Warning - Contains Daily Mail link....
Mountain biker left paralysed from the chest down after crashing head-first on expert course sues for £200,000
Not sure where I stand on this.
First run down anything is exploratory, and at a slow enough pace that I can stop. Especially if I see the trail branching with different graded features.
Having never visited Chicksands I can't comment on the trail maps or sign posting etc.
Only time I've every been asked about competence to ride something was buying the gondola tickets at Nevis for the WC track.
Every bike park I've been to you have to sign a waiver, but does that absolve the park from any responsibility?
"Mountain Bike left traumatised from head down after crashing into Daily Mail link without prior warning sues OP for £200,000"
"Mountain Bike left traumatised from head down after crashing into Daily Mail link without prior warning sues OP for £200,000"
Sorry for your traumatic experience - now edited to warn of Daily Wail content......
Will you accept an apology and half a packet of Wine Gums?
Surely as the injured guy is a mechanic, the bike park should just offer him a pack of hob nobs and he'll be well happy!
Will you accept an apology and half a packet of Wine Gums?
I’m all yours for half a packet of wine gums.
Sounds like something that will sadly shut down a lot of smaller bike parks.
I think the vast majority of bike parks have a trail map/sign/warning at the entrance to the park (though I’ve not been to chicksands) so I’d be surprised if as popular one as that didn’t have one.
Can someone walk into a bike park with their eyes shut and claim they weren’t warned?
Tbf the split between the left (gap) and right (no gap) lines on the snake run can be challenging and it would be incredibly easy to take the wrong one as it is fast. I would have no clue if that makes the park at fault though as ultimately anyone riding those trails at full pace without a pre run would be idiotic.
I’ve not been to chicksands but most bike parks (charged for or free) have a sign at the top of the run warning of what’s on it. FOD for example is very clear and a lot of runs at, say BPW, have a qualifier. If you can’t ride that, don’t ride the trail.
From the description is sounds like this guy wasn’t especially good - couldn’t jump - but tried to ride more difficult trails relying on chicken runs to get down.
So for me it comes down to any disclaimers he’d see on way to the trail, what’s on the board with the trail map and what’s at the head of the trail.
It sounds like the argument is that there weren’t warnings just before the jump - I’d think of that as a nice to have if the sign at the top of the trail warns of unavoidable drops / gaps.
If the trail has that, and the ruling is still in the favour of that guy, That precedent is going to be a big issue for a lot of places - particularly the ones that are free and run by volunteers.
I’ve not been to chicksands but most bike parks (charged for or free) have a sign at the top of the run warning of what’s on it. FOD for example is very clear and a lot of runs at, say BPW, have a qualifier. If you can’t ride that, don’t ride the trail.
From the description is sounds like this guy wasn’t especially good - couldn’t jump - but tried to ride more difficult trails relying on chicken runs to get down.
Having watched a video of snake run it would seem quite obvious to me those are big gaps coming up. I wouldn’t be hammering down a black run at a park like that without checking what’s coming up. Quite clearly lots of the park has big gap jumps - some almost like dirt jumps. It’s a little like Belmont Woods in Bristol for that - only on a bigger scale. Probably not dissimilar to Rogate / Windhill / Black Mountain.
So for me it comes down to any disclaimers he’d see on way to the trail, what’s on the board with the trail map and what’s at the head of the trail.
It sounds like the argument is that there weren’t warnings just before the jump - I’d think of that as a nice to have if the sign at the top of the trail warns of unavoidable drops / gaps.
If the trail has that, and the ruling is still in the favour of that guy, That precedent is going to be a big issue for a lot of places - particularly the ones that are free and run by volunteers.
I thought chicksands was free - but looking at their site you have to pay and sign a waiver. Unless the park can be ruled as negligent then it looks to me like it’s on the guy himself.
The snake run has a split (see my comment above) where it has either an easy line or an enforced gap jump. This is likely the significant issue
I completely agree, which is why I find it difficult to understand how this has got so far. But even graded black the easy version of the run only has a very small obligatory drop.
I can understand someone suing if, at a bike park*, something is poorly built or poorly maintained to the point that it causes injury to someone competent who is using the trail as intended.
However, something in a gravity/downhill bike park labelled black - you are to expect "wheels off the ground" being a requirement for riding the main line of a trail.
