Race Lawsuit - Court says runner can sue race host. Drink shortage may have led to brain injury.

Welcome to my world! As an extreme race director I try to keep abreast of lawsuits involving events. The above headline is taken from The San Francisco Chronicle Wednesday, May 8, 2002. The article is quoted below.

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer " A runner who collapses because race organizers failed to set out enough drinks along the course has grounds for a lawsuit, a state appellate court ruled Tuesday. An organization that stages a marathon "Has a duty to organize and conduct a reasonably safe event, which requires it to minimize the risks without altering the nature of the sport," said the Court of Appeal in San Diego. That includes providing adequate water and electrolyte fluids along the 26- mile course, the court said."

The runner involved ran the inaugural Rock & Roll Marathon in San Diego. Later that day the man had a seizure from low sodium, a condition called hyponatremia.

This article stems from the success of an appeal. It only means that the case can go to court, not that the race will be found guilty or not guilty of any negligence. The lower court had initially thrown it out stating that hyponatremia was an inherent risk of marathons. The judge relied on a 1992 state Supreme Court ruling barring suits over sports injuries that result from ordinary risks of the sport.

The running e-mail lists were filled with banter about the case and all kinds of opinions based on the so-called facts (many that to me seem irrelevant.)

Those who seem to be siding with the race mention this was not the runners first marathon. The runner was a physician. He ran a respectable 4:17 on a hot day and the seizure took place hours after the event giving him time to replenish lost fluid and minerals. Each aid station had enough cups and fluids for each runner but the impatient runners got backed up at the early stops and decided not to wait but to go on to the next station. The first stations did not go through much water because of this situation but as the field spread out runners took several cups at the later stations making up for skipping stations early. The later stations ran out.

Those siding with the runner like to mention that the entry fee was $100 and the entry form, advertising and pre-race hype were all first class. The aid stations were not set up to get the drinks to the runners fast enough creating a back up that should have been anticipated.

I am sure that when such a tragedy takes place its natural for us to take the information we have at hand, try to fit it to our conclusion and place the blame to someone. I doubt that the fact that the guy was a physician or that the entry fee was $100 has anything to do with the cause of the tragedy but it makes for interesting conjecture. Ultimately the court will ask if the organizer or someone else showed reckless disregard or malice toward the injured participant. I doubt this happened but Im sure mistakes may were made, they are made all the time. I dont know all the facts and have not sat through the case so my opinion has little value. What I do know it that there are no guarantees in life. We need to take responsibility for ourselves and use the knowledge we have. I have seen water delivered to the wrong location during the Detroit Free Press Marathon. The mile marks were changed at the last minute, the drop locations were different than where the stations were set and the volunteers did not find the water for some time. I was at a marathon in Anchorage Alaska on a hot day when a cow moose decided to use the 20-mile aid station tables to scratch her back. The volunteers headed for the hills as the water and cups crashed to the ground. I put on a marathon where two aid stations and all the supplies were stolen before the volunteers got there. Stuff happens! Race directors make mistakes; runners make mistakes, things happen.

I am often told that signed waivers are of little value in defense of the event but I see them as valuable tools when it gets to the nitty gritty in court. The signed waivers are always admissible and the judge and jury do get to hear them. I think the Western States 100-Mile Trail Run waiver says it all, "this event involves extraordinary risks, which I agree to assume in order to enable it to take place " I direct a race called Dances with Dirt (DWD). The waiver for DWD, a 100 km 5 person relay through serious crap, states, "I want to participate in the DWD. I realize that my participation in this event entails the risk of injury or even death. I further understand that it would be prohibitively expensive for the race organizers to carry insurance to cover all that might happen in this event, and that if I insisted that all the risks to me be covered, the race would have to be canceled. I want the race to go on, and therefore sign this waiver to induce the organizers to stage the DWD. We printed part of the waiver on the race shirts for those who say they missed the small print! The part about death always goes over big; fortunately, no one has died during the event. I imagine the Canadian Death Race; (a real event) will have an easier time in court following an event related death than an ultra called the 50-Mile Frolic!

The moral of the story? It is risk and adventure that attracts us to these events and makes completing them worth our while. When adversity strikes during these events we should not be surprised but excited. Adversity allows us to draw from our knowledge and inner strength, and if need be, to drop out.

Run fast and take chances,
Randy Step