$4.5 million settlement in track day death
10-23-2007, 08:50 PM
#41
Le Mans Master
I believe that a handshake SHOULD suffice but some times it's not a pretty world.
10-23-2007, 09:05 PM
#42
Melting Slicks
It just amazes me that what people are focused on here from this article and the whole incident is (1) tech inspections and (2) Porsche being liable. READ! Read the article. No liability was found on the basis of the tech inspection. The driver was found to be half the entire problem, i.e., 49% liable. Obviously, his failure to handle the car properly was the major contributing factor based on the way the award was apportioned. The track was the other major contributor, i.e., 42% liable. By changing the configuration of the wall to accomodate a playground for kids, of all things, it created an unreasonably dangerous situation, causing a head-on collision with the wall here instead of him hitting in a glancing blow which perhaps they could have survived.
In settlements, sometimes economic issues prevail over principle. It might have been less expensive for Porsche to settle at this point for $350,000 than to keep litigating, go through a trial, appeals, etc., with the attendant testimony about the design defects to this very expensive car and the publicity that might result. It's all about risk/reward analysis. We all know that handling problems with oversteer on the Porsche is a longtime problem. Heck, it killed James Dean 40 something years ago. Knowing that this car had these problems and knowing they were not being sold to professional drivers, the argument goes that Porsche either should have fixed the problem or installed the technology it had available to control the problem.
But, the bottom line here is that the bulk of the responsibility here rests with the driver of the Porsche. We should all keep that in mind when we take to the track.
And, don't assume that those releases you sign and everyone else signs will protect you. As noted in the article, many states like Virginia and New York have laws that make those releases ineffective. Next time you go to Watkins Glen, remember that. You cause an accident, you get sued. And because you are on the track, your auto insurance won't protect you. Just something to think about.
In settlements, sometimes economic issues prevail over principle. It might have been less expensive for Porsche to settle at this point for $350,000 than to keep litigating, go through a trial, appeals, etc., with the attendant testimony about the design defects to this very expensive car and the publicity that might result. It's all about risk/reward analysis. We all know that handling problems with oversteer on the Porsche is a longtime problem. Heck, it killed James Dean 40 something years ago. Knowing that this car had these problems and knowing they were not being sold to professional drivers, the argument goes that Porsche either should have fixed the problem or installed the technology it had available to control the problem.
But, the bottom line here is that the bulk of the responsibility here rests with the driver of the Porsche. We should all keep that in mind when we take to the track.
And, don't assume that those releases you sign and everyone else signs will protect you. As noted in the article, many states like Virginia and New York have laws that make those releases ineffective. Next time you go to Watkins Glen, remember that. You cause an accident, you get sued. And because you are on the track, your auto insurance won't protect you. Just something to think about.
it does not state nor will we know the exact reasons that weighed into the settlement of the event organizers. It is not correct to say that no liability was found on the basis of the tech inspection, although that may have been the case. Other than that, I agree with you.
10-23-2007, 09:06 PM
#43
Race Director
And, don't assume that those releases you sign and everyone else signs will protect you. As noted in the article, many states like Virginia and New York have laws that make those releases ineffective. Next time you go to Watkins Glen, remember that. You cause an accident, you get sued. And because you are on the track, your auto insurance won't protect you. Just something to think about.
10-23-2007, 09:09 PM
#44
Race Director
By this logic, no school child should step inside a school bus ever again.
School buses are not designed to keep children safe, or to stop turn of go very well.
They simply have them sitting on bench seats as the bus careens down the hiway at 65mph. No roll over protection, no seat belts, no air bags.
Again - I just dont see how this entire fiasco could have got a single second of the courts time.
10-23-2007, 09:19 PM
#45
Team Owner
You can get all the waivers you want, you could still be in court and possibly find yourself with a liability. Doesn't matter if you are the track manufacturer or racer.
Being involved in boat racing I saw someone get killed when a boat flipped. Mercury Marine, boat manufacturer (Skater), and throttle-man / dealer were all involved in the suit. Guess what? Boat trailer manufacture had to pay a bundle also. What did a trailer at the dock have to do with it?
Tech inspection is just another thing for the next lawsuit.
No matter what a company builds people will find a way to sue them unfortunately even Tuppleware.
Your on track you are taking a huge financial risk.
Being involved in boat racing I saw someone get killed when a boat flipped. Mercury Marine, boat manufacturer (Skater), and throttle-man / dealer were all involved in the suit. Guess what? Boat trailer manufacture had to pay a bundle also. What did a trailer at the dock have to do with it?
Tech inspection is just another thing for the next lawsuit.
No matter what a company builds people will find a way to sue them unfortunately even Tuppleware.
Your on track you are taking a huge financial risk.
10-23-2007, 09:23 PM
#46
Team Owner
I can't see the logic in this train of thought?
