Demonstration of Negligence by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the International Luge Federation, and Designers of the Whistler Luge Track
Negligence is the failure to adhere to situations that would otherwise be logical and responsible to partake under similar conditions. To prove negligence on the plaintiff’s side, they should indicate the fiduciary duty owed to them by the defendant (Sportlaw, 2010). Additionally, the plaintiff may further argue that the defendant broke the duty of care and caused injury or damages to the plaintiff. Even though the jury often decides negligence cases, the current issue plausibly includes the carelessness of the IOC, the ILF, and the architects of the Whistler luge course. A lawyer partaking in Nodar Kumaritashvili’s family case could argue that the IOC failed to oversee all Olympic activities comprehensively and the ILF failed to supervise the sport correctly.
Similarly, they may claim that the developers of the Whistler luge track failed to maintain its structural integrity. A counsel representing Kumaritashvili’s family and estate might further contend that the participants, as previously stated jointly or personally, failed to guarantee the safety of conditions for those competing in the luge sports (Sportlaw, 2010). Therefore, in light of the included findings, the IOC, ILF, and architects for the luge course would indicate evidence of negligence.
In your Reasoned Opinion, did Nodar Kumaritashvili “Assume the Risk” by Participating in the Luge Event?
Acceptance of the risks is a well-known defense against negligent responsibility. All jurisdictions acknowledge the risk concept, which asserts that the plaintiff proactively, freely, and willingly proceeded in the activity despite knowing the existence of a hazard, even if the defendant was careless. In such a case, the plaintiff has no legal right to demand compensation from the defendant (Sportlaw, 2010). Similarly, upon adoption of the risk argument by the jury, it would lead to an elaborate defense against negligence. While considering the comments by Dorian Coleman in determining whether Kumaritashvili accepted the risk in this case: “Normal risks are assumed, but not exceptional ones. For example, if the track’s wall is constructed abnormally low at the contact site, or if track designers always build barriers such that riders never flip over them. In such cases, one may claim that going over a border and falling into a beam is not a danger ingrained in the sport of luging” (Sportlaw, 2010). From the article, Kumaritashvili’s body climbed a three-and-a-half-foot-high luge wall and crashed onto the metal beam supporting the concrete. Considering the short barrier’s inclination, a lack of barrier on the bend, or the steel and prestressed concrete reinforcement beam lack cushioning as per the industry requirements. In that case, it is more challenging to establish that Kumaritashvili properly took the risk.
Should a Court Admit into Evidence Post-Accident Repairs or Modifications?
It is vital to refer to the remarks by Indiana University lawyer and professor Rodenberg before answering this question. For public policy concerns, Rodenberg noted that such material evidence would probably be admissible in the trial as corroboration of blame. According to his argument, Rodenberg dismissed the likely hood of the repairs being included in evidence: “You do not want management avoiding adjustments or improvements because they are afraid they will be used against them during the trial” (Sportlaw, 2010). However, the urgency of renovations after the incident indicates a coverup of carelessness in constructing the tracks. Therefore, the court should utilize post-accident renovations to demonstrate that there had been an element of negligence in building the ice track. This would assist the court in obtaining explanations of why the administration recognized the necessity for modifications at that time.
Negligence is the failure to adhere to situations that would otherwise be logical and responsible to partake under similar conditions. Investigations over the death of Kumaritashvili provide glaring evidence of negligence by the IOC, ILF, and architects of the luge course. It is also more challenging to establish that Kumaritashvili properly took the risk due to the preexisting faults in construction and oversight of the games. Therefore, upon litigation, the court should utilize post-accident renovations to demonstrate that there had been an element of negligence in building and managing games on the ice track.
Reference
Sportlaw. (2010). The tragic death of Georgian luger, Nodar Kumaritashvili reminds us of some important legal lessons. Centre for Sport and Law Newsletter. 6(2). Web.