A federal judge from the Eastern District Washington has granted summary judgment to a motocross enthusiast, who was sued after his bike struck and killed a 12-year-old boy on a motocross track.
In so ruling, the court found that the victim, who was represented in court by his family, was aware of the risk and that the defendant was not reckless or did not intentionally try to collide with the boy.
The incident in question occurred on March 17, 2007, at the Horn Rapids Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Park in Richland, Washington, a facility owned and operated by the City of Richland. The boy fell off his back bike after scaling a jump, and as he was getting up from the ground, 19 year old Douglas L. Wold rode his motorcycle over the jump and struck the boy. Consequently, the plaintiffs asserted wrongful death claims against Wold.
In its analysis of the arguments, the court noted that Washington had not addressed the duty of a co-participant to another co-participant under the implied primary assumption of the risk doctrine. However, the court did find a relevant case in California that it could extrapolate from.
“In Rosencrans, the California Court of Appeals discussed the particular status of a defendant and how that their status impacts the implied primary assumption of the risk analysis,” wrote the court. Rosencrans v. Dover Images, Ltd., 192 Cal.App.4th 1072, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 22 (2011). “Rosencrans involves very similar facts to the case at bar, although the individual who was injured in that case was a 38-year-old. This individual was riding his motorcycle on a motocross track, and he went up a ramp for a jump and fell, landing on the down-slope of the ramp, which placed him outside the view of the other riders.’ After he stood and picked up his motorcycle, he was struck in rapid succession by two other motorcyclists who took the same jump and landed on the down-slope. Plaintiffs (the motorcycle rider and his wife) brought suit against the motocross track operator.
“The Rosencrans court noted that an owner/operator of a sports facility has a duty to provide a reasonably safe course or track, and this duty requires the owner or operator to minimize risks without altering the nature of the sport. 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 32. Thus:
“In the sport of motocross, an owner/operator of a track has a duty to minimize the risk of a co-participant crashing into a second co-participant who has fallen on the track. Providing a warning system of some sort, such as caution flaggers to alert riders of a fallen participant, would assist in minimizing the risk of riders colliding with one another. If a rider received adequate warning of a fallen rider on the track, then the rider could change his or her course to avoid the fallen rider. Further, providing a warning system, such as caution flaggers, would not alter the sport, because it would not prevent riders from jumping and traveling at high speeds, rather it would provide riders with information so that they could alter their course as necessary. In sum, we conclude that the owner/operator of a motocross track has a duty to provide a warning system, such as caution flaggers, to alert other riders of a fallen participant on the track. Id. at 32-33.”
After ascribing much or of the responsibility for such accident on the facility, the court added that “the duty of co-participants to each other in a sport is to not intentionally injure the other, or engage in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport.”
The court elaborated, writing that if the conduct “is within the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport and therefore, not reckless,” holding a co-participant liable for said conduct “would deter vigorous participation in the sport or otherwise fundamentally alter the nature of the sport.”
On this point, “taking blind jumps at high speed is an inherent part of motocross. It is within the range of normal activity undertaken in order to successfully land jumps on a motocross course. As the Rosencrans court put it: ‘Motocross is a sport in which people ride motorcycles and perform jumps off of ramps, while in a settings filled with dust and other people on motorcycles. Given the racetrack setting, speed involved, and jumping maneuvers, it follows that co-participants will fall down, and while down, may be struck by other riders whose views are obscured by the blind corners, blind ramps, dust, and/or other riders. 122 Cal.Rptr.3d at 32.’
“… The undersigned believes Washington courts would follow California’s lead insofar as application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine in the co-participant liability context, and therefore, (the plaintiff’s) age, his subjective understanding of the risks of motocross, and whether he voluntarily chose to encounter those risks, are irrelevant. Even if they were relevant, the court would find that there is no genuine issue of material fact based on the evidence presented by defendant Wold. The plaintiff had full subjective understanding of the presence and nature of the specific risk of being involved in inadvertent collisions with other riders, and voluntarily chose to encounter that risk.”
Further, the defendant “did not create a risk over and above those inherent in the sport of motocross. He took the double jump just as he was supposed to and just as everyone else did. He was well within the bounds of normal motocross conduct. He clearly did not intentionally strike (the plaintiff) with his motorcycle. Nor did he act recklessly. Inadvertent collisions with other riders, perhaps the result of negligence at most, are an inherent risk of motocross.”
Jessi C. Webb and Laurice Webb v. City of Richland et al.; E.D. Wash.; No. CV-10-5008-LRS, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71854; 7/5/11.
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Richard Eugene Lewis, Humphries of Leavy Schultz Davis & Fearing PS, Kennewick, WA.; Paul L Kirkpatrick of Kirkpatrick & Startzel PS – SPO, Spokane, WA; Todd R Startzel of Kirkpatrick & Startzel PS, Spokane, WA.; Michael G Brady of Brady Law Chartered, Boise, ID.
