Correct Conclusion???

[v65]

What's missing here is that it was three days from the time of his purchase and the time of his tragic death. It was stated that he rode the bike home and parked it. Where were the parents? If they knew he had the bike before his crash they should be the ones responsible because they knew he did not have the experience.

OK, I'll say it more clearly this time, what about the friend that said he had his helmet with him? Brandon has an 80mph getoff and the helmet doesn't have a scratch on it? The size of the helmet is irrelevant, it was nowhere near that bike at the time of the accident. Brandon's buddy is covering his own ***, wonder what else he is bullshitting about. Maybe there was another reason Brandon was going that fast?

 

[E1Allen]

Some dies on a motorcycle every day. Now regardless if this kid was 18 or 80, he was riding outside his limits and thats what caused his death. Seems to me the dealer did its job. Seems like the parents wanted something for the loss of their son or a place to put blame.

 

[bramfrank]

Nothing to be added.

My heart goes out to the parents for their loss, but they had no right to sue the dealer - they might as well have sued God.

I don't know if the state has a helmet law, but the friend who lied about the helmet (and the parents who probably abetted the situation) should have been charged with perjury or obstruction of justice. This Bozo should have counseled his friend to take it wasy and to take a course - especially since he had previously failed his exam.

No wionder the court systems is as messed up as it is - take it from someone who is dealing with it now.

 

[evilmedic13]

The herd needs to be thinned, one way or the other. Just like it should, sounds horrible but everybody says it needs to be done and we killed all the bears off already that used to do the job for us!

 

[Dwavey]

I'd prefer to think that the lawsuit was more about the parents venting their grief rather than any attempt to shift any responsibility they might have had. What's unfortunate is that they didn't use (or have) a more appropriate venue for that venting and their actions have attracted personal attacks on their character from people who have the advantage of emotional detachment.

We had a similar fatality here on Vancouver Island last year - a newly licenced 18 year old killed himself on a brand new litre sportbike he had bought the day before. The cause of the accident was attributed to speed and inexperience - reportedly the kid entered into a curve (at the beginning of a series of downhill twisties that we all love to take quickly) too fast and lost control. Same sorts of questions arose from that, everything from culpability of the dealer for selling such a powerful bike to an inexperienced rider, to tying engine size restrictions to experience levels. But it's not just on bikes; same thing happens when a teen wipes out driving some fast sports car.

Maybe there isn't any evidence that mandatory driver/rider training prevents fatalities. And maybe there's merit to the argument that the small displacement bikes are so powerful that restricting engine size to level of experience won't protect a new rider from becoming a statistic. Maybe other than the news value there is no difference in accident rates between younger and older inexperienced riders. But it seems that most of the riding community agrees that the more knowlegeable and experienced a rider is, the better their chances at accident avoidance and survival. As for restricting engine size to experience, when asked, experienced riders invariably steer newbies toward bikes under 500cc's. So, aside from sparking arguments and counter-arguments about Government restrictions/protecting ourselves from ourselves, ad nauseum, what harm could there be in requiring drivers/riders to take a safety course and bringing in experience/engine displacement-graduated licencing?

 

[madmike2]

I'd prefer to think that the lawsuit was more about the parents venting their grief rather than any attempt to shift any responsibility they might have had. What's unfortunate is that they didn't use (or have) a more appropriate venue for that venting and their actions have attracted personal attacks on their character from people who have the advantage of emotional detachment.

Mea Culpa.

same thing happens when a teen wipes out driving some fast sports car.

Or 4-door sedan or minivan or SUV. Hmmmm, is there an underlying cause here about the drivers rather than the machines?

 

[Dwavey]

I'd prefer to think that the lawsuit was more about the parents venting their grief rather than any attempt to shift any responsibility they might have had. What's unfortunate is that they didn't use (or have) a more appropriate venue for that venting and their actions have attracted personal attacks on their character from people who have the advantage of emotional detachment.

Mea Culpa.

same thing happens when a teen wipes out driving some fast sports car.

Or 4-door sedan or minivan or SUV. Hmmmm, is there an underlying cause here about the drivers rather than the machines?

