I started diving off of starting blocks when I was eight years old. I am now 51, and train at the Y, almost always alone, as there is no Masters program in the county where I live, or in any of the immediately adjacent counties. (There are several age group programs.) I want to work on my starts, but none of the Y's where I swim will let me use the blocks - saying that a national Y policy prohibits anyone from using the blocks unless a team/club coach is on the deck.
I have never heard of anyone suing a YMCA because of an accident on a starting block.
Yes, perhaps a coach would be valuable to me in this regard, but I'm not looking for a coach - I need and want a cooperative facility. The age groups' program schedules are not conducive to my schedule, and besides, the age group coaches already have enough on their hands during those times with lanes full of kids working their programs. I also am not excited about having to dodge those kids to do the work I need to do.
Anyone find a way to conquer this litigation-fear-induced insanity yet? Thank you.
Parents
Former Member
Before I post this let me say that, yes, I am a lawyer and, no, I am not a trial lawyer. My practice deals with commercial, non-litigation matters (contracts, intellectual property, software licensing, etc.). I don't know (or, for that matter, care very much) about the facts of particular personal injury suits, like the infamous McDonald's Coffee Case, for the simple reason that, as my law school professors constantly pointed out, one oddball case is not the law.
Now that that's out of the way -- the people yelling about "frivolous lawsuits" might want to consider that 40% of nothing is nothing. Trial lawyers have every incentive to avoid frivolous suits -- they don't get paid for their time or work. Also, "excessive" verdicts can be, and often are, reduced by trial judges and appellate courts.
As for the original issue, the Y (or any pool operator) regardless of litigation, would be irresponsible to allow a pool user to engage in conduct -- i.e., diving without supervision -- that could endanger another user. You may be willing to accept the risk; the kid you land on might have other ideas. It hardly seems fair or reasonable to ask a 17 year old lifeguard to make a judgement about your competence that may affect another user's safety. I would not want to use a facility that doesn't enforce basic safety rules.
Before I post this let me say that, yes, I am a lawyer and, no, I am not a trial lawyer. My practice deals with commercial, non-litigation matters (contracts, intellectual property, software licensing, etc.). I don't know (or, for that matter, care very much) about the facts of particular personal injury suits, like the infamous McDonald's Coffee Case, for the simple reason that, as my law school professors constantly pointed out, one oddball case is not the law.
Now that that's out of the way -- the people yelling about "frivolous lawsuits" might want to consider that 40% of nothing is nothing. Trial lawyers have every incentive to avoid frivolous suits -- they don't get paid for their time or work. Also, "excessive" verdicts can be, and often are, reduced by trial judges and appellate courts.
As for the original issue, the Y (or any pool operator) regardless of litigation, would be irresponsible to allow a pool user to engage in conduct -- i.e., diving without supervision -- that could endanger another user. You may be willing to accept the risk; the kid you land on might have other ideas. It hardly seems fair or reasonable to ask a 17 year old lifeguard to make a judgement about your competence that may affect another user's safety. I would not want to use a facility that doesn't enforce basic safety rules.