And if you read the pooly written DM aritcle, that seems to be the case. Also seems like he tried to stop and still went over the lip of the takeoff - rather than attempting the jump and coming up short which would have suggested it was badly built or sighted.
Hopefully this thread can be used as evidence for the opinion of the general biking public, and help in favour of Chicksands.
*unofficial tracks in the woods, you are on your own. Dont even think about suing the land owner or I'll come round and cripple you myself.
I completely agree, which is why I find it difficult to understand how this has got so far. But even graded black the easy version of the run only has a very small obligatory drop.
Looking at the trail map you can veer off onto another black trail near the top, then about halfway down you can continue on the black (gaps) or go off onto a red. I wonder how clearly that is marked - although either way you know you’re going to be hitting some black trail
Assuming this is the waiver that he signed
, that obviously he will not have read, this point:
should surely cover them.
In general though while I have huge sympathy for his life changing injury state....it's surely 'common sense' that even when trails are within our capabilities we recce them or accept the consequences. A gap jump on a black is hardly a surprise after all.
I think we've had similar threads before - can I honestly say that if I'd f-ed up this badly, and had no other option, I wouldn't ring up a no-win no-fee outfit? Possibly not. And as we've discussed before it might not even be him...if he has some form of insurance it could be his insurers looking for another insurer to tap up.
It's this sort of action that will kill trail centres of all ilks with escalating insurance premiums though.
Worth making the point that it's easy to sit behind a keyboard and say "well I'm a responsible person responsible for my own accidents and misadventures, I'd not sue and get al bikes parks closed down".
You might not intend to. But the private health insurance you used to pay for some physio, that workplace income protection scheme you were automatically enrolled on, the life insurance policy that also paid out for major injuries or permeant disabilities, even your employer paying above statutory sick pay. All those policies will absolutely take the landowner to court in your name. Most insurance policies are worded to make them actually having to foot the bill a last resort, they'll always have a clause that says you must agree to take anyone/everyone to court to get the money back.
[edit - what is it with me at the moment, typing out comments, hitting send, only to find that someone else has made exactly the same point whilst I was typing?]
You might not intend to. But the private health insurance you used to pay for some physio, that workplace income protection scheme you were automatically enrolled on, the life insurance policy that also paid out for major injuries or permeant disabilities, even your employer paying above statutory sick pay.
A valid point in many of the previous cases, but not, I would guess in this one as he's run to the gutter press to announce his intention to sue, presumably receiving some money from the Mail to do so.
Bear in mind this accident was in 2022, so signage and waivers may have changed.
I was a member back then but can't remember what the waiver said, I am pretty sure there wasn't any sign between the split in trail. But that said I knew the trails and didn't really care about signs
There seems to be one of these sort of events every decade or so, where someone spangles themselves extra hard and goes looking for compensation.
I Can't Read the DM link (because they want my details and soul in exchange), but I used to ride regularly at Chicksands (about 20 odd years ago TBF) it was always a well maintained and organised venue.
The local club had it's internal politics at the time, but the admin of those trails and signposting of features etc was (in retrospect) better than much of the UK at the time, I remember them re-building whole sections of wood-work because it was judged 6" too high for the insurers, I can't imagine they've gotten worse at managing these things over the years but you never know.
It was always a small but very accessible venue with lots of variety packed into a small area. If these places start being wound up/watered down due to litigation, then it bodes poorly for UK MTBing IMO.
At the same time, I can understand someone struck with life changing injuries feeling they deserve some redress.
I just don't understand why you'd ride a black run blind, at a speed that precludes emergency stops, if you can't handle a gap jump. Surely that's just asking for trouble?
Additionally, after apparently not being proactively given any information on the relative risks of the trails
Mr Pearson says when he visited the park he was not asked if this was his first visit to Chicksands, given any guidance about the trails, or shown a trail map, documents filed at London's High Court say.
he just went ahead and rode them fast enough anyway.
I don't want to be all Daily Mail about this (or more than I have been already by quoting them), but my initial reaction is that surely this is a sport that requires a level of personal responsibility and personal judgement for what you send yourself down, regardless of who is offering it.