That's what I'm saying Mike. Of course, the youngsters who make up the majority of the inexperienced say that we're just a bunch of old farts in BTDT t-shirts trying to prevent them from having the fun we had when we were their age...

 

[Silver Penguin]

That's what I'm saying Mike. Of course, the youngsters who make up the majority of the inexperienced say that we're just a bunch of old farts in BTDT t-shirts trying to prevent them from having the fun we had when we were their age...

I agree. The kids are trying to have the same fun that we had, way back in the dark ages. The stakes are different now. Parents are perhaps more indulgent. There is more disposable income to fulfil those indulgences. AND.... technology has created streetbikes (and cars) with power that we could have only dreamed of.

Our parents probably had this same conversation about us!

Jill

 

[Kevin Daly]

Clearly this is a tragity as the death of an 18 year old ALWAYS is.

I agree with alomost everyone in saying that the bike shop was clearly not liable:

1) The helmet was clearly not involved in the accident (it was undamaged in an 80+ mph accident??)

2) The parents testimony that their son was not properly fitted or instructed in its use is hearse

3) The statement by the mom that helmet was too big based on the size of a baseball cap lacks any validity; proper assessment would entail first measuring the head

4) Torts § 390, for the dealership to be held negligent under this the kid would have had to been under legal age to purchase the bike alone (he was not) or he would have had to say "I’m going to race this bike into the ground" (or something clearly irresponsible), there is no evidence that he intended to be irresponsible.

5) Once the bike was SOLD the dealership is completely absolved of liability, unless the kid crashed on the premises (then there may some basis??)

This was absolutely the consequence of an 18 year old man who made a series of fatal decessions. And i suppose it is no surprize, the stats establish that ~50% of bike related fatalities occur within the first 6mo of owning your first bike and ~50% of all fatalities involve no helmet: this kid met both criteria.

I agree that the case is related to the parents denial of the fact that it was his responsibility.

Ok so all this asside, I think the bigger philisophic question is, how could this have been avoided? I am just possing questions to provok discussion. I certianly could have been this kid; bought my first bike at 18 without an endorcement and road it home. I also once bought a bike without an endorcement and the dealership insisted on trailering it to my house; would this have helped? Could the dealership have introduced him to a motorcycle saftey course or provided him with more information about experience and fatalities? This isnt an issue of liability, rather civic responsibility. As for the friend, could he have insisted his buddy put his helmet on? in spending the day riding with him, did he spend any time educating his friend? Could he have been a better mentor? Finally, and i know this will piss a few off, but perhaps we as a society should consider manditory rider safty, or laws that restrict the size of bike you can own based on years with and endorcement or passing some sort of criterion. Again, these are not necessarly my opinions but rather my questions to the fourm.

I feel realy bad for the parents and i hope they come to terms over this. Reading this thread makes me think that i agree with those who suggest that the parents may not have lived up to their responsibility to teach their child that there are consequences for the choices one makes. ATGATT and 70% on public roadways

 

[FJRAust]

What a tragic and unnecessary loss of life.

The parents reaction is their own and not one I consider reasonable or justified.

Rather than formulate a licensing method which would benefit young riders why not look at statistics and licensing requirements from other countries.

Norway has the lowest death toll per capita. Why? They have some of the worst road conditions, they also have the toughest licensing and driver training requirements.

Here in Australia we are improving.

Motor cycle licensing now requires fairly intensive rider training.

To obtain a permit to Learn.

1. Must pass a theory exam proving you have the necessary knowledge of the road rules.

2. Must complete a 2 day accredited rider training course.

If you complete these successfully, most don't the first time about 60% pass rate.

You can now if accredited ride a motorcycle on public roads.

BUT What motor cycle can you ride?

This is based on a performance index.

You can ride a XT600, ZZR250, but you can't ride a TZR250. It's power to weight based. I'm not sure of the finer points of how the index is calculated.

You now have 5 years on your Learners permit After 12 months and 120 hours on the road you can complete another theory exam and practical riding course and exam. If you pass these you will obtain your Provisional License.

This license has 2 components.

In the first 18 months you are a a stage 1 or on Red "P" plates. Basically any penalty will mean loss of license.

