Woman Killed in Tough Man Competition ???

[Oso]

Waiting for the rest of the story now on GMA.

Anyone got any more details?

[Oso]

per GMA:

30 year old mother of 2 sustained severe trauma to the brain causing bleeding and swelling. She was taken to a hospital and eventually placed on life support but was later pronounced brain dead.

The family's lawyer will be pursuing the case based on the lack of "informed consent".

He seemed to be stating that "Toughman" needed to be more forthcoming about the inherent danger of the contest. According to GMA there have been 4 deaths in the last 3 months.

These are the Toughman events promoted by Dore.

[shaolin kungfu]

Yeah, I just read that too courtesy of the aol pop up thingy. She did sign a waver releasing the promoters from any legal responsibility. So they'll probably have a tough time taking legal action.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by shaolin kungfu
Yeah, I just read that too courtesy of the aol pop up thingy. She did sign a waver releasing the promoters from any legal responsibility. So they'll probably have a tough time taking legal action.

Anyone can bring legal action. Prevailing is another matter. Plus, waivers are narrowly construed and the case law differs from state to state so her family may have a cause of action. It will still be a tough case though.

[ewallace]

Those kinds of lawsuits are bs. It's almost insulting to the deceased. She knew the dangers. She signed the waiver. I doubt that a lawsuit is what she would have wanted. Sure it's tragic, but she knew what could happen going in to it. If the case goes to trial, I hope the family loses.

[Shaolin-Do]

Yeah, its sad that it happened, sucks for the family, but the woman DID sign the consent form... If she didnt know the dangers, shouldnt have signed it. People are always looking for an excuse to sue...

[red5angel]

I am with ewallace these lawsuits are crap. I am sick of this scoiety protecting the weak and the stupid. For instance, I now have to walk an extra quarter mile, and tack on 15 extra minuts on a 45 minute bus trip in the morning because they shut down my bus stop. Their reasoning? becuase too many people were crossing the street in the wrong place instead of walking the extra 20 feet to the crosswalk. I told the lady who did the poll that as far as I was concerned let em get hit, it solves a lot of issues that way.

[Judge Pen]

I agree with you guys. I am in the business of defending these types of lawsuits and I think that personal responsibility is often swept under the rug by creative plaintiff's attorneys with an agenda and a contingency fee arrangement. I was just saying that there are ways that these lawsuits get around consent forms and personal responsibility.

People are way to sue happy. I shouldn't complain too much because if people stopped suing then I wouldn't have any cases to defend.

[MasterKiller]

JP,

What's the success rate of law suits like this?

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
JP,

What's the success rate of law suits like this?

Well if settling the case out of court because insurance companies are afraid of the potential exposure of a large jury verdict, then fairly high. Unfortunately, the families are not usually happy with the settlement and feel pressured into it because they don't understand the risks involved. The defense attorneys like me aren't happy with the settlement because we feel like we can win on this issue whether it be in front of a jury or a judge on a summary judgment motion. The plaintiff's attorneys are happy because they get a third (or more) for a limited amount of work.

That's just my jaded opinion. If it does not settle, then most of these cases will be dismissed on summary judgment. The vast majority do, unfortunately, settle.

[sweaty_dog]

I am against stupid lawsuits for people spilling coffee on themselves, but actively persuading people to get in the ring is something else. Some sports require people to have blood tests and medical evaluations before they can get in the ring, but for some reason Toughman is allowed to talk drunk people into getting in the ring and fighting. Sure it was her decision but talking about "the weak and the stupid" when a mother of two has just died is pretty **** harsh. She made an error of judgement. I doubt if someone had told her "Hey we've had a lot of people dieing lately, I hope you've got a will" she would have got in there. Not to say her family deserves compensation but I won't be crying if the cowboys that make money out of this stuff get sued.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by sweaty_dog
I am against stupid lawsuits for people spilling coffee on themselves, but actively persuading people to get in the ring is something else. Some sports require people to have blood tests and medical evaluations before they can get in the ring, but for some reason Toughman is allowed to talk drunk people into getting in the ring and fighting. Sure it was her decision but talking about "the weak and the stupid" when a mother of two has just died is pretty **** harsh. She made an error of judgement. I doubt if someone had told her "Hey we've had a lot of people dieing lately, I hope you've got a will" she would have got in there. Not to say her family deserves compensation but I won't be crying if the cowboys that make money out of this stuff get sued.