But then I read comments like
I think we've had similar threads before - can I honestly say that if I'd f-ed up this badly, and had no other option, I wouldn't ring up a no-win no-fee outfit? Possibly not. And as we've discussed before it might not even be him...if he has some form of insurance it could be his insurers looking for another insurer to tap up.
and think yeah it's not that simple. I just hope it doesn't ruin things for everyone else.
Every bike park I've been to you have to sign a waiver, but does that absolve the park from any responsibility?
Not from liability for negligence, no. That can't be escaped by waiver. I think that's what entry features are for, a filter to make sure the rest of the trail is ok skills-wise.
All those policies will absolutely take the landowner to court in your name.
...and presumably require you to sign your soul away to the newspapers and share your mugshot to all and sundry? 😀
Shirley you do a gentle recce ride before going full beans, at least each year?
I won't do a banzai descent on my selective local tarmac lanes until I've been down them once each year and after any storms.
I have to say that I rode Pleney Red in Morzine today, for the first time ever (even though I’ve ridden the black before). I don’t ride gaps either, but I was fairly mincing my way down, to prevent anything catching me unawares. I did notice that there were signs before every jump and gap - many of which were rollable. But signs at every feature.
What a tricky one
I have ridden there a few times. It’s a great little venue.
Firstly huge sympathies to the injured party.
It didn’t use to be that well signed. Infact i wonder if it was signed at all when i first went. More recently there does seem to be more signage.
But on the other hand at a tiny venue with not much signage surely the answer is a slow inspection run.
At times there have been huge features at the venue. I’ve felt ill just looking at them. I found that a useful reminder i should look at what’s coming up
I thought most of those waiver type things made very little difference legally?
Under uk law you can’t sign away your right to compensation for death or injury due negligence.
I googled this for more info(not paying the mail) And it seems this type of accident is reasonably common, at least MTB accidents resulting in paralysis.
Be safe out there people.
I googled this for more info(not paying the mail) And it seems this type of accident is reasonably common, at least MTB accidents resulting in paralysis
Friend of a friend, neck down.
Another friend has recently lost the use of her non-dominant hand.
I've been racing since 1998, a couple of hundred XC and endurance races, I'm guessing maybe 30-35,000 total entries at these events, and I've seen only two fatalities. Oddly enough both were non-competitors riding the course the day before the event. So it does happen, but it is very, very rare
I've had my fair share of injuries, most recent couple a broken arm and a possible mild concussion, both at the Golfie. It has never occurred to me to blame anyone other than myself, much less sue them, it was an overestimation of my abilities and a lapse in concentration respectively, totally my fault. Would I feel.differently if the injuries were life-changing? Maybe. And as a couple of others have pointed out insurance companies could take that decision out of my hands anyway. Sounds harsh, but I hope he's unsuccessful, just because I don't like the precedent this sets, with cases like this a couple of inches either way or a tiny difference in the angle or whatever and he'd have walked away, some things are just pure bad luck and I don't want the knock-on effects affecting what we do and the places we can do it.
3 part test for negligence
( ~From memory)
Is there a duty of care owed - clearly yes the builders need to build safely and appropriately
2) was this duty of care breached? I don't see it if the trail was built and signed in the usual way
3) Is there a monetary loss? Yes
Howver fail any one part and then the claim fails
I thought most of those waiver type things made very little difference legally?
They will if written correctly and only waiving the right to claim on certain (usually foreseeable) risks as well as clarifying expectations or awareness around those things. But if a supplier or organiser is negligent, or can be tested for negligence, the insurers will go after them. Risks and negligence are different things.
100% this.if he has some form of insurance it could be his insurers looking for another insurer to tap up.
This is insurance companies suing each other to recoup their costs. Net effect, whatever the eventual outcome is that Chicksands liability insurance will jump, noticeably. And that will cascade into other sites and events too.
Iirc you can't exclude liability for death or injury via a waiver (Unfair Contract Terms Act?) but you still have to prove negligence to win a claim for damages.
And if they are paralysed, 200k seems a very small amount to be claiming?
I'm guessing maybe 30-35,000 total entries at these events, and I've seen only two fatalities. Oddly enough both were non-competitors riding the course the day before the event. So it does happen, but it is very, very rare
1 in 15,000 fatality rate in sport events is actually a very high percentage per activity/session vs other activities that some would see as high risk (but go with a high safety culture - skydiving, parascending, scuba diving, or even marathons and the natural risk of heart attacks).