In the second stage green "P" plate you must hold this for 24 months. Basically any penalty will mean loss of license again.

There are many other conditions you must meet including exams between each stage.

If you are interested read the conditions on the RTA WEB Site.

https://163.189.7.150/licensing/index.html

My point isn't which system is better.

If you want to reduce the road toll and we all do we need to educate the young drivers and riders (and old too). Very few will willingly agree to a complex rider training method so it needs to be LAW..

Rather than inventing a new licensing method learn from others who have lower road death tolls than yours.

https://163.189.7.150/licensing/index.html

https://www.awcoslo.org/Sections/LivingInOs...g_in_norway.htm

Australia still needs to introduce tougher driver training. The death toll of your drivers is far too high, our youth are our future, if necessary we need to save them from them selves.

 

[Blueliner]

This case should never have gotten as far as it did. Classic example of people thinking that "someone had to have been at fault" it sure couldn't have been my son, he was such a good boy.

Sad all around

 

[RatoneMuerto]

Natural selection, plain and simple. The kid lied up and down, directly and by omission, to get that bike. He wanted it, he got it. He knew the rules even though he failed the license test. 81+ mph and no helmet, typical of the **** I see out here everyday. If his "friend" thought him unable to handle it he shoulda said something at the time! While I feel bad for the parents losing their son, I doubt it's the first time he did something behind their backs and they knew it. What was their reaction to him purchasing the bike to begin with? Or did he hide it from them?

When I came home w/ new music my Mom would go so far as to read the lyrics, if she thought they were bad she'd ask questions. She kept me on a tight leash sometimes, and she was a friend to me as well, but she was mom first and made no bones about it, that's why I'm alive today! Some of these parents follow my wife's mothers mantra of" parenthood", "if it makes you happy". They're too busy being their kids"friend" and shirking any of the hard responsibilities that come w/ being a parent and when **** happens it's never theirs or their kids fault!!! This is a perfectly good , and tragic example!

Sorry I see too much of this ******** version of parenting every freakin day, like the dumb **** neighbors who thought it was okay for little fernando(cute kid too) to come over and touch my bike whenever he wanted. I went over there and chewed them out and warned them about him getting hurt, if he wants to touch it come get me so I can at least help to avoid the little guy from getting hurt. Not even 5 days later I hear a blood curdling scream in front of the house, I had just parked the bike and knew immediately what it was :angry: . Fernando's grandma basically said **** you to everything I told them and let him play w/ the bike, not 30 seconds after I waved hello as I got off the bike!!!!

Poor little guy touched the shiny muffler and got what appeared to be the beginning of 2nd degree burns on his hand and arms! Grandma tried to blame me until her son showed up. He was present when I read them the riot act and tore her a new ******* for it. Police and fire showed up and did the same to her. Luckily he learned and was far more respectful to the machine that hurt him. It didn't have to happen though, just like this kid dying!

RANT OFF! Thanks

Rant on!I see so much of this garbage it is sickening.My parents particularly my dad kept me on a very strict leash.His words still stick with me today about motorcycles.I sure did sneak around a lot though and got my *** wore out when I got caught.I am sure that kid did too.My dad said if I wanted a motorcycle then once I am out on my own paying my own way that would be fine but not as long as I lived under his roof.His house his money his rules and I learned to respect that.I feel for the parents losing a kid.He knew their rules to but didnt respect them.Now the parents have jumped on the I am a victim bandwagon.Even though the young man was eighteen,Like it or not folks he was of the age of majority.Rant over

 

[RatoneMuerto]

Clearly this is a tragity as the death of an 18 year old ALWAYS is.
I agree with alomost everyone in saying that the bike shop was clearly not liable:

1) The helmet was clearly not involved in the accident (it was undamaged in an 80+ mph accident??)

2) The parents testimony that their son was not properly fitted or instructed in its use is hearse

3) The statement by the mom that helmet was too big based on the size of a baseball cap lacks any validity; proper assessment would entail first measuring the head

4) Torts § 390, for the dealership to be held negligent under this the kid would have had to been under legal age to purchase the bike alone (he was not) or he would have had to say "I’m going to race this bike into the ground" (or something clearly irresponsible), there is no evidence that he intended to be irresponsible.