Sd,

Are you a creative plaintiff's attorney because you just made their typical argument. :) "Save me from my own bad judgment; or at least pay me for my mistake." Should we reward bad judgment? Do you know whether she was drunk and cooerced? Do you know what the consent form said? I don't, but I can almost guarentee that it pointed out the risk of death or serious bodily injury. If she was too drunk to read and understand the form then that may be different, but if she could read and understand then its her own fault.

I'm not condoning the Tough Man competition. I could care less if it was in business or not. It just baffles me that people want to blame someone else for their own stupidity.

The coffee case is a whole other thread. :)

[red5angel]

I'm not condoning the Tough Man competition

This brings up something, here is my feeling on this sort of thing. As long as you are not hurting anyone else, I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want. If you want to do a Tough man competition then so be it, but take some accountability. You bought the coffee, you spilled it in your car, probably while driving mind you, so take some responsibility or get out of the pool.

[M.C. Busman]

Here's a link I found relating this incident.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/6111468.htm

Despite the general term "Toughman" contest, note she was boxing another female, and not a man. Her opponent was smaller than her, and apparently neither woman had any kind of training in boxing.

Obviously there are inherent risks in contact sports. Boxing is a contact sport--everyone knows that occasionally boxers, pro and amateur, suffer serious injury or death from blows to the head.

A release form is designed to protect the promoter by stipulating to the participant's awareness of inherent dangers existant in the execution of certain activities. This in and of itself does not mean a promoter may not have been negligent in some other matter. We'll have to wait for the facts on this one to determine whether the promotor was negligent (proper equipment, full medical exams for participants to determine suitability--pro boxers must go through this--, etc.).

While I myself roll my eyes over people who try to collect on what I like to refer to as the common sense deficiency factor (such as placing hot coffee in one's crotch without considering what might happen during a spill--c'mon, people, really!!) + deep pockets, judgements usually consider more than the mere foolishness of individual upon whose behalf the complain was issued. It is a fine line between being just and supporting Social Darwinism.

The lawyers are ostensibly fighting for the support of this woman's survuiving children--victims of mom's stupidity, and peripherally perhaps, of a promoter's desire to make a living. 'Course, they'll get at least 50% of whatever $ is stipulated in the case of a judgement, + fees....

[Oso]

a couple of things were said this morning that bothered me about it and did make me thing that maybe there was some coercion from Toughman:

They had a female fighter who did not have a bout.

They waived the entry fee for the deceased woman.

It sounds like there is a definite possibility that they needed a woman to fight and did there best to convince someone to do it.

It also sounded like it was a huge mismatch and that the other fighter had some experience.

another thought was that it definitely sounds like poor officiating. A good ref or ringside Dr. should be able to spot a potentially harmfull blow. Something was said about reviewing the tape and that they could tell by her gait that the bad hit happened early.

Is it onus not on the ref and ringside Dr. to protect the combatants? In Boxing and MMA events it seems like they are calling the bout a lot more conservatively than in past decades. Should Toughman not have at least the same protective standards as any other legit venue?

[Black Jack]

Trying to convice her to fight or not is not the issue to me. She was a grown woman and no one made her duke it out.

Women in toughman. I bet those gals are hot to trot. :rolleyes:

[Budokan]

Somewhere along the way people have been taught they don't have to take responsibility for their actions, whether they sign a waiver, drive the wrong way down a one way street, cross against a light or stick a loaded shotgun in their mouths and are surprised in the last nanosecond of their life when they learn it was a stupid thing to do as their brains are splattered all over the wallpaper in a pretty oriental Rorschach-type pattern.

It's called thinning the herd and it's not necessarily a bad thing...
The unfortunate aspect is the weasel lawyers who then prey on the remaining family members. Their motivation is entirely guided by monetary concerns, not any self-deluded high-minded concerns about the betterment of society.

Shakespeare was right when he said, "Kill all the lawyers." No one can ever convince me this would wouldn't be better without most of 'em.

