Jump to content
tpendley

Personal liability waiver for track?!

Recommended Posts

Incorporating doesn't protect you personally 100%. Corporate principles are found liable all the time. This is such a legal can of worms personally its not something I would ever consider.


Incorporate it on the island of Somoa. Their court is open one day a week and only accepts inquiries in person. Or something like that. Don’t ask me how I know.

In all seriousness, if you do go the LLC route, put your bikes, tools, etc., in it too.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tahoe Gator said:


In all seriousness, if you do go the LLC route, put your bikes, tools, etc., in it too.

 

 

Why would you want to do that?  The LLC will be liable in the case of a lawsuit.  The whole point is to make the LLC bare the brunt of a lawsuit and not the individual person.   Putting your personal property into the LLC would put it in jeopardy in the case of a lawsuit.  I'm not sure if the property itself could be protected though.   Either the LLC would own the property or lease the property from the individual to operate the track.  It seems in either case the property itself could be in jeopardy.  But I'm just talking out my arse as I'm not a lawyer.

It would be interesting to hear a real lawyer chime in.

Doc 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like I'll need to talk to a lawyer......good thing I have close friend who happens to be on......or at least he can point me in the right direction!

  • Like 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Why would you want to do that?  The LLC will be liable in the case of a lawsuit.  The whole point is to make the LLC bare the brunt of a lawsuit and not the individual person.   Putting your personal property into the LLC would put it in jeopardy in the case of a lawsuit.  I'm not sure if the property itself could be protected though.   Either the LLC would own the property or lease the property from the individual to operate the track.  It seems in either case the property itself could be in jeopardy.  But I'm just talking out my arse as I'm not a lawyer.
It would be interesting to hear a real lawyer chime in.
Doc 


I should have elaborated. If you might loan out said bikes or other things to your guests, better to disconnect them from you. In other words, while yes if someone sues the LLC they have its assets to attack and could get your bikes, but better that than someone ride one of your bikes and through that mechanism be able to sue you (you as in you, not the LLC).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, tpendley said:

Sounds like I'll need to talk to a lawyer......good thing I have close friend who happens to be on......or at least he can point me in the right direction!

Keep us updated.  I'm sure there are a lot of people that would like to know.

Here in my area there are two properties with private tracks on them.  And I'm talking about within 6 miles of each other.  So I know people do it.

Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just my 2 cents...

Sucks that you even have to think about this shit just to ride in your own yard....But 

from what I have read here, my suggestions would be ...

#1 Waiver... Everybody signs, No Exceptions, EVEN FOR SPECTATORS !!! 

#2 make sure they have their own insurance ( good suggestion from above comments )

#3  LLC   Despite some of the comments here LLC's are designed to protect your stuff from a lawsuit... NOT bare the brunt of one !   If you get sued what do they get ???  Nothing,  because everything you own is in the LLC (Except the track) an not touchable in a lawsuit claim (I am not an attorney, but this is what our attorney told us to do)   Same situation family track few neighbors and friends !   All of your personal property should be in an LLC already, or at least Listed on a Security Agreement attached to a UCC-1 filing statement... ( longer process but makes you MUCH safer )

#4  MOST IMPORTANT  take all of your Waivers, papers,  and ideas to an Attorney because Local, State, and federal laws are all different !!! 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Johnnykind said:

 

#3  LLC   Despite some of the comments here LLC's are designed to protect your stuff from a lawsuit... NOT bare the brunt of one !   If you get sued what do they get ???  Nothing,  because everything you own is in the LLC (Except the track) an not touchable in a lawsuit claim (I am not an attorney, but this is what our attorney told us to do)   Same situation family track few neighbors and friends !   All of your personal property should be in an LLC already, or at least Listed on a Security Agreement attached to a UCC-1 filing statement... ( longer process but makes you MUCH safer )

Keeping your personal assets in an LLC and the track in your own name seems backwards to me from what I've seen.  I would think it would be the other way round.   But I've been wrong before and I'm sure I'll be wrong again. 

Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to check with the AMA, might be able to get guidance from them and relatively cheap insurance.  NRA does this for shooting clubs/ranges, don't see why AMA wouldn't have a similar program. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a great idea.,.I'll have to dig into that!

You might want to check with the AMA, might be able to get guidance from them and relatively cheap insurance.  NRA does this for shooting clubs/ranges, don't see why AMA wouldn't have a similar program. 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2019 at 4:07 PM, William1 said:

^^ + 2 and insist all who ride have their own insurance as well.

But the problem is....their "own insurance" company is the entity that will bring the lawsuit, in order to recover their money ( not the rider themselves).

 

Joe

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2019 at 8:17 PM, SparkinPegs said:

 Me, I'd never sue a track owner, trail network, state park, or even private property owner, as they have already given me, something much more than some pay off in court, a place a ride that is, which is priceless, to me anyway..

