Imzadi
♥ Saved by an angel in a trench coat!
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
- Messages
- 40,870
I haven't read the entire thread, but what the so called "bikers" did reminds me of the swoop and squat the crooks do to stage accidents and get money. Swoop up on a vehicle, block it, stop short causing the innocent party to tap/hit the car in front. The offending party, then claim injuries and sues the innocent driver. I know lots of bikers and true bikers NEVER would behave like this crazed pack did. And for the injured biker, it's called assumption of the risk and in some states any damages awarded would be reduced by a percentage determined by a jury.
Interesting. Just Googling this, one website said:
"Implicitly marking the 20th anniversary of its seminal decision in Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296 (1992), which established the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, the California Supreme Court confirmed both the continuing vitality and breadth of that decision in Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, __Cal. 4th__ (S195031, 2012). In Knight, a plurality of the Supreme Court held that a player in a touch football game had no duty to prevent injuries resulting from the inherent risk of playing this contact sport. In Nalwa, the court confirmed 6-1 that this doctrine remains the law in California and that it extends to the operator of bumper cars at an amusement park, and the inherent risks of, well, bumping. In both cases, the court held that the only duty of operators, sponsors and fellow participants engaged in a recreational activity with inherent risks was not to increase those risks. [snipped. . .]
However, the language in Knight and Ford is broader than just sports or athletics, and more generally addresses recreational activities, repeatedly referring to the inherent risk in "the activity or sport" at issue. Following suit, a recent lower court decision abandoned any pretense that an activity had to be considered a sport and applied primary assumption of the risk to an injury resulting from participation in the closing fire ritual at the annual Burning Man festival, an event that was not, in any way, a sport. In Beninati v. Black Rock City, 175 Cal.App.4th 650 (2009), the plaintiff tripped and fell into the remains of a substantial bonfire, having deliberately walked through the remaining embers. In essence, the court found that if you play with fire, you may well get burned, and no one else has a duty to prevent this."
http://www.sdma.com/primary-assumption-of-the-risk--20-years-later-nalwa-confirms-the-vitality-and-breadth-of-iknight-i-02-06-2013/
)
The rest will probably be played in court. I can't imagine that they can show it on TV and not have a hard time getting an impartial jury against the beaters. 