5) Once the bike was SOLD the dealership is completely absolved of liability, unless the kid crashed on the premises (then there may some basis??)

This was absolutely the consequence of an 18 year old man who made a series of fatal decessions. And i suppose it is no surprize, the stats establish that ~50% of bike related fatalities occur within the first 6mo of owning your first bike and ~50% of all fatalities involve no helmet: this kid met both criteria.

I agree that the case is related to the parents denial of the fact that it was his responsibility.

Ok so all this asside, I think the bigger philisophic question is, how could this have been avoided? I am just possing questions to provok discussion. I certianly could have been this kid; bought my first bike at 18 without an endorcement and road it home. I also once bought a bike without an endorcement and the dealership insisted on trailering it to my house; would this have helped? Could the dealership have introduced him to a motorcycle saftey course or provided him with more information about experience and fatalities? This isnt an issue of liability, rather civic responsibility. As for the friend, could he have insisted his buddy put his helmet on? in spending the day riding with him, did he spend any time educating his friend? Could he have been a better mentor? Finally, and i know this will piss a few off, but perhaps we as a society should consider manditory rider safty, or laws that restrict the size of bike you can own based on years with and endorcement or passing some sort of criterion. Again, these are not necessarly my opinions but rather my questions to the fourm.

I feel realy bad for the parents and i hope they come to terms over this. Reading this thread makes me think that i agree with those who suggest that the parents may not have lived up to their responsibility to teach their child that there are consequences for the choices one makes. ATGATT and 70% on public roadways

 

[Flyguy]

FJRaust wrote:

A synopsis of a VERY involved licensing/traing system - Aussie MC Licensing

After reading the details I feel that the Aussie system is incredibly restrictive, completely overprotective and a deterrent to cursory involvement of inexperienced cyclists and borders on the same stringent knowledge and performance requirements I had in flight school. I love it! Not bad for a bunch of ex cons. IF they had been as corporal with their sailors they might still have some trophies to look at. (Sanderson dosen't count)

Seriously though, what a great system. I would think it would have a significant and immediate impact on fatality rates. Thanks for making me aware of its existance. I'm going to fire off a letter to a few state officials. One problem I can forsee is Harley. They would fight it tooth and nail as their appeal (in certain geographical areas) does not exactly represent "High tide" at the gene pool. They would be worried about that 60% pass rate. Maybe they could arrange tutors or something. :lol: You have to forgive me the attitude but I live in Daytona Beach and still can't get used to seeing portly riders with their portlier mates riding 883's with french bread shaped seats, 3' high handlebars and Kuryakin chrome addon's designed to amputate anything that comes near.

Call it a quirk . . .

 

[Bounce]

Based on skimming their conclusions, it would seem the court reached the legal and logical conclusion. Holding a seller liable for the actions of a stranger is not only not a requirement under the law (as they noted) but it would not be logical for several reasons. Not the least of which would be the burden on every seller for the actions of a person before and after the sale; none of which are under the control of the seller.

Clearly the parents were distraught and were grasping at straws in an attempt to "make someone pay" for their loss.

 

[exskibum]

Seems to me that the appellate court reached the correct conclusion in a well reasoned and supported opinion. If anyone wants motorcycle dealerships to require a motorcycle endorsement for a sale to a non-minor or to release the bike to be driven off the premises, then the state legislature needs to pass a law that clearly specifies that procedure. And THEN -- you can bet that the dealerships would be the first to know about that and to abide by that requirement.

This case should never have gotten as far as it did. Classic example of people thinking that "someone had to have been at fault" it sure couldn't have been my son, he was such a good boy.

Absolutely, as to the second sentence. But since they did sue, note that this WAS thrown out on a summary judgment motion (well before trial), which is where I would expect it to get tossed. I agree with you, however, in wondering why the lower court initially hearing the motion, didn't come to the same result without the need for the dealer to file an appeal. While lower courts often err on the side of not granting summary judgment (the standard to grant one is that there is NO triable issue of material fact) and allowing the jury to hear the case, sometimes it's just better for the judge to have the balls to throw out crap cases without the need for an appeal. It goes both ways, though.