[tsunami surfer]

As much as I dispise lawyers and stupid lawsuits just remember that big business love to hear just this kind of talk so they can twist truth and continue produce defective products and services and make more money. FOUR deaths in three months???????????????? something stinks here. I make my living with firearms and was a former member of the NRA. I am always recieving material from the gun industry to help us get litigation to prevent us from getting lawsuits for violent acts and accidents committed by other people. Sounds legit on the surface but deep in that legislation there is a loophole that says ALL lawsuits including defective products. So if your brand new glock blows in your face you will have no recourse to compensation. Am I right or wrong Judge Pen??? Big business does everything it can to build unlevel playing feilds against the little guy all in the name of the all mighty dollar.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by tsunami surfer
Am I right or wrong Judge Pen??? Big business does everything it can to build unlevel playing feilds against the little guy all in the name of the all mighty dollar.

You are right; yes they do. Some Plaintiff's attorneys do everything they can to squeeze money out of big business and insurance companies as well through a legitimized form of blackmail. Which is more wrong? Ideally, the law balances these two competing evil interests for something that approaches justice. Sometimes it works.

Sometimes I tell the insurance companies that the claims/injuries are legitimate. We should pay them. Sometimes I tell them that the plaintiff is lying and gold-digging and we should try the case. Sometimes they listen to me.

[Budokan]

Insurance companies. Oh, brother, don't get me started.:rolleyes: My wife works for an insurance company and last year they paid out a claim to a pregnant man.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by Budokan
Insurance companies. Oh, brother, don't get me started.:rolleyes: My wife works for an insurance company and last year they paid out a claim to a pregnant man.

:D they must have thought it would be cheaper to pay than to defend the claim. Smewhere an associate attorney working this file is saying "but I could have won that case!"

[MasterKiller]

My woman sumbits claims from a hospital to medical insurance companies, and they do everything within their power not to pay a claim, including changing forms right before the end of the fiscal year and rejecting all claims made on old forms so that they can pad their earnings for the year.

[sweaty_dog]

OK. How does dropping dead from an aneurysm(or whatever) make you a stupid person? If one of you guys dies in a freakish push hands accident, would you want people to say "That guy was an idiot, he should have stayed at home wrapped in bubble wrap drinking soup through a straw." No, maybe not.

The woman had guts to stand up and fight, we should respect that. It's not like she was playing chicken with a train. Hitting each other with big padded gloves looks pretty safe if no one tells you that 4 people have died from it this year. And yes, I have heard (might be bull****, might not be) that they were actively looking for extra fighters and playing down the danger. Does that make her death the promoter's fault? No, but like I said, I won't be shedding any tears if the guy who profits from this stuff has to give some money to her kids.

[red5angel]

If she died from an aneurysm that is one thing, I didn't see that mentioned in the article however. I fthis is the case then it's sad and too bad. If it is a case where some idiot got into something he or she wasn't prepared for and can't accept responsibility for it, then take a flying leap. ;)

[Chang Style Novice]

Yeah! And those drunks and crackheads in the "Bumfight" videos got what was comin' to 'em, too! They took the $50!

[sweaty_dog]

"If she died from an aneurysm that is one thing, I didn't see that mentioned in the article however. I fthis is the case then it's sad and too bad. If it is a case where some idiot got into something he or she wasn't prepared for and can't accept responsibility for it, then take a flying leap. "

What do you think she died from? OK, maybe it was a haematoma, what's the difference? How the hell do you prepare for your brain swelling up/bleeding inside your skull? Anyway it's not a matter of her "accepting responsibility," SHE'S DEAD. Maybe the guy who makes money out of this should take responsibility for the fact that one of his meal tickets just dropped dead and do something nice for her kids? I don't think he's necessarily legally liable, I just think he's a jerk if he doesn't.

[Oso]

A - the other female fighter w/o a fight.

B - the waived entry fee

These two things tell me that the promoters did everything they could to get her to enter the fight.


C - The statement GMA made that they could tell on the tape that her ''gait'' indicated that she had taken a serious blow.

This tell's me that officials weren't doing there job. I ask again: Is it not a standard that fight promoters/officials protect the fighters? I'm not clear on this but am under the impression that pro Boxing and most of the legit MMA venues work under the premise of a good hard fight but let's not get anyone killed or later develope Parkinson's.

