parents were in a snowmobile accident, and the insurance threatened not to pay. If they had continued to refuse, her mom (passenger) would have had to sue her dad (the one driving the sled) just to get the insurance to pay up.

And I disagree that he should get medical bills only. He went to volunteer, and is now no longer capable of providing for his family. Not only do they have the added expense of his (probably enormous) medical bills, they no longer have his salary to help pay them. That should still hopefully be covered by the insurance companies.

[brendanp]

Someone please tell me "What Insurance company's" he is going to collect money from? I'm not trying to be a dick here, but his lawyer is going to get money from the place that built the golfcart? How is that possible?
He is going to sue the guy that was driving? What insurance does the driver cover for him? I do not think it will be his auto insurance? I'm not saying that the guy does not deserve some compensation, but you have to remember, winning a judgement and actually collecting a judgement are 2 different things. It will be interesting how this plays out.
I will have to bookmark this thread so I can go back in 5 yrs when all is said and done and compare notes.

[kb1]

Someone please tell me "What Insurance company's" he is going to collect money from? I'm not trying to be a dick here, but his lawyer is going to get money from the place that built the golfcart? How is that possible?
He is going to sue the guy that was driving? What insurance does the driver cover for him? I do not think it will be his auto insurance? I'm not saying that the guy does not deserve some compensation, but you have to remember, winning a judgement and actually collecting a judgement are 2 different things. It will be interesting how this plays out.
I will have to bookmark this thread so I can go back in 5 yrs when all is said and done and compare notes.

It's a racetrack dude, they HAVE liability insurance and that is what this is attacking. The umbrella is cast wide, and narrows and only the track's insurance will most likely wind up paying.

[Woodsy]

ok, i'll bite,

first, the op may have been a bit off the mark. we are entitled to our opinions though.

second, there is no speed stated in the reports. the cart could possibly be doing 15mph ( i would be surprised if it was faster than that)

third, i believe (correct me if i am wrong) that there is a warning on the cart saying that passengers should only be permitted to ride in the bench. the back is for... golf clubs.

fourth, he was not employed by NHMS. he was working for the non-profit. the NHMS was making a donation to the charity that the non-profit selected. therefore the pay is by proxy. it would be no different than a employee of a contractor suing a company that hired them instead of their actual employer.

fith, the negligence is on a) the driver of the cart and b) the claimant for taking a knowing risk (riding in the back of a golf cart

all of this taken into consideration the only people he could go after is the driver and the non-profit. what is happening here is the 2 groups i just mentioned have no money, so the attorneys are going after the deep pockets. does it suck what happen to him? sure. does he have a right to go after the defendants he has named? no. there is an amount of personal responsability that comes into play here. if any of us go down on our bikes tomorrow are we going to sue honda, suzuki, or the state of massachusetts? my heart goes out to the guy but in the end he is the one that decided to ride in the back of the cart.

[kb1]

third, i believe (correct me if i am wrong) that there is a warning on the cart saying that passengers should only be permitted to ride in the bench. the back is for... golf clubs.

They make a lot of golf carts with rearward facing seats for people to ride on, I don't know if that was the case in this instance, but just an FYI.

[Woodsy]

They make a lot of golf carts with rearward facing seats for people to ride on, I don't know if that was the case in this instance, but just an FYI.

i thought that too but there are metal grab bars that are on each side of the bench. sounds like he was on a cart that was not equipped like that. if it was and he was following the safety instructions he would have at least not hit his head

[kb1]

i thought that too but there are metal grab bars that are on each side of the bench. sounds like he was on a cart that was not equipped like that. if it was and he was following the safety instructions he would have at least not hit his head

Very true but I guess the moral of the story is that we don't know exactly what happened so non of us are in a position to judge.

[brendanp]

ok, i'll bite,

first, the op may have been a bit off the mark. we are entitled to our opinions though.

second, there is no speed stated in the reports. the cart could possibly be doing 15mph ( i would be surprised if it was faster than that)

third, i believe (correct me if i am wrong) that there is a warning on the cart saying that passengers should only be permitted to ride in the bench. the back is for... golf clubs.

fourth, he was not employed by NHMS. he was working for the non-profit. the NHMS was making a donation to the charity that the non-profit selected. therefore the pay is by proxy. it would be no different than a employee of a contractor suing a company that hired them instead of their actual employer.

fith, the negligence is on a) the driver of the cart and b) the claimant for taking a knowing risk (riding in the back of a golf cart

all of this taken into consideration the only people he could go after is the driver and the non-profit. what is happening here is the 2 groups i just mentioned have no money, so the attorneys are going after the deep pockets. does it suck what happen to him? sure. does he have a right to go after the defendants he has named? no. there is an amount of personal responsability that comes into play here. if any of us go down on our bikes tomorrow are we going to sue honda, suzuki, or the state of massachusetts? my heart goes out to the guy but in the end he is the one that decided to ride in the back of the cart.

A very intelligent post.

[Woodsy]

Very true but I guess the moral of the story is that we don't know exactly what happened so non of us are in a position to judge.

i disagree, the configuration of the golf cart is irrelivant as both protect the company from personal injury cases stemming from improper operation