By this logic, no school child should step inside a school bus ever again.
School buses are not designed to keep children safe, or to stop turn of go very well.
They simply have them sitting on bench seats as the bus careens down the hiway at 65mph. No roll over protection, no seat belts, no air bags.
Again - I just dont see how this entire fiasco could have got a single second of the courts time.
By this logic, no school child should step inside a school bus ever again.
School buses are not designed to keep children safe, or to stop turn of go very well.
They simply have them sitting on bench seats as the bus careens down the hiway at 65mph. No roll over protection, no seat belts, no air bags.
Again - I just dont see how this entire fiasco could have got a single second of the courts time.
I had a laborer working for me in my masonry business. It was cold and we didn't work. He grabs a days work with another contractor on the same building. Screws up his leg and I am in the suit even though he never worked for me one minute that day. I didn't have to pay or my insurance company but the insurance company was still in the court for 5 years.
10-23-2007, 09:28 PM
#47
Melting Slicks
I can't see the logic in this train of thought?
By this logic, no school child should step inside a school bus ever again.
School buses are not designed to keep children safe, or to stop turn of go very well.
They simply have them sitting on bench seats as the bus careens down the hiway at 65mph. No roll over protection, no seat belts, no air bags.
Again - I just dont see how this entire fiasco could have got a single second of the courts time.
By this logic, no school child should step inside a school bus ever again.
School buses are not designed to keep children safe, or to stop turn of go very well.
They simply have them sitting on bench seats as the bus careens down the hiway at 65mph. No roll over protection, no seat belts, no air bags.
Again - I just dont see how this entire fiasco could have got a single second of the courts time.
10-23-2007, 09:34 PM
#48
Safety Car
Cars are like guns. You better have knowledge and respect for the weapon. A car is a 3000+ lb weapon. Then again they have sued the gun manufacturers.
We're a lot safer, statistically, on a track than we are driving to the event.
Too many guys/gals think driving a car is like driving their Playstation2.
They equate steering with driving.
You can't fix "stupid".
SCCACornerWorker - nice post above
10-23-2007, 10:28 PM
#49
Former Vendor
In order for a release to be a binding legal document you need an attorney to explain the ramifications of the document...prior to signing. It's assumed we're too stupid to understand it.
Cars are like guns. You better have knowledge and respect for the weapon. A car is a 3000+ lb weapon. Then again they have sued the gun manufacturers.
We're a lot safer, statistically, on a track than we are driving to the event.
Too many guys/gals think driving a car is like driving their Playstation2.
They equate steering with driving.
You can't fix "stupid".
SCCACornerWorker - nice post above
Cars are like guns. You better have knowledge and respect for the weapon. A car is a 3000+ lb weapon. Then again they have sued the gun manufacturers.
We're a lot safer, statistically, on a track than we are driving to the event.
Too many guys/gals think driving a car is like driving their Playstation2.
They equate steering with driving.
You can't fix "stupid".
SCCACornerWorker - nice post above
We can only hope the family can live on 4.5 million dollars. It's going to be hard, but now they can afford to have electronic "playstation" cars that drive themselves.
Randy
10-23-2007, 10:29 PM
#50
Cartoon Character
Member Since: Jun 2006
Location: Can't be more than 114... Arizona
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is typical of the pathetic society in which we find ourselves, one where no one accepts responsibility for any of their actions at any time. There is always someone else responsible. What a joke. If you get into a 600 hp car at a racetrack with some wealthy bozo who can't drive and you get killed, tough luck, you should be embarrased to sue. It's like saying "Look at me I am a remarkably stupid individual and I need to be compensated for my lack of judgement!". Sure
In a million years I would not get into a Carrera GT (or a Ford GT or any high power mid engined car) with anyone who has not done a ton of wheel to wheel racing at a pretty high level, it is just not a smart thing to do.
All motorsports, even HPDE, are blood sports and if you can't accept the possibility of being injured or killed maybe you should go bowling or whatever. If it was safe beyond any chance of injury then everyone would do it. Gee someone was killed in a car being driven by an incompetent imbecile who couldn't even avoid a slow vehicle without whacking the wall - what a shock!!!
This whole thing is just weak - stability control - humbug! The only thing computer aids do is allow the worthless to crash at much higher speeds when they overwhelm their little electronic co-pilot.
Over 40,000 people died in road accidents last year, a lot because of alcohol but some, amazingly, while sober. If the public cannot handle 65 mph, why would they handle 130 any better?
To be fair, the Ferrari club and Ferrari drivers have had their share of fatalities in amateur events like the Virginia City Hill climb, the Nevada open road races and such but I don't think that they are any less dilligent than the other marque clubs really. This could have happened at the Shelby gathering I was at 2 years ago in Fontana.Just bad luck for the Maranello gang. There is that other problem with our society as well, the one that says the rich may do as they please without consequence. Evidently that is not always the case.
