By Gil Fried
On Aug. 25, 2014, plaintiff was injured when he hit a road barrier with his bicycle. Plaintiff was “pre-riding” the designated course for the 2014 USA Cycling Masters Road Championship. There was no signage or marking of the road barrier on the course map given to riders. The Plaintiff sued USA Cycling, Inc. (“USAC”), Breakaway Promotions, LLC (“Breakaway”), and Visit Ogden for negligence. Visit Ogden moved for summary judgment, arguing that as a matter of law, it did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care.
Discussion
Plaintiff alleged that by entering into a contract with USCA (“the Contract”) to assist with the race, Visit Ogden owed him a duty to provide a safe course; that it breached that duty by failing to warn him of the barrier that was on the course prior to race day; that its failure to warn caused him to crash into that barrier; and that he suffered injuries as a result of the crash. Visit Ogden argued that Plaintiff’s claim fails as a matter of law because it did not owe him a duty of care, as it did not enter into a contract with USAC until after Plaintiff was injured and that under the contract, it did not undertake a duty, let alone one owed to Plaintiff, to maintain a safe course or warn racers of potential dangers.
When analyzing the contract issue, the court concluded that there was not relevant because it was only entered into eight days after Plaintiff was injured. The court went on to provide that even if the contract had been effective when Plaintiff was injured, no genuine dispute existed as to whether the obligations that Visit Ogden undertook thereunder created a duty of care owed to Plaintiff. The facts showed that Visit Ogden was not called upon to assist or consult with USAC on the design of the course, as those actions were undertaken exclusively by Breakaway. While Visit Ogden initially proposed a possible course, the actual creation and design of the course was developed exclusively by Breakaway. As such, there was no genuine dispute of fact as to whether a duty arose as a result of Visit Ogden’s creation or design of the course.
The court also held for Visit Ogden in terms of a duty to warn Plaintiff about the barrier. The contract provided no obligation on Visit Ogden to warn participants, especially during a pre-ride of the course. In fact, the contract contained no provisions, and established no requirement, that Visit Ogden was supposed to communicate with riders.
The court also held that Visit Ogden did not engage in any affirmative act that would trigger a duty of care. The court concluded Visit Ogden did not “launch a force or instrument of potential harm” andVisit Ogden neither placed the barrier in the road nor produced the map and information that failed to tell of its existence. Rather, the court held Visit Ogden simply failed to take “positive steps to . . . protect [Plaintiff] from harm not created by any wrongful act.” As this is a classic example of an act of omission, a duty could only be found if Plaintiff showed that a special legal relationship existed between Visit Ogden and himself. The court concluded the Plaintiff failed to make such a showing.
Conclusion
The take away from this case is that when organizations are sponsoring or helping to run events, they need to clearly identify what their duties might entail and if they are not assuming any duty of care to participants, such an affirmative provision should be included in any contract.
Gerald Finken v. USA Cycling, Inc., et al.; D. Utah; No. 1:17-cv-79; 1/3/20
