nsxtasy

I'm sure we all remember the fatal crash of the Carrera GT at California Speedway last summer. Well, here is a recent article about litigation that resulted from that incident.

http://www.businessweek.com/au...4.htm

Dave_B

All i read in that was the wife blaming the car manufacturer for her husbands fate. I understand that the ferrari should have either not be let out, or should have gone out at a decent speed, but for her to blame the car? What about his driving ability? It's a shitty situation any way you look at it, but he knew damn good and well that:

1: He's on a race track.
2: His car was having issues.
3: Though safer than on the street, it's not exactly a safe hobby.

How much was the concrete wall moved for the NASCAR event? Would it have made a difference if it was in that location or the original one? If the impact was at 145 MPH, I don't really think 50ft would have made a big difference, though I don't know where the wall was originally.

Crack Monkey

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Dave_B &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">1: He's on a race track.</TD></TR></TABLE>

A track, which arguably did not take proper safety precautions. The track and club can be held liable if they weren't operating an event according to common standards.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">2: His car was having issues.</TD></TR></TABLE>

He wasn't in his car - he was a passenger in the CGT. Wife is suing estate of the CGT owner for not informing passenger of handling problems.

If you read the article, you'd know that the lawyer has already won suit(s) against Porsche for selling cars that are too fast and hard to handle for average buyers.

Assuming the CGT doesn't have any design flaws, I don't think Porsche should shoulder any blame.

But, if the track knowingly reduced safety by moving retaining walls, I think they're at least partially responsible. After all, we, as drivers, expect the tracks and the clubs to host events that are as safe as possible. If I knew a club was knowingly cutting corners on safety, I wouldn't run with them.

Track rat

Here's the meat of the story:

"It isn't hard to conclude that many of these cars are sold to owners who have far more cash than driving skill. And it's probably realistic to assume that these owners are not going to recognize their limitations and will succumb to the desire to drive these cars "the way they were meant to be driven," sometimes with disastrous consequences for themselves and others."

...and that risk is assumed by anyone who owns a such a car, or accepts a ride in one. Period.

Perhaps the track owners should sue the wives for allowing their husbands to go to the track that day.

Dave_B

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Crack Monkey &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

A track, which arguably did not take proper safety precautions. The track and club can be held liable if they weren't operating an event according to common standards.

He wasn't in his car - he was a passenger in the CGT. Wife is suing estate of the CGT owner for not informing passenger of handling problems.

If you read the article, you'd know that the lawyer has already won suit(s) against Porsche for selling cars that are too fast and hard to handle for average buyers.

Assuming the CGT doesn't have any design flaws, I don't think Porsche should shoulder any blame.

But, if the track knowingly reduced safety by moving retaining walls, I think they're at least partially responsible. After all, we, as drivers, expect the tracks and the clubs to host events that are as safe as possible. If I knew a club was knowingly cutting corners on safety, I wouldn't run with them.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I read all of it, now and then. But what I don't understand is you are taking a risk driving at one of these track events. I understand that if the track officials were completely negligent then maybe so, but IIRC you sign a liability wavier for HPDE's. So unless they are grossly negligent then yeah I could see that and again, I have no idea how much that one concrete area was moved. Had there been more run off room, would it have made that much of a difference given the speed that the car was going?

I understand it was not him driving, what I'm saying is the owner of that porsche should not have been taking passengers so in that sense I could see the driver, but he's not around and it's not the cars fault.

As for dude and his lawsuits, I think if your stupid enough to buy a car like that and push it beyond your limits, then your at fault, not the car manufacturer.

I have to agree with you on the wall moving. I have no clue how much it was moved, but I would imagine quite a bit given that they moved it for a kids play area.

Either way, I don't think Porsche should be held liable. Maybe the track organizer/club and maybe the Ferrari driver, but he didn't know that guy was coming so I guess that would be more on the organizers but again I'm not sure of all the circumstances so I can't comment on that. Rather Porsche should not be liable.

sidtc

One could argue that a Porsche is safer than a Camry since its limits are much higher.
Can the average driver handle a Camry at its limit?

Another sad chapter in a very sad story.

George Knighton

I am reminded that when the 917 was homologated, you not only had to have an FIA license to get one, you had to personally know one of the Porsches or Piechs.

prkiller

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by sidtc &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Another sad chapter in a very sad story.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Exactly. American litigation at it's finest! Blame everyone but yourself! I could have soooo much to say on this topic, but it's just not worth it in the thread!

Chris F

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by prkiller &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I could have soooo much to say on this topic, but it's just not worth it in the thread! </TD></TR></TABLE>

Well put... no point in preaching to the choir.

Thanks for the link Ken.

96 SOHC VTEC

I don't see anything new on this article from the last one. 'scratches head'

turboteener

The car was going down a straight away, it swerved. End of story. It could happen anywhere, anytime. The Ferrari pulled out in front of it. I don't know of too many cars that won't spin out if you swerve hard enough at top speed. If you swerve your Camry at 100mph hard enough it will come around, especially when you lift off the gas and mash the brakes like most people will.

