Paralyzed Douglas files suit v. Arlington

[Roc525]

Paralyzed Douglas files suit v. Arlington

Almost one full year after he was paralyzed in a spill at Arlington Park, jockey Rene Douglas and his wife, Natalia, will file suit today in Cook County Circuit Court against the northwest suburban race track corporation and three affiliated entities.

The four-count action -- prepared by the Chicago law firm of Power Rogers & Smith, P.C. -- seeks damages ''in excess of $50,000'' from Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC; Churchill Downs Inc.; Keeneland Association Inc.; and Martin Collins Surfaces & Footings, the manufacturer of the synthetic surface known as ''Polytrack.''

Full story cont.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/horse...-arl11.article

[johnny pinwheel]

wait a few years and we willl see if they start suing for breathing problems......who knows what the effects of breathing that crap in will be

[pointman]

If Illinois law is anywhere near New York law, I am afraid Douglas has very little chance of recovery. Most likely they are trying to find a way to blame the polytrack since they are trying to get over the assumption of the risk doctrine that tends to apply to jockeys, i.e., a defect in the polytrack being something beyond the normal dangerous conditions that Douglas assumed when he got on the horse.

The law regarding assumption of the risk for jockeys tends to have harsh consequences to those that sustain serious injuries. I wish Douglas the best of luck in his pursuit.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pointman

If Illinois law is anywhere near New York law, I am afraid Douglas has very little chance of recovery. Most likely they are trying to find a way to blame the polytrack since they are trying to get over the assumption of the risk doctrine that tends to apply to jockeys, i.e., a defect in the polytrack being something beyond the normal dangerous conditions that Douglas assumed when he got on the horse.

The law regarding assumption of the risk for jockeys tends to have harsh consequences to those that sustain serious injuries. I wish Douglas the best of luck in his pursuit.

Wouldnt the fact that the other rider was given a harsh sentence for careless riding hurt their case that it was some kind of incidental contact? Or the fact that the horse landed square on him? And wont the defense trot out a bunch of other cases of jockeys paralyzed on regular tracks? It seems like they want to argue that the maintenance was lacking but how do you maintain a track so that it is "safe" for people to land on it at 35mph?

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Wouldnt the fact that the other rider was given a harsh sentence for careless riding hurt their case that it was some kind of incidental contact? Or the fact that the horse landed square on him? And wont the defense trot out a bunch of other cases of jockeys paralyzed on regular tracks? It seems like they want to argue that the maintenance was lacking but how do you maintain a track so that it is "safe" for people to land on it at 35mph?

Chuck, my point was that I doubt he stands much of a chance of recovery. I don't know Illinois law as I practice in New York. If it is assumption of the risk as it likely is, he has a tough road to hoe for the very reasons that you cite which are the normal risks assumed by a jockey. I have a hard time believing that they will be able correlate a defect in the polytrack with the cause of his injuries.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pointman

Chuck, my point was that I doubt he stands much of a chance of recovery. I don't know Illinois law as I practice in New York. If it is assumption of the risk as it likely is, he has a tough road to hoe for the very reasons that you cite which are the normal risks assumed by a jockey. I have a hard time believing that they will be able correlate a defect in the polytrack with the cause of his injuries.

yeah it seems like a stretch. Think they are just trying to force a settlement?

[iamthelurker]

Word within the industry is that polytrack is dangerous for riders because you stick when you fall instead roll/slide like on dirt. This makes the impact alot harsher. Possibly that is the approach?

[Honu]

I dont care what surface you land on it hurts , if a horse lands on top of you and you dont break something then you are very lucky. Hitting anything at 35 to 40 mph is not good esp when the only protection you have is a bucket on your head and pads on your chest and back.
Its a bs lawsuit ......

[iamthelurker]

I mean its not really bs though when your sitting there paralyzed and wondering what your going to do with the rest of your life. Or I guess it is bs of Rene to try and get some money he and his family may be able to survive on.

[chucklestheclown]

Even if only the manufacturer is left it should be interesting.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by iamthelurker

I mean its not really bs though when your sitting there paralyzed and wondering what your going to do with the rest of your life. Or I guess it is bs of Rene to try and get some money he and his family may be able to survive on.

It bogus to try and blame the surface ....blame the other jock for riding with his head up his okole . Its not the track surface's fault that another human being caused Rene's accident .

[iamthelurker]

So Rene is supposed to sue Jamie Theriot is what your saying? Obviously hes looking for a settlement and I'm pretty sure Jamie doesnt have the kind of money that Rene is looking for (money to feed his family that is). I know I most certainly would act the same way if I was paralyzed with no way of earning money, as I'm pretty sure you would in that situation too.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by iamthelurker

So Rene is supposed to sue Jamie Theriot is what your saying? Obviously hes looking for a settlement and I'm pretty sure Jamie doesnt have the kind of money that Rene is looking for (money to feed his family that is). I know I most certainly would act the same way if I was paralyzed with no way of earning money, as I'm pretty sure you would in that situation too.

I understand what you are saying but Rene had rode on that track for years without incident until some negligent fool dropped him. Im saying its a bogus lawsuit ,its bogus to blame the surface when the surface wasnt what caused the accident it to happen in the first place.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Honu

I understand what you are saying but Rene had rode on that track for years without incident until some negligent fool dropped him. Im saying its a bogus lawsuit ,its bogus to blame the surface when the surface wasnt what caused the accident it to happen in the first place.

I agree with what you are saying. They are blaming the surface since it is the only chance they have at any recovery. Since a synthetic surface is relatively new it is unlikely that the surface issue has been litigated in Illinois (or anywhere for that matter), so they are going to give it a try in attempt to make new law. In order to get over the assumption of the risk defense, Douglas has to argue that his injury was caused by a risk that he did not assume when he got on his mount.

The risks of another jock riding like an azzhole, falling off a horse at 35 mph, a horse falling on top of you after you fall off, are all risks that a jock knowingly assumes when they get on the horse, the law is clear here.

To have any hope of recovery Douglas has to somehow assoicate the surface itself as the cause of his injury, or a contributing factor of the injury, though he likely stands little chance. Dirt surfaces have been litigated and recovery has failed for jocks even on issues of poor maintenance. Therefore, any allegation that the surface was poorly maintained is likely to fail. Combine that with the other normal risks he assumed, even if they can show that the surface somehow contributed to his injury, the normal risks undoubtedly contributed more to, if not entirely caused, his injury and would ultimately diminish what percentage the synthetic surface was of the cause of his injury. The fact that he rode on that surface x number of times without getting injured certainly does not help his cause.

Kind of ironic that the surface which has been billed as safe will now be litigated in court as being so unsafe that a jock should be entitled to a recovery he/she would not ordinarily be entitled to. However, I doubt the result will be any different than the no recovery a jock gets when they get seriously injured on a dirt/turf surface.