On 10/26/2012 8:26 AM, captbear07@yahoo.com wrote:
Russell,
Having lived in the Los Angeles area for over 27 years, I most clarify a mistake in
your response to Steve.
Los Angeles County DOES NOT have "police" force, they have a "SHERIFF'S" department.
And it is very best in the United States. It far superior to Sacramento's so-called
sheriff's department.
Marc P.
Howdy Marc P, et al,
Picky picky picky... but... being a perfectionist by birth (born under the sign
of Virgo), I am VERY detail oriented and alas, I stand corrected and rightly so.
Having not lived in the Los Angeles area, ever, and, using Tehachape Pass to
Kramers Junction to 205 to I-10 avoid LA, I must admit that I fell victim to
the press in this matter, being as how I was merely quoting a published press
report.
I did find the Los Angeles Police Department (sheriff.lacounty.gov/wps/portal/lasd),
but that's not the Los Angeles County Police, furthermore, a google search for "
Los Angeles County Robert and Nancy Amezcua" will yield a host of
information on this case, including the two separate filings, viz.,
ROBERT AMEZCUA et al v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, and, Robert and Nancy
Amezcua v. Los Angeles Harley-Davidson, Inc., and so it also appears that
the published press report should have printed "County of Los Angeles" as
defendant instead of "Los Angeles County Police," but, I must admit my
detail orientation facility failed to notice that the "Los Angeles County
Police" is a nonsense word combination instead of a legitimate law
enforcement department.
While we are on the subject, with respect to the "primary assumption of risk
doctrine," it is worth mentioning that the case that set the precedence was
described in the Appellate Court's Justice Laurence Rubin's decision in which
he said:"... the [primary] assumption of risk doctrine applies, and fully bars
the plaintiffs' claims."
"Under Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, a voluntary participant in
a recreational activity cannot recover damages for injury from a
co-participant or a sponsor or organizer of the activity if the injury
stems from a risk inherent in the activity and the defendant does nothing
to increase that inherent risk."
"While no previous case has considered the rule in the context of
'organized, noncompetitive recreational motorcycle riding,' Rubin
acknowledged, it has been applied to similar situations."
"Participating in an organized motorcycle ride along public highways with
large numbers of riders is more similar to an organized bicycle ride than
it is to being a mere passenger in a boat, a recreational dancer or a lone
motorcyclist," the judge wrote. "Like the risk of being burned while
participating in the Burning Man Festival ritual, the risk of being
involved in a traffic collision while riding in a motorcycle procession on
a Los Angeles freeway is apparent." So, although a waiver agreement may be ruled unenforceable, the "primary
assumption of risk doctrine" will protect all of us dare devil murdercycle
riding death seekers in this sue happy state.
Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow Marc. | "GIVE WAR A CHANCE"
KF!
PS: click here to visit
RCHR RESTORATION ELECTION CENTRAL,
and, while you are there, please
consider making a generous contribution
to the advertising campaign.
Click here to make a campaign contribution
Contributions or gifts to VOTE4RAZ are not tax deductible. |
 |
--
|