[joedoe]

Ultimately, the decision to step in the ring was still her own. If waiving the entry fee was such an enticement, then why didn't every other woman in the place step up?

If I go to a bar and they have a happy hour, then I proceed to get drunk and fall over and hurt myself, does that mean that the bar is responsible for my decision to get drunk? I don't think so.

[Laughing Cow]

I have read threads about this on a variety of Boards.
One member on another boards trains next to the venue.

First of all, IMO, there should have been a few warning bells going off for her and her Hubby that attendet:

1.) Waiving of fee. What's was the reason for that. The organisers wanted a fight to draw the crowds.
2.) Signing a waiver. Hollah, if it is THAT safe I don't need a waiver now do I.

First of all for any amateur to step into a ring to fight, usually will result in some sort of injury. They won't know how to roll with a punch, etc.

Lets see we tell our Kids not to fight in the street/school, but it is ok for their parents to step into a ring on short notice and tyke it out.

The Organisers been doing this for a long time, it is his business. He needs to get "dumb" people into the ring to fight. Hence he will do a lot of things to convince people to do so.
Same way a ride operator at an amusement park will give free rides to a few girls to attract more customers.

Pity about the lawsuit, IMHO, it should be thrown out of court.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Oso

This tell's me that officials weren't doing there job. I ask again: Is it not a standard that fight promoters/officials protect the fighters? I'm not clear on this but am under the impression that pro Boxing and most of the legit MMA venues work under the premise of a good hard fight but let's not get anyone killed or later develope Parkinson's.

Except those are fights are neither pro not legit MMA venues.

It is a guy that makes bucks of people hitting each other, same way other places do oil-wretling comps and so on.

Cheer.s

[Oso]

Final responisibility does reside in the woman, and her husband if that doesn't sound too chauvanistic (when children are part of the equation I think spouses should have veto power over the others actions).

However, from what I heard about this the promoters seems to have some culpability. How much will be up to a judge or jury.

In this case I do not think some sort of action is innapropriate. If only for a judge to throw it out.

[Oso]

LC: So, why should an amature, full contact event not be held to the same level of responsibility as a pro event?


and, dang it, I always want to put an 'e' on the end of 'develop'

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Oso
LC: So, why should an amature, full contact event not be held to the same level of responsibility as a pro event?

and, dang it, I always want to put an 'e' on the end of 'develop'

Because it is not even an amateur event as I see it, it is simply a venue that some stupid people can tyke it out masquerading as a amateur event.

Kinda like a theme-bar or pub that has a ring in the center and anyone can step up, and at times they hold "competitions".
Same as the electronic bulls I have seen in a few cowboy themed bars.

I don't know any amateur event that lets people walk in of the street and jump into the ring, even most MA comps require you to register beforehand and show your credentials and school affiliation.

Just my view naturally.

[Oso]

LC, where are you?

This particular "Toughman" promoter has gone past the purely amature contest in the States. His stuff has been on ESPN2.

I think that any full contact event should adhere to some sort of govorning body. Full contact is inherently dangerous and sadly enough the masses do need protection in that someoone does need to step in and say "Hey, you are not fit for this event".

Sheep need herders.

[Xebsball]

stupid kunt thinks shes tough and gets beaten, dies cos of great injury - imho - a fatality

how you say in veterinary hospital terms:
the solution to this - in my humble professional opinion - is euthanasia

[Laughing Cow]

Oso.

If he has gone past amateur contest, than no person of the street should be allowed to enter, without haveing been certified fit to attend.

Simple as that, looks like he wants his bread buttered on both sides.

As for Amateurs I go by the old definition.
"A sports-person that competes without any monetary, sponsor or other form of payment for their participation, except coverage of expenditures."

If the other fighter was experienced and on the card it was than a pro/semi-amateur vs pure amateur fight.

Cheers.

[Oso]

LC, good points. I agree with them all. My gut feeling is that there is culpability on the part of the promoter. I guess we will see how it turns out.

[Black Jack]

I don't see why the promoter should even consider giving her kids anything just because he is rich. The lady got into the ring a consenting adult and paid a price for her actions. She should not be honored as a fighter but considered white trash stupid.

She was responsible for her own actions. Thats it. End of story IMO.

