One more reason to NOT do triathlons!

Don't blame the weak swimmers for a race director's decision to cancel the swim portion of a triathlon. Blame lawyers, our legal system, and juries. I'm sick to death of this kind of baseless, unsupported hit and run crap. Can you provide even one citation to a reported case affirming liability? Or a case that went to judgment? Or even a case that was filed? Please, spare me the "I heard from so and so who knows a former race director who told so and so's second cousin (twice removed) that the swim might have been canceled due to liability concerns." Provide the county and court of filing and date of judgment. Liability releases are valid and enforceable in most jurisdictions throughout the United States, and are a strong deterrent to claims. A quick search of all 50 states for "Triathlon and liability" turned up a whopping 22 hits. (If that seems like a lot of hits to anyone, try searching for "golf and liability", or "bicycle and liability", or "SCUBA and liability"). I found exactly one case which might be read as having a chilling effect on triathlons, Hiett v. Lake Bancroft Community Assoc., 244 Va. 191, 418 S.E.2d 894 (1992). The triathlete in Hiett struck his head on an underwater object during the swim portion, resulting in quadraplegia. Relying on about a century of Virginia case law, the Virginia Supreme Court invalidated a release and overturned a grant of summary judgment to the race organizers, remanding the case to the trial court. We don't know what happened to the case from there, but frankly, if the race organizers failed to properly check the swim area, they deserve to be held liable. A later California decision considering the validity of releases signed by developmentally disabled minors (Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 747, 161 P.2d 1095, 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 527 (2007)) noted that Hiett had evidently not had much impact on the availability of triathlons in Virginia: The same appears to be true concerning nonprofit sporting events. For example, as plaintiffs observe, 14 years after the Virginia Supreme Court in Hiett, supra, 418 S.E.2d 894, voided an agreement releasing liability for future ordinary negligence relating to participation in a triathlon, at least 60 triathlons, biathlons, and duathlons were held in Virginia in 2006, and at least that many have been scheduled for 2007. (See .) In short, there is no epidemic of lawsuits arising out of swimmers drowning in triathlons. Perhaps the race director canceling a swim made a smart decision, based on the conditions (too windy, too cold, large surf, lack of support vehicles, etc.) I suspect the thought of bearing the moral or human responsibility for the death or injury of a swimmer has a lot more to do with the decision than any thought of legal responsibility. And most any reputable event and organizer will have event insurance, generally available through the sanctioning organization, in place to cover the legal side. I think your blame of the legal system is misplaced.

Don't blame the weak swimmers for a race director's decision to cancel the swim portion of a triathlon. Blame lawyers, our legal system, and juries. I'm sick to death of this kind of baseless, unsupported hit and run crap. Can you provide even one citation to a reported case affirming liability? Or a case that went to judgment? Or even a case that was filed? Please, spare me the "I heard from so and so who knows a former race director who told so and so's second cousin (twice removed) that the swim might have been canceled due to liability concerns." Provide the county and court of filing and date of judgment. Liability releases are valid and enforceable in most jurisdictions throughout the United States, and are a strong deterrent to claims. A quick search of all 50 states for "Triathlon and liability" turned up a whopping 22 hits. (If that seems like a lot of hits to anyone, try searching for "golf and liability", or "bicycle and liability", or "SCUBA and liability"). I found exactly one case which might be read as having a chilling effect on triathlons, Hiett v. Lake Bancroft Community Assoc., 244 Va. 191, 418 S.E.2d 894 (1992). The triathlete in Hiett struck his head on an underwater object during the swim portion, resulting in quadraplegia. Relying on about a century of Virginia case law, the Virginia Supreme Court invalidated a release and overturned a grant of summary judgment to the race organizers, remanding the case to the trial court. We don't know what happened to the case from there, but frankly, if the race organizers failed to properly check the swim area, they deserve to be held liable. A later California decision considering the validity of releases signed by developmentally disabled minors (Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 747, 161 P.2d 1095, 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 527 (2007)) noted that Hiett had evidently not had much impact on the availability of triathlons in Virginia: The same appears to be true concerning nonprofit sporting events. For example, as plaintiffs observe, 14 years after the Virginia Supreme Court in Hiett, supra, 418 S.E.2d 894, voided an agreement releasing liability for future ordinary negligence relating to participation in a triathlon, at least 60 triathlons, biathlons, and duathlons were held in Virginia in 2006, and at least that many have been scheduled for 2007. (See .) In short, there is no epidemic of lawsuits arising out of swimmers drowning in triathlons. Perhaps the race director canceling a swim made a smart decision, based on the conditions (too windy, too cold, large surf, lack of support vehicles, etc.) I suspect the thought of bearing the moral or human responsibility for the death or injury of a swimmer has a lot more to do with the decision than any thought of legal responsibility. And most any reputable event and organizer will have event insurance, generally available through the sanctioning organization, in place to cover the legal side. I think your blame of the legal system is misplaced.