Let's face it, though: one of the most serious breakages in the legal system is what it costs. That was a reasonably expensive process getting to the summary judgment motion stage, augmented by the appeal. Still, it was far less expensive than going all the way to trial, which is what very often prompts settlement on lousy facts.

One of the real problems in our adversarial legal system is our society's, legislatures' and courts' understandable desire to get as much certainty (and to weed out as much dishonesty) in the results as possible in an environment where too many are trying to get as much as they can for for themselves, unconstrained by much in the way of moral or civic minded concerns. Getting to 90% certainty would be a lot less expensive, but the system is set up to get us to 98% certainty or so, and that process is incredibly expensive. I hate to have to say it, but far too often:

In addition to asking your attorney for his or her best assessment of whether you will win the case, you should also be asking if you can afford to get to the point of winning it, and what alternative strategies might be available to address that concern.

 

[ponyfool]

I just want to clarify one point. His speed was not 81mph. It was 81mph as he left the highway! But there was also statements from the law suit that indicated there were skid marks on the pavement consistent with both brakes being applied. That would indicate that his speed was likely considerably faster prior to hitting the brakes.

Another point not brought up (well, maybe it was, but I may have missed it) is this: Why did the friend stop and wait at the end of the driveway to watch his friend unless the friend was going to show him something or do something "special"?

I acknowledge I haven't read all the replies, but more skimmed through them. There is no doubt the parents are hurting. I couldn't imagine losing my child. I saw a few "thinning the herd" remarks, etc. While callous and cold, that doesn't alter my opinion in agreeing with them to some extent. While I would never use those words to reflect the tragedy of the loss of someone's life, regardless of how "deserving" some may believe they were, I am unyielding in my belief that personal responsibility should be the underlying force for any type claim in court. If someone dies as a result of someone else's direct action and the person that died had little to no input in their death, great, hold the other person liable. But that certainly isn't the case here.

 

[FJRAust]

FJRaust wrote:

A synopsis of a VERY involved licensing/traing system - Aussie MC Licensing

After reading the details I feel that the Aussie system is incredibly restrictive, completely overprotective and a deterrent to cursory involvement of inexperienced cyclists and borders on the same stringent knowledge and performance requirements I had in flight school. I love it! Not bad for a bunch of ex cons. IF they had been as corporal with their sailors they might still have some trophies to look at. (Sanderson dosen't count)

Seriously though, what a great system. I would think it would have a significant and immediate impact on fatality rates. Thanks for making me aware of its existance. I'm going to fire off a letter to a few state officials. One problem I can forsee is Harley. They would fight it tooth and nail as their appeal (in certain geographical areas) does not exactly represent "High tide" at the gene pool. They would be worried about that 60% pass rate. Maybe they could arrange tutors or something. :lol: You have to forgive me the attitude but I live in Daytona Beach and still can't get used to seeing portly riders with their portlier mates riding 883's with french bread shaped seats, 3' high handlebars and Kuryakin chrome addon's designed to amputate anything that comes near.

Call it a quirk . . .

Please do FlyGuy

There is far too much carnage on the roads.

After living in Norway for a few years under their socialist big brother regimented anally retentive government I did learn to appreciate that they were not in fact repressing their people but were saving them from themselves.

On moving back to Australia I was pleased to see Australians had stopped killing each other for a meal and were organized into a government which had started to take action on real issues regardless of the lack of public support on offer.

Please be heard.

I agree, there's a significant fatality rate amounst the Harley and mid life crisis flocks too.

 

[Ignacio]

...and back to the specific topic of a Supreme Court case that deals specifically with motorcycles...so we don't have to close this otherwise illuminating subject... :huh:

 

[rangerray]

Yea, this case is all about personal responsibility. In general, I see bad things happening on the roads all the time and whenever somebody get's their *** in a bind it's always "somebody else's fault." Geez, one of the first things you should teach your kids thses days is that you don't always get a second chance and how YOUR life goes depends on the choices YOU make.