[meltdawn]

i watched this fight. i was on the 3rd row, and stood up yelling "stop the fight". so did a promoter by the name of Alan Hill.

at one point, the woman threw her hands up and shook her head "no, no" and turned away from her opponent and went into the corner. the ref did not stop the fight and the woman recieved a series of about ten blows to the sides of her head while she was turned around. she was so big, she didn't fall, and finally to protect herself turned and began swinging again. the ref let the atrocity continue, and she finally went down in almost exhaustion, seemed conscious but pained for 15 minutes until they loaded her on a stretcher. by that time she was obviously out cold. they worked on her in the ambulance for another half hour, at least, and as i was leaving, the helicopter was arriving.

i don't think this was about a mis-match of opponents, but the inexcusable lack of action on the referee's part. the promotor should also be held responsible, as well as the ringside doctor, who was also the fight's "official" photographer.

[Chang Style Novice]

Meltdawn, that's positively sickening. I hope your account talks some sense into the more callous members of this board.

[Shaolin-Do]

I think its pretty god ****ed ignorant to let people with no training or experience fight full contact, or even medium contact for that matter.
you have to take into consideration the training we do, its for a reason. Physical exhaustian was probably a big help in her death, had she been conditioned things would have been different. Taking a hit when your about to puke and faint from exhaustion is very different from taking a hit when you are up and at em, got that pep in your step. I think that this should have never been allowed to happen in the first place, the promoter should have to assume some reliability, the ref most definately should have stopped the fight, and in assuming the position of referree he also agreed that he had competent ability to judge the physical well being of the fighters, which he apparently, did not have. and the woman, a mother of 2 kids, with no sort of training, shouldnt have ever have stepped in the ring to begin with.

[Oso]

meltdawn, thanks for the first hand. It is sad.


so, here's the next question that just popped into my head.

Who woulda jumped into the ring to stop it?

[Shaolin-Do]

I would have used my iron crotch techniques to woo them both into a hypnotic trance.

Really tho, no one should have had to jump in the ring. The ref was already there.

[Oso]

but not doing his job.

meltdawn's first hand illustrates my hunch from the original story.

someone died.

[Shaolin-Do]

"in assuming the position of referree he also agreed that he had competent ability to judge the physical well being of the fighters, which he apparently, did not have."

Thats why Im saying that liability of a lawsuit should fall somewhat on the refferee.

[Oso]

SD, that's what I said several posts up. so, we're saying the same thing I guess





If I go to a bar and they have a happy hour, then I proceed to get drunk and fall over and hurt myself, does that mean that the bar is responsible for my decision to get drunk? I don't think so.


missed this earlier. joedoe, many, if not most, states in the US do hold the bartender personally responsible as well as the bar owner.

[Black Jack]

Its not about being callous.

Its just the way it is. Sad as some may consider it to be. She did not have to fight. She signed a waiver. She should of had a better understanding of the risks involved "maybe" but I doubt that would of stopped her from getting in their and slugging it out.

That is just meltdawns ringside verison. The other story will have a side as well. Both have to be taken into consideration.

[Oso]

still sounds like poor officiating.

[Black Jack]

I agree but untell we get to hear both sides than it is just assumption.

We could be missing out on the micro but important details.

[Oso]

agreed.

[meltdawn]

the other side will be told in court by the defendants' attorneys. i don't see how Art Dor can dig deep enough in his pockets to get out of this one.

my side is just my opinion of what i saw that i believe led to another human being's death. i attended with a promoter, and we both stared in disbelief when the ref did not jump in to protect the woman during the barrage that lead to her brain damage. another boxing promoter was ringside, and he tried to get both the ref and Dor to stop it. he's giving free quotes to the press, and you can bet he'll be on the stand.

whenever we get in a ring, there is one individual trusted to prevent this atrocity from happening, and the man entrusted with that duty at this event was willfully negligent. the promoter has repeatedly gone around the boxing commission in a slick way, and even tried to use a DC as a ringside doc. i'm sure this incident will culminate in a very publicized lawsuit.

my heart goes out to the little girl watching who thought mommy and daddy were invincible.

[M.C. Busman]

Mmmm.

Sounds like we're trying to decide who the negligent party is. Might be easier to consider this in legal terms--what percentage of the liability is each party responsible for (opinions, everybody!)?

