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
Originally posted by swimpastor
Are any of us who are drinking too hot coffee, and/or wanting to be able to practise our dive entries obese? If so, as of yesterday, its not our fault. It's an illness. (Red Forman on "That 70's Show" would probably label it 'dumb ***' disease.') I just heard a news commentator say that the first and most obvious result of the government's new decision will probably be more people suing food producers - purveyors, for contributing to the severity of their illness.
Now I am REALLLLLY, REALLLLLY mad!
It sounds like that commentator isn't quite up to speed on this issue. Those claims have already been litigated in several jurisdictions and they've been pretty uniformly thrown out at both the trial and appellate level, as frivolous (which, by the way, I think was correct -- see, we agree on something :)).
I'm not an expert in personal injury law, but I don't see any legal significance, in the context of personal injury liability, to calling obesity a disease. The main effect would be to allow coverage by health insurers for programs like Weight Watchers -- some state insurance regulations don't allow reimbursement except for treatment of recognized "diseases."
This is an example of one of my pet peeves about news coverage of legal matters. The media report (and sometimes speculate) about "outlandish" cases, but they only tell part of the story and they don't report when cases are dismissed or verdicts are reversed.
Originally posted by swimpastor
Are any of us who are drinking too hot coffee, and/or wanting to be able to practise our dive entries obese? If so, as of yesterday, its not our fault. It's an illness. (Red Forman on "That 70's Show" would probably label it 'dumb ***' disease.') I just heard a news commentator say that the first and most obvious result of the government's new decision will probably be more people suing food producers - purveyors, for contributing to the severity of their illness.
Now I am REALLLLLY, REALLLLLY mad!
It sounds like that commentator isn't quite up to speed on this issue. Those claims have already been litigated in several jurisdictions and they've been pretty uniformly thrown out at both the trial and appellate level, as frivolous (which, by the way, I think was correct -- see, we agree on something :)).
I'm not an expert in personal injury law, but I don't see any legal significance, in the context of personal injury liability, to calling obesity a disease. The main effect would be to allow coverage by health insurers for programs like Weight Watchers -- some state insurance regulations don't allow reimbursement except for treatment of recognized "diseases."
This is an example of one of my pet peeves about news coverage of legal matters. The media report (and sometimes speculate) about "outlandish" cases, but they only tell part of the story and they don't report when cases are dismissed or verdicts are reversed.
