party (quoting Herrera v. Lufkin Indus., Inc., 474 F.3d 675, 679-80 (10th Cir.2007)) (ellipses in original). 2 . The race organizers obtained a permit from the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM”) for the race. However, the record indicates that there was a conflict at the time between the BLM and some of the County governments regarding who had control over the roads in the area. This court expresses no opinion on that conflict. 3 . There was conflicting evidence on whether Mr. Konitshek or the racers had crossed the center line of the road. Mr. Konitshek was adamant that he had remained on his side. However, one of the riders witnessing the accident testified that the riders remained on their side of the road, although he 2009 WL 953712, *1 (Utah Ct.App. Apr.9, 2009) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); see generally Preston & Chambers, P.C. v.
holding that construction company that carried general work site liability insurance did not control partiallyconstructed home at the time of accident when none of its employees had been at the site for a month holding expert testimony is ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases to establish the standard of care holding authority to control limits duty to control holding that to establish a prima facie case of control person liability a plaintiff must establish that the alleged control person actually participated in ie exercised control over the operations of the primary violator in general internal quotations omitted holding that expert testimony was needed to establish the standard of care in a case involving traffic control at a construction site because of the complex rules governing traffic control in that context