That's nice to know, but the SECOND your company that covers your medical incurs a dime of expense to fix you up, THEY will slap a lawsuit on the track/ land owner to recover their funds. You will not have a say in the matter. This subject comes up every few months year after year on here and many have been the victims of such action.

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term is "subrogation" I believe.  The insurance pays the insured but will still try to recover those fund by suing anyone who might have caused the damage or loss.  

Doc

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, trailmeisterjoe said:

But the problem is....their "own insurance" company is the entity that will bring the lawsuit, in order to recover their money ( not the rider themselves).

 

Joe

When everyone has a policy, courts tend to limit the suits to the amount of the policies and not go after personal assets. Owning a policy shows the courts a level of risk assessment .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My parents had a lawyer draw a waiver up after I built a steel freestyle ramp many years ago. It basically read like every other waiver I had signed at sanctioned tracks. You were riding at your own risk and agreed not to hold the land owners responsible for any harm or damages that occurred on the property.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What throws lawsuits out of court is called assumption of risk. If a properly written waiver is used it will lay the danger and risks involved out. However there still could be a possible fault for negligence. But lawsuits are normally thrown out on summary judgement. That is where a judge determines facts prior to a jury trail and throws it out of court. Part of the reason why we are able to still participate in dangerous sports. 

If a person signs a proper waiver they are to assume the risk of riding a motorcycle with all of its dangers. 

What gets thrown out of court is a person who decides to go down Niagara Falls in a barrel as a daredevil that has read how to do it.  What doesn’t get thrown out is a person who slips through open gates that were mistakingly left open and gets hurt not knowing how dangerous the falls are. 

A person that goes to the veterinarian with his dog and goes to pet a rabid dog and gets bit. If they didn’t know the dog could have been a problem they can sue. However if a trained employee of the vet goes to pet the same dog and sees or might know he is rabid cannot sue because he assumes the risk. 

If a person is hit with a baseball in Dodgers park their case will get thrown out on summary judgement. It is known you assume the risk of balls flying in the audience and it is written on the tickets when you enter.

Moral of the story is stupid people can sue smart people have a much tougher time. You still need good insurance to cover going to summary judgement.

When people wake up in the hospital and realize they are seriously injured there story changes from I would never sue to who can I sue.  

   

  

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, StevetheSnake said:

What throws lawsuits out of court is called assumption of risk. If a properly written waiver is used it will lay the danger and risks involved out. However there still could be a possible fault for negligence. But lawsuits are normally thrown out on summary judgement. That is where a judge determines facts prior to a jury trail and throws it out of court. Part of the reason why we are able to still participate in dangerous sports. 

If a person signs a proper waiver they are to assume the risk of riding a motorcycle with all of its dangers. 

What gets thrown out of court is a person who decides to go down Niagara Falls in a barrel as a daredevil that has read how to do it.  What doesn’t get thrown out is a person who slips through open gates that were mistakingly left open and gets hurt not knowing how dangerous the falls are. 

A person that goes to the veterinarian with his dog and goes to pet a rabid dog and gets bit. If they didn’t know the dog could have been a problem they can sue. However if a trained employee of the vet goes to pet the same dog and sees or might know he is rabid cannot sue because he assumes the risk. 

If a person is hit with a baseball in Dodgers park their case will get thrown out on summary judgement. It is known you assume the risk of balls flying in the audience and it is written on the tickets when you enter.

Moral of the story is stupid people can sue smart people have a much tougher time. You still need good insurance to cover going to summary judgement.

When people wake up in the hospital and realize they are seriously injured there story changes from I would never sue to who can I sue.  

   

  

 

This comment makes the most sense. If many of the comments in this thread were true no one would be riding a dirt bike anywhere because everyone involved would have been sued into the poor house. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, William1 said:

When everyone has a policy, courts tend to limit the suits to the amount of the policies and not go after personal assets. Owning a policy shows the courts a level of risk assessment .

I've heard that having a policy attracts lawsuits as otherwise most people don't have enough money to make suing worth it. However it seems like a risky strategy to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dirt Rider 12345 said:

I've heard that having a policy attracts lawsuits as otherwise most people don't have enough money to make suing worth it. However it seems like a risky strategy to me. 

Sometimes though the difference is, if there is insurance, most will only sue for the value of the policy and not go after personal assets too. Courts do not want to see peoples lives ruined where they did make the effort to provide some level of protection.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, William1 said:

Sometimes though the difference is, if there is insurance, most will only sue for the value of the policy and not go after personal assets too. Courts do not want to see peoples lives ruined where they did make the effort to provide some level of protection.

Plus the fact that you can file for personal bankruptcy on a unsecured debt. Which is what a lawsuit claim is. Doing so throws a tizzy on everything. 

But yes having property insurance is a must on any property. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Reply with:


×