Now, some facts. First off, Waivers are NOT like contracts. A waiver is not in and of itself legally binding. Moreover the question arises--did the signee unserstand the waiver? Did the signee understand the risks? Merely signing a waiver does not absolve a corporation or other entity of culpability and negligence.

We see waivers all the time in the martial arts world! If you or your kiddos take lessons in gung fu, taekwondo, karate etc., chances are you've signed a waiver. If an instructor behaves in a negligent manner, i.e. allowing a sparring match between two unequal opponents to continue, allowing dangerous or risky situations to persist, etc., then the instructor shares in a degree of culpability with regards to injuries incurred by parties--waiver or not. We expect people in command positions to behave responsibly, to put safety ahead of profit and stop or repair risky situations.

It all comes down to this--what level of protection can a REASONABLE PERSON expect in a toughman contest? Let's say Ms. Contestant had suffered a broken nose. Forseeable? Yeah, of course. Negligence on the promoter's part? In this case, I'd say no! Boxers suffer broken noses frequently--they have their schnozz set, take some advil, go home to see the kids, go off to that thankless deadend night job, and soldier on (or quit!).

Death--did Ms. Contestant step into the ring with the knowledge that death might be the outcome of her little foray into the world of padded gloves? Probably not. Is she alone responsible for the outcome? This is what it comes down to--who bears the responsibility--and to what degree?

Despite the female "toughman" contestant's willingness to trade blows, I very much doubt she truely understood the risks of her actions. That it was stupid of her to undertake an activity for which she evidently was not prepared in no way places all of the responsibility on her. Could/should a ref have stopped the fight sooner, seeing she was in trouble? If the ref was negligent, the onus is again upon the corporation/entity (promoter in this case) who is responsible for hiring qualified ring personnel and (this is important) seeing to the safety of participants.

Nah, I don't have all the facts--we're playing with theories here, folks. But on negligence--that is something I am familiar with. Check out a similar case, where a television talkshow host reintroduced two guests on her show. (see: http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/050699/new_0506990005.shtml ) to make a long story short, guest 1 didn't like what guest 2 was saying, and later killed the man--after the show. Was the host colpable to a degree for the events which transpired after the taping--off her studio premisis, and away from her control? A Jury thought so (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/338015.stm )

Responsibility can even mean protecting someone stupid from their own bad decisions--before they can get started, or after their incompetence becomes apparent. That someone is foolish enough to volunteer for an activity befitting of their intelligence level--that is not enough. Being a fool does not mean someone is NOT entitled to protection, that they deserve to suffer being used or duped. Otherwise, what of children who are coaxed to do things beyond their understanding, elderly people who are tricked into signing away their savings by cons? Extreme examples yeah, but an extension of the ethical theory which we're discussing here.

Our legal system exists to protect the little folks (even the stupid ones) against the big ones. In this case, the decedant's kids and hubby. Next question: could the promoter have reasonably forseen that grave bodily injury or death may have resulted from inadequate supervision or inadequate care? Is he knowledgeable in his field? If he's a promoter, I hope so! Hope he has insurance :)

Take Care, Y'all!

M.C. Busman

[Serpent]

Hey, M.C. - it's [ ] not < >

;)

[Budokan]

So what good does signing a waiver mean if the injured party can turn right around and sue the promoter? If the waiver isn't anymore than a piece of a$$wipe paper, then why bother in the first place?

[Budokan]

Whoops, sorry, didn't see Busman's post...

[Judge Pen]

MC: First off, Waivers are <b>NOT</b> like contracts. A waiver is not in and of itself legally binding. Moreover the question arises--did the signee <i>unserstand</i> the waiver? Did the signee understand the risks? Merely signing a waiver does <i>not</i> absolve a corporation or other entity of culpability and negligence.

J.P. Yes waivers are like contracts and the person signing the waiver must have the capacity to understand the waiver. However there is a presumption that someone understands what they have signed and read unless there are facts that demonstrate that they lacked the capacity due to infancy, inebriation, or incompetency.