3 part test for negligence
( ~From memory)
Is there a duty of care owed - clearly yes the builders need to build safely and appropriately
2) was this duty of care breached? I don't see it if the trail was built and signed in the usual way
3) Is there a monetary loss? YesHowver fail any one part and then the claim fails
Nearly.
1) Duty of care owed
2) There was a breach of that duty of care
3) The breach of that duty of care directly caused the loss/damage
This claim could fall down on 1 or 3 I think. But under 3) there's the 'but for' reasoning. There'll be folks on here who deal with this more than my theoretical knowledge, but (from memory!) the lack of warning/boards/etc must have directly caused the chap to faceplant into the back of the landing ramp. Rather than his fault (and I use that word with caution).
Under uk law you can’t sign away your right to compensation for death or injury due negligence.
There's a defence of volenti non fit injuria though.
Means "to a willing person, no injury is done."
In other words, if you put yourself in a place where injury or damage can happen to you, you shouldn't be surprised when sh1t happens to you. See motor racetracks where, as a spectator, there are plenty of warning signs everywhere saying "motorsport is dangerous"
Difficult to know without knowing what levels of signs (grade and brief description) they had at the top and along the trail. Anyone know what was there at the time?
You'd think if it was signed as Black there would be an expectation that it had features appropriate to being a black run i.e. jumps. That he stated that he rides around jumps and is pretty novice I should think that would mean he should have been riding at a pace to stop if riding on it at all.
It's common knowledge that a black is the highest level?
It will come down to signage so who knows.
Clearly feeling hard done by and has some additional bills
Hard to know having never ridden there, nor have any knowledge of the facts. I’m assuming the Mail article will be high on hyperbole and low on verifiable facts
I have some sympathy for the rider, one mistake and you end up paralysed.
The legal bit will be tested in court.
...and presumably require you to sign your soul away to the newspapers and share your mugshot to all and sundry?
Without wanting to liable the Daily Mail, it's entirely possible the journalist just searched court documents for "Cyclist" whilst looking for anything vaguely clickbaity about cyclists running red lights, running drugs or running over someone's nan.
Or, there's something called the Local Democracy Reporting Service, it's funded by the TV Licence Fee and pays local newspapers to employ young journalists. Most local papers these days have a couple of things in common, they mandate a minimum number of stories per journalist per day, I've seen it reported as 8. Which means you get a lot of low level, easy to research stuff, like planning applications, summaries of what's gone on in court (both of which are available in the public domain without actually having to go to the council planning committee meetings or court). So yo end up wit a business model where you've got a load of free labour, so they don't care about the quality of it's output, so it produces a lot of fairly mundane stuff like "local cyclists takes trail owner to court after crash" with a copy'n'paste of a few bits of court transcript and a photo they found on social media.
The other thing a lot of them have in common is being owned by the Daily Mail Group. So it's not a huge leap of imagination that it might have been a quick and easy story for someone in the local paper, that's then been passed up the food chain.
+1 for can't blame the person. Their account doesn't feel very convincing tbh, I suspect it's going to come down a lot to basic challenges of fact?
(have to say here I had a big crash at a different venue last year that I think was pretty much 100% down to bad trail design and signing. I was absolutely coasting, on a blue run, because it was the second run of the week- but at a junction the "straight on", most obvious option turned out to be a black with an instant, almost unsighted gap jump, and the signage was weak. Ironically I'd have cleared it if I was going faster but I was doing a sighting run so I was too slow! Later that day I saw someone else miss the exact same junction. For me I go "one of those things" but if I'd had a lifechanging injury rather than a couple of ribs and a toe, maybe that'd be different)
Oh and it shows another of the little bits of trouble you can run into, that same venue has since much improved the signage, which is great. But if they had an injury like this going through the works, that'd be thrown at them as admission of a problem. In my old work we had a bunch of known risks which were left risky for exactly this reason.
I recall a Forestry Commission guy (possibly a rec manager) telling me several years ago that at any given time there'd likely be a couple of cases like against the Commission going through the courts, and if any of them ever actually were successful there'd be a high likelihood that the Commission would give up on providing MTB trails.
Given that the conversation happened quite a long time ago either he was incorrect or these sorts of cases rarely result in decisions against the landowners.
