Opinion ID: 172867
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Risk of staging a motorcycle race

Text: To satisfy the first part of the two-part test for wanton conduct, Wagner had to demonstrate that in staging the race in which he was injured, SFX acted, or failed to act, with a realization of the imminence of danger. Reeves, 969 P.2d at 256. This prong of the test is easily satisfied if the risk is broadly defined as the risk of operating a motorcycle race. The jury heard testimony from Wagner's expert, Russell Darnell, that the starting point for all motorcycle race planning is that crashes will happen. (R. vol. 6 at 1591-92.) Indeed, SFX could not rationally dispute this point, given that it required the racers to sign a waiver form acknowledging that THE ACTIVITIES OF THE EVENT(S) ARE VERY DANGEROUS and involve the risk of serious injury and/or death and/or property damage. (R. vol. 1 at 142.) Wagner put on evidence sufficient to establish that SFX realized the imminence of danger in its overall staging of a motorcycle race. To satisfy the second part of the two-part test for wanton conduct at this level of risk, Wagner was required to demonstrate that in its overall staging of the race, SFX acted with reckless disregard [of] or complete indifference to the probable consequences of its conduct. Reeves, 969 P.2d at 256. Here, applying the Friesen rule regarding preventative measures, we easily conclude that Wagner failed to put on evidence based upon which a reasonable jury could have found that SFX acted wantonly rather than merely negligently. Under Friesen, a token effort to prevent the harmful consequences of staging a motorcycle race would not avoid liability for wanton conduct, but definite acts which materially lessen the chances of such consequences would avoid liability. Friesen, 524 P.2d at 1148. It is undisputed that SFX engaged in a number of such definite acts to make the overall motorcycle race safer, including opening the track for practice runs on both the day before and the morning of the race to permit racers to learn the track; stationing at least one corner worker at each corner, providing those workers with a radio communication system, a fire extinguisher, and colored flags for slowing or stopping the race in case of an accident, and training the workers for roughly an hour on each of the mornings of August 7 and August 8; having two ambulances and a fire-suppression vehicle onsite during the race; placing protective air fencing in certain areas and tires along certain portions of concrete barriers outside the track; and being prepared to call for a life-flight helicopter if the need arose. We think it clear that while these preventative measures may not have been perfect, they unquestionably materially lessen[ed] the chances, Friesen, 524 P.2d at 1148, of harmful consequences arising from SFX's staging of the race. In short, SFX took many significant steps to ensure that the race as a whole was safe. Therefore, even if SFX acted negligently in staging the racea claim Wagner waived when he signed the pre-race release formit did not act with reckless disregard [of] or complete indifference to the probable consequences of its conduct, Reeves, 969 P.2d at 256. We thus conclude that in construing the alleged risk and dangerous condition of conducting a motorcycle race broadly, a reasonable jury could not have found SFX liable for wanton conduct. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a).