M.C. We see waivers <u>all the time</u> in the martial arts world! If you or your kiddos take lessons in gung fu, taekwondo, karate etc., chances are you've signed a waiver. If an instructor behaves in a negligent manner, i.e. allowing a sparring match between two unequal opponents to continue, allowing dangerous or risky situations to persist, etc., then the instructor shares in a degree of culpability with regards to injuries incurred by parties--waiver or not. We expect people in command positions to behave responsibly, to put safety ahead of profit and stop or repair risky situations.

J.P. Not always true. Generally, waivers are valid for simple negligence. Duty to do something (or not to do something), breach of that duty by failing to do (or not do) something that one knew or should have known about, a causal link from the activity and, the damages caused. Waivers generally exlude liability for this. They generally do not exclude liability for reckless or intentional actions. Ex: if they knew the woman was drunk and still allowed her to fight, that would be reckless and the waiver would not apply (for a couple of different reasons)

M.C. It all comes down to this--what level of protection can a <u><b>REASONABLE PERSON</u></b> expect in a toughman contest? Let's say Ms. Contestant had suffered a broken nose. Forseeable? Yeah, of course. Negligence on the promoter's part? In this case, I'd say no! Boxers suffer broken noses frequently--they have their schnozz set, take some advil, go home to see the kids, go off to that thankless deadend night job, and soldier on (or quit!).

Death--did Ms. Contestant step into the ring with the <i>knowledge</i> that death might be the outcome of her little foray into the world of padded gloves? Probably not. Is she <b>alone</b> responsible for the outcome? This is what it comes down to--who bears the responsibility--and to what degree?

J.P. I bet the waiver said that death is a possible result. Whether she read and took that caution seriously is another issue. Death is foreseeable in any activity that allows contact to the head.

M.C. Despite the female "toughman" contestant's willingness to trade blows, I very much doubt she truely understood the risks of her actions. That it was stupid of her to undertake an activity for which she evidently was not prepared in no way places all of the responsibility on her. Could/should a ref have stopped the fight sooner, seeing she was in trouble? If the ref was negligent, the onus is again upon the corporation/entity (promoter in this case) who is responsible for hiring qualified ring personnel and (this is important) seeing to the safety of participants.

J.P. The corporation may be liable for negligent hiring of the ref and the ref may be liable for his own negligence in failing to stop the fight. I doubt that the waiver would cover this theory of recovery because a reasonable person would anticipate that the ref would perform his duties to stop a fight once he knows or should know that the fighter is in trouble.

M.C. Nah, I don't have all the facts--we're playing with theories here, folks. But on negligence--that is something I am familiar with. Check out a similar case, where a television talkshow host reintroduced two guests on her show. (see: http://www.onlineathens.com/stories...506990005.shtml ) to make a long story short, guest 1 didn't like what guest 2 was saying, and later killed the man--after the show. Was the host colpable to a degree for the events which transpired after the taping--off her studio premisis, and away from her control? A Jury thought so (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/338015.stm )

J.P. I'm not sure that the Jenny Jones case is applicable in this case, but it does illustrate how far one's responsibility for their own actions can extend.

Responsibility can even mean protecting someone stupid from their own bad decisions--before they can get started, or after their incompetence becomes apparent. That someone is foolish enough to volunteer for an activity befitting of their intelligence level--that is not enough. Being a fool does not mean someone is <b>NOT</b> entitled to protection, that they deserve to suffer being used or duped. Otherwise, what of children who are coaxed to do things beyond their understanding, elderly people who are tricked into signing away their savings by cons? Extreme examples yeah, but an extension of the ethical theory which we're discussing here.

J.P. Policy for protecting children and old people are prevelant in these theories as well a fraud in the inducement and unconsciousability in contract.

M.C. Our legal system exists to protect the little folks (even the stupid ones) against the big ones. In this case, the decedant's kids and hubby. Next question: could the promoter have reasonably forseen that grave bodily injury or death may have resulted from inadequate supervision or inadequate care? Is he knowledgeable in his field? If he's a promoter, I hope so! Hope he has insurance

J.P. Yes the promoter anticipated this. That's why he had them sign a waiver. I'm curious to see how the facts of this one play out. Dollars to donuts that this case settles out of court!

[MasterKiller]

Message board HTML uses brackets instead of greater than/less than symbols, guys.

For example. <b>look at me</b> shows up as <b>look at me</b>;

but BRACKETbBRACKET look at me BRACKET/bBRACKETshows up as look at me

;)