I hope this case is thrown out or lost. This lady doesn't deserve anything more than a swift kick in the ***. This lawyer deserves to be shot, or put in that hunk of **** MG he owns and driven into a wall.

This will affect track days from now on. It is a shame that this country has come to this.

MaddMatt

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I hope this case is thrown out or lost.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Don't count on it.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">This will affect track days from now on</TD></TR></TABLE>

2 days later and someone else "gets it". A guilty verdict for anyone in that suit will dramatically change, if not end, HPDEs in this country.

Insurace may go so high, entry fees might double (How about $800-$1000 for our "hobby"). I personally wouldn't be able to afford it. No way. It would be cheaper to buy a racecar and start racing.

Roll bars and 5 point harnesses might become mandatory for simple schools.

Possibly no instructors in cars. I really would dislike that scenario froma student standpoint.

Anyway you look at is, a guilty verdict means HPDEs in this country will become very difficult.

Dented Rx7

don't consture what happens in the california legal system as applying to the rest of the country......yes many, many high profile cases come from there, but there brand of justice of and legal system are a different world from most of the country

particulaly virginia, (Ie. VIR should be pretty safe)

stephen, practicing attorney in virginia

George Knighton

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Crack Monkey &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If you read the article, you'd know that the lawyer has already won suit(s) against Porsche for selling cars that are too fast and hard to handle for average buyers.</TD></TR></TABLE>
That suit involved an earlier generation Turbo that probably really was too much of a handfull for some of the people buying it, especially considering the relatively low cost of such a high performance vehicle.

Interstingly, that particular Porsche had been removed from the USDM before the suit, and Porsche did not exhaust all avenues of appeal. Their case was hurt by the fact that Porsche regularly admitted that its cars were not for everyone, as in the case of the homologated roadgoing version of the Porsche 917.

I am not sure how the case will go down in California. Here in Virginia, however, we have always had to admit that there is no limit to tort action related to actions brought in consequence of events at the race track, and judges and juries are allowed to use their personal common sense in determining whether or not the risk that was assumed was a risk that a normal, everyday person using normal, everyday common sense would have accepted.

This is one of the reasons why NASA-Virginia had such a horrible reputation for avid (or addlepated) rules enforcement some years ago. Every single question a student asked had to be addressed very seriously, every single change made to a student's safety equipment had to be considered carefully for its affect on other parts of the OEM safety equipment, and it was sometimes generally just an unpleasant thing to be dealing with.

One of my more embarrassing episodes related to this kind of legal obligation was having to severely limit the participation of the Spoon N-Racer Integra at the ITR Expo-3 event because the safety equipment was definitely outside the rules specified by the NASA CCR on which the event was based.

No amount of disclaimers and waivers will exempt an event organiser from inherent obligations if the risks are not risks that normal common sense would make a participant think about ahead of time.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Dented Rx7 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
particulaly virginia, (Ie. VIR should be pretty safe)</TD></TR></TABLE>
I love the "common sense" implementations in Virginia law...but there's always the problem that there is no formal limit to tort action.

You're basically at the mercy of other people's perceptions of common sense.

It's usually a huge advantage in Virginia, but it could also make for a huge, catastrophic, industry-shut-down kind of decision if some organiser somewhere really does lack that much common sense.

MaddMatt

Well the way I see it:

Lets say either the track or the organizing body are found guilty.

Someone will have to come up with a few million dollars. Maybe a few 10s of million. That someone is the insurance company. They'll want that money back, since, you know, their business model doesn't really allow for handing out $million$ on a regular basis. So they jack rates through the roof (just *try* getting homeowner insuarance east of I-95 in Dade country FL now...). The event organizers have to pay it, and it trickles down to you and me. Wham, bam, there's your $1000 entry fee.

Perhaps the insurance companies would give the club a break if they mandated the use of safety equiptment (roll bars, harnesses, HANS) for a school. There's $1500-$2500 up front cost, just to do a school.

I doubt HPDEs would end. But I'm telling you within a year of a guilty verdict, HPDEs will change.

George Knighton

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MaddMatt &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">...within a year of a guilty verdict, HPDEs will change.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Well...maybe they should change a little bit. This past weekend was like being in a race sometimes. Lots of ego present, a little less skill present.

I had a passenger with me when two cars spun out in the chute right in front of us. No idea why or what it was about...I was <u>not</u> pressing them at all since I had a passenger.

Most of this particular driving group have been around each other for a few years now. We recognise each other's cars and we know generally that it's going to be OK to pass in a turn or the carousel or anywhere else.

The problem is that there are still occasionally new drivers being passed into this group, and this kind of mentality can be a huge shock to them. I am not sure we prepare them well enough for this all the time. The group I'm thinking about will often hit the track for their first sprint session before there is any kind of driver meeting for us to discern that new people who don't know the rules will be present.

Chris F

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MaddMatt &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">2 days later and someone else "gets it". A guilty verdict for anyone in that suit will dramatically change, if not end, HPDEs in this country.

