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 KenChertoff
I think there's been a misconception running throughout this thread -- liability isn't an "either/or" matter as between plaintiff and defendant in personal injury cases. Under the prevailing rule in the United States, the jury apportions fault between the parties and the plaintiff's recovery is reduced in proportion to his own fault, whether it's 10%, 50% or 99% (or any other percentage). So if the jury found that the pool operator bore, say 10% of the fault, the plaintiff's recovery would only be 10% of his total damages.
I'm not advocating for or against liability here, but I think we should be clear on what it is we're talking about.
Weren't we talking about the same thing?
I was asking which party should carry more weight (bigger percentage) of the blame ... in my previous example.
I think that the person knowingly endangering themselves should carry more responsibility for their accidents then those who perhaps could have but failed to prevent them from taking that action - when were talking about adults.
Originally posted by KenChertoff
I think there's been a misconception running throughout this thread -- liability isn't an "either/or" matter as between plaintiff and defendant in personal injury cases. Under the prevailing rule in the United States, the jury apportions fault between the parties and the plaintiff's recovery is reduced in proportion to his own fault, whether it's 10%, 50% or 99% (or any other percentage). So if the jury found that the pool operator bore, say 10% of the fault, the plaintiff's recovery would only be 10% of his total damages.
I'm not advocating for or against liability here, but I think we should be clear on what it is we're talking about.
Weren't we talking about the same thing?
I was asking which party should carry more weight (bigger percentage) of the blame ... in my previous example.
I think that the person knowingly endangering themselves should carry more responsibility for their accidents then those who perhaps could have but failed to prevent them from taking that action - when were talking about adults.
