Just read that heptathlete Taliyah Brooks is suing the USTA for not postponing the afternoon events she was to participate in (before she collapsed) when the temperature hit 111 degrees and the track measured 150 degrees! I remember the moment well because I had just finished working the earlier shift as a volunteer and was shocked to see that spectators were even permitted to stay inside Hayward Field. In fact, once I reached my car to commence the drive back home to Portland up Interstate 5, my car registered the temp at 116 degrees. The single hottest day I have ever experienced in my 57 years in Oregon.
I’m not one to feel a lot of sympathy for whiny athletes, but this woman (who was in 2nd place no doubt!) was a shoe-in to make the American Olympic team, and instead DQ’d because she passed out. This is not right, and it shouldn’t ever happen again.
I don't agree at all. I also don't think she's going to make it past a motion to dismiss under Rule 12. And if you want some interesting inside stuff, take a look at who she's got for her lawyer.
By the way, what makes you think she was a "shoe-in" to make the team? I don't pay much attention to the heptathlon, but this woman is a sprinter-hurdler who, as far as I know, would have trouble getting near 2:20 for the hep-800 on a good day. Being in second place after your best events are over and your worst are yet to come doesn't make you a "shoe-in" for a three-person team.
I mean "what about TV"? Seriously how many people watch this anyway? - sorry to the East Coaster TV audience, athletes come first each and every time.
I suspect the USATF's concern about TV was not that they may disappoint viewers but rather they would have to refund the broadcaster significant funds as they would have failed to deliver the product at the time stated.
That being said I would have thought the USATF would have insurance coverage for weather related delays. Maybe extreme heat was not in the policy. Or (and I am being really cynical here) maybe the policy stated that an athlete had to collapse before the policy kicked in.
Yes. Hence my quotation marks, referring back to the spelling by the earlier poster. And over the years, I've become uneasy about following up with "[sic]" in these kinds of conversation, so I left them out.
Of course, I respect your vast legal knowledge and experience, but I differ on the idea that signing a waiver entitles an entity to escape legal liability where they are clearly at fault. It does depend on the state and the details of the case, of course, as well. In my reading of the definition and the state treatment of waivers, this is a case of gross negligence.
"Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable
care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both"
Then, according to an Oregon state Supreme Court decision, the procedural factors are in favor of the plaintiff here. The substantive factors may or may not be in her favor; that they recognized it was dangerous subsequently supports the view that it was, and the fact that they had previously recognized it was already dangerous for distance events and they'd postponed them indicates they should have delayed the hep. I'm sure a judge and jury would find it improbably that they'd consider safe spending hours track-side with a track temperature of 150 and ambient temperature of 111. It's key that in the analysis here, the decision means that Oregon is leaning toward a state like Wisconsin in tending against permitting enforcement of waivers that are given to a broad group and that are obligatory and non-negotiable (take it or leave it) for participation in the activity where the parties in the contract are not equal.
By Doyice Cotten Author’s Note: It is rare that a court clearly defines and explains waiver law in a state. The Oregon Supreme Court made an effort to explain both the law and their reasoning; and,…
Really? What day has ever been at, or over, 111 degrees in Eugene in recent memory? I’ve been here 57 years and I have no recollection of a temperature ever being that high here.
Really? What day has ever been at, or over, 111 degrees in Eugene in recent memory? I’ve been here 57 years and I have no recollection of a temperature ever being that high here.
Uhhh, clearly you don't have a great recent memory...
Because this was literally 532 days ago. 111 at Eugene airport between 3 and 4pm and in the city (as you know having lived there 57 years) it's always a little hotter. And I don't even want to know what it was on the track which was just absorbing and radiating heat all day but my guess would be in the vicinity of 3-4 degrees warmer.
So let's just be honest - you don't live in Eugene do you? Thought so.
Yes. I have lived in or within 2 hours of Eugene my entire life, and I also attended and graduated from UO in the early 80’s. Since you seem to be quite knowledgeable about our town, you must already know the airport frequently (or always) carriers warmer temperatures out there than in the tree filled and hill surrounded area of Oregon’s campus. Bottom line is that your claim that a temperature of 111 is anything but egregiously out of the norm in our area is absurd. You should visit sometime because it’s obvious you aren’t from our area.
Yes. Hence my quotation marks, referring back to the spelling by the earlier poster. And over the years, I've become uneasy about following up with "[sic]" in these kinds of conversation, so I left them out.
Yes. Hence my quotation marks, referring back to the spelling by the earlier poster. And over the years, I've become uneasy about following up with "[sic]" in these kinds of conversation, so I left them out.
Why have you become uneasy with that?
Because too many "sics" can come off to some people as snarky, petty, condescending. I figure I come across that way already. Also, it's easy to make typos on these message boards -- I make tons of them -- and it doesn't seem right to take a simple typo and turn it into some repeated suggestion of illiteracy. I'll still use "sics" -- just as I'll use brackets to indicate changes in capitalization or other minor changes --but I don't expect to use them as consistently as I would when I use quotations in appellate briefs. (It does sting a little to loosen up on these things, but that may just be a price to pay to live as a grown-up in the world of general audiences and fairly informal communications.)
Of course, I respect your vast legal knowledge and experience, but I differ on the idea that signing a waiver entitles an entity to escape legal liability where they are clearly at fault. It does depend on the state and the details of the case, of course, as well. In my reading of the definition and the state treatment of waivers, this is a case of gross negligence.
"Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable
care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both"
Then, according to an Oregon state Supreme Court decision, the procedural factors are in favor of the plaintiff here. The substantive factors may or may not be in her favor; that they recognized it was dangerous subsequently supports the view that it was, and the fact that they had previously recognized it was already dangerous for distance events and they'd postponed them indicates they should have delayed the hep. I'm sure a judge and jury would find it improbably that they'd consider safe spending hours track-side with a track temperature of 150 and ambient temperature of 111. It's key that in the analysis here, the decision means that Oregon is leaning toward a state like Wisconsin in tending against permitting enforcement of waivers that are given to a broad group and that are obligatory and non-negotiable (take it or leave it) for participation in the activity where the parties in the contract are not equal.
There are so many issues for a careful attorney or judge to consider in dealing with these matters. One, often overlooked, is the choice of law. A written waiver and indemnity agreement is a contract, typically analyzed under the state law interpreting the contract, not the tort law of the state in which alleged negligence may have occurred. To get some idea of how important the plaintiff's attorneys are taking the waiver and indemnification agreement in this particular case, consider that -- contrary to the repeated assertions in various publications as well as this message board thread -- the plaintiff has not actually filed a negligence case in this case, but rather has filed -- in an Indiana state court, not an Oregon court -- a 41-page complaint for a judicial declaration that the waiver and indemnification agreement is unenforceable under the very specific circumstances of this case. In doing so, the plaintiff acknowledges that she currently can't even bring a negligence claim without, at the least, risking serious financial consequences. Here's a copy of the complaint (of course, don't assume that everything in the complaint is true, just as you shouldn't assume that the writers and editors who have reported on the case have gotten everything right -- they clearly haven't).
In addition to the temps reaching 111 in 2021 as well, we have seen numerous occasions in June-July during champs in recent years with temps near 100 or above, and much higher trackside. It reached 111 in 2022, June 27, 2021, 103 on June 26, 2021, and then among the more recent events, 98 in 2019 and twice in June 2015. There are also five occasions it reached at least 105 degrees in July in Eugene since 1998.
Just read that heptathlete Taliyah Brooks is suing the USTA for not postponing the afternoon events she was to participate in (before she collapsed) when the temperature hit 111 degrees and the track measured 150 degrees! I remember the moment well because I had just finished working the earlier shift as a volunteer and was shocked to see that spectators were even permitted to stay inside Hayward Field. In fact, once I reached my car to commence the drive back home to Portland up Interstate 5, my car registered the temp at 116 degrees. The single hottest day I have ever experienced in my 57 years in Oregon.
I’m not one to feel a lot of sympathy for whiny athletes, but this woman (who was in 2nd place no doubt!) was a shoe-in to make the American Olympic team, and instead DQ’d because she passed out. This is not right, and it shouldn’t ever happen again.
Two things can be true here:
USATF is a garbage organization and has at times done things that are not good for athletes. Even putting them at additional unnecessary risk at times. Another example I can think of is the 2016 marathon trials which could have been moved earlier in the day to account for he scorching day, but instead was kept in the hottest part of the day because of the live coverage.
But this is a frivolous lawsuit and almost certainly has no standing. I cannot remember the release waiver I signed when I ran an OT's but I can almost guarantee there was something in there that protected USATF in a situation like this.
Even without signed indemnifications from the athletes, they are almost certainly implied indemnifications (since an athlete is ultimately participating voluntarily). Despite this, however, the fact that athletes were put in a position to risk their health beyond a “reasonable” level in the first place is what reveals a certain level of agency negligence.