Insurace may go so high, entry fees might double (How about $800-$1000 for our "hobby"). I personally wouldn't be able to afford it. No way. It would be cheaper to buy a racecar and start racing.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I think you under-estimate the amount of fees collected anually for HPDE's by insurance companies. A couple million won't dent the HPDE insurance rates much. Insurance companies still make money. Lawyers still make money.

It still sucks, and it still puts HPDE as-we-know-it at risk, but this isn't the doomsday event that will do it.

-Chris

GSpeedR

Lawers love this ****
I hope track days are not killed
That would really suck

nsxtasy

The litigation in this case was recently settled, with contributions to the settlement determined at about 49% from the estate of the driver, 41% from the track owners and the event organizers, 8% from Porsche, and 2% from the driver of the Ferrari that was claimed to have triggered the crash. You can read details here.

prkiller

Tracy Rudl also believes that the lawsuit will benefit others. "My loving husband was an innocent passenger in an expensive sports car that inexplicably failed to incorporate a modern, life-saving safety feature. He was a passenger on a racetrack that was dangerously designed. While driving on racetracks always involves risks, the result of this case and the redesign of the track will help eliminate unnecessary risks and make the sport of high speed driving safer."

Wow, what a joke!
It simply amazes me when people are this stupid!
Innocent passenger? Are you kidding me?
The car's designed to go very fast! He's at a race track. He jumps into a "race car for the street" at a RACE TRACK and has no expectations that anything bad can happen?
Innocent? I think not! Was there some sort of negligence here, maybe with the track design.
Trying to blame Porsche is the biggest joke though. Should they put PSM on the car, maybe!
It's probably the reason why the all new GT2 is the first ever GT2 to carry PSM.
Can people just turn that **** off at the track, of course. They <U>should</U> have that option. So, in this case, it wouldn't have done a damn bit of good, but it would have saved Porsche the 2% from the case settlement!

Thanks for the update on it though.

sidtc

Wow!

"he is hopeful that Porsche and other manufacturers will never again build a supercar without electronic stability control. McClellan thinks that the manufacturers’ greatest exposure in this regard may not be crashes on racetracks, but what might happen on the street. Imagine a CGT driver who gets in over his head on a public road, the rear end comes around, and he spins into an oncoming car, killing its occupant. Faced with expert testimony that electronic stability control could have prevented the spin, what will the jury think?"

I'm speechless.

577HondaPrelude

the driver had to pay about $2.2 Million!! Good reason to never let anyone sit in your passenger seat when out on track. I know I will never but mine back in!

nsxtasy

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 577HondaPrelude &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the driver had to pay about $2.2 Million!! Good reason to never let anyone sit in your passenger seat when out on track. I know I will never but mine back in!</TD></TR></TABLE>

In all fairness, the driver did several things that undoubtedly resulted in being assigned a high portion of the blame, particularly in skipping a proper tech of his car, and also in apparently not understanding the effect of the car's design on its handling characteristics.

If you don't have your car properly teched, like the CGT driver didn't, I sure wouldn't want to ride along in your car.

6spdKEG

I think Porsche owner is an asshat for thinking his driving/car's handeling was safe enough to showboat to others at 145mph even after he had repeatedly spun out 4 times at a previous event!!!

Maybe we all should require people to sign waivers before getting into our cars now.. .

Oh wait! We are at a race track, we sign waivers during registration and don't force people to ride with us or give us a ride! We willingly take the risk and respectfully reject people that want to ride in our cars. If you've spun out 2 times in one day, the organizer of the event should seriously consider to not allow you to drive for the rest of the event.. . Point Blank Period

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ARTICLE &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">At a previous event, the FOC President and organizer had been warned by one of their vehicle certifiers that he believed that something was wrong with the handling of Keaton’s car and it should not be allowed to run. They let it into that event anyway, and it spun out three to four times—one time the event organizer was even on board and became nauseous.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

WTF that is ridiculous! The dude even dispalyed in the past he couldn't drive this car. . He should have stepped back and got some lessons with all that money he has. I think he was rightfully sued but maybe for too much.. .

Unfortunetly so, the Club got what was coming to them as well. They should have learned from the past event that this guy couldn't drive his own car and the club should have taken more precaution before letting this guy out there AGAIN.. .

I think a tech waiver from a shop is a good thing but it can add a lot of expense to the cost of HPDE.



Modified by 6spdKEG at 5:02 PM 10/23/2007

Ponyboy

Ahh, Ken! You saw my prime post.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 577HondaPrelude &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the driver had to pay about $2.2 Million!! Good reason to never let anyone sit in your passenger seat when out on track. I know I will never but mine back in!</TD></TR></TABLE>

Not the driver but the driver's "estate." So not only does the driver's family have to cope with the death of their husband/father/son/brother etc. and estate taxes but also this settlement. And I'm willing to wager that his life insurance doesn't cover death at track. Which just jacked up the wealthy driver's whole estate plan.

So really it wasn't about "justice" or "principle" but suing strictly for money. Sorry for your loss lady but this (4.5million minus legal fees) settlement won't bring back your husband from an accident.