Wait for the appeal and see what happens, I think the wife will be lucky to get $250K. Swimming at a summer camp cannot be illustrated as having the same assumed risk as motorsports...IMHO
In a million years I would not get into a Carrera GT (or a Ford GT or any high power mid engined car) with anyone who has not done a ton of wheel to wheel racing at a pretty high level, it is just not a smart thing to do.
All motorsports, even HPDE, are blood sports and if you can't accept the possibility of being injured or killed maybe you should go bowling or whatever. If it was safe beyond any chance of injury then everyone would do it. Gee someone was killed in a car being driven by an incompetent imbecile who couldn't even avoid a slow vehicle without whacking the wall - what a shock!!!
This whole thing is just weak - stability control - humbug! The only thing computer aids do is allow the worthless to crash at much higher speeds when they overwhelm their little electronic co-pilot.Over 40,000 people died in road accidents last year, a lot because of alcohol but some, amazingly, while sober. If the public cannot handle 65 mph, why would they handle 130 any better?
To be fair, the Ferrari club and Ferrari drivers have had their share of fatalities in amateur events like the Virginia City Hill climb, the Nevada open road races and such but I don't think that they are any less dilligent than the other marque clubs really. This could have happened at the Shelby gathering I was at 2 years ago in Fontana.Just bad luck for the Maranello gang. There is that other problem with our society as well, the one that says the rich may do as they please without consequence. Evidently that is not always the case.
Wait for the appeal and see what happens, I think the wife will be lucky to get $250K. Swimming at a summer camp cannot be illustrated as having the same assumed risk as motorsports...IMHO
10-23-2007, 11:04 PM
#51
Team Owner
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 25,889
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
CI 3-5-6-7-8 Veteran
So I guess this all hinges on the definition of negligence vs. gross negligence.
We'll see how the affects this hobby moving forward.
BTW... so what happens if I have a mechanical failure and cause a wreck? I'd assume that's racing, but where do you draw the line between normal assumed risk in "racing" and negligence.
We'll see how the affects this hobby moving forward.
BTW... so what happens if I have a mechanical failure and cause a wreck? I'd assume that's racing, but where do you draw the line between normal assumed risk in "racing" and negligence.
10-23-2007, 11:05 PM
#52
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Oct 2005
Location: Fallston Maryland
Posts: 6,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lawyers take anything to court you never know.
I had a laborer working for me in my masonry business. It was cold and we didn't work. He grabs a days work with another contractor on the same building. Screws up his leg and I am in the suit even though he never worked for me one minute that day. I didn't have to pay or my insurance company but the insurance company was still in the court for 5 years.
I had a laborer working for me in my masonry business. It was cold and we didn't work. He grabs a days work with another contractor on the same building. Screws up his leg and I am in the suit even though he never worked for me one minute that day. I didn't have to pay or my insurance company but the insurance company was still in the court for 5 years.
10-24-2007, 01:16 AM
#53
Le Mans Master
Don't hold your breath waiting - it was a settlement, hence NO appeal. It's over . . .
10-24-2007, 02:09 AM
#54
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Sep 2006
Location: San Mateo CA
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is typical of the pathetic society in which we find ourselves, one where no one accepts responsibility for any of their actions at any time. There is always someone else responsible. What a joke. If you get into a 600 hp car at a racetrack with some wealthy bozo who can't drive and you get killed, tough luck, you should be embarrased to sue. It's like saying "Look at me I am a remarkably stupid individual and I need to be compensated for my lack of judgement!". Sure
Wait for the appeal and see what happens, I think the wife will be lucky to get $250K. Swimming at a summer camp cannot be illustrated as having the same assumed risk as motorsports...IMHO
10-24-2007, 04:06 AM
#55
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Sep 2001
Location: Gig Harbor WA
Posts: 2,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tech inspections don't usually cover inherent design flaws or presence or absence of stability control, just leaking juices.
At NASA HPDE, if you spin or go 4 off you come in to discuss it, and loose passenger priveliges, spin twice and you're done for the day.
I've said in print and stick to it, here and on the Pelican Porche board, since day one, in a one car collision, the only cause is driver error.
The lack of Steering control or whatever electronic nanny isn't an issue to me, if your car goes out of control at a racetrack it's because YOU failed to control it.
It also sounds like an acceptabley or fairly safe track design went awry under NASCAR pressure and the track maintenence guys should have replaced that KWall to it's original position before the track went hot that day...
E
At NASA HPDE, if you spin or go 4 off you come in to discuss it, and loose passenger priveliges, spin twice and you're done for the day.
I've said in print and stick to it, here and on the Pelican Porche board, since day one, in a one car collision, the only cause is driver error.
The lack of Steering control or whatever electronic nanny isn't an issue to me, if your car goes out of control at a racetrack it's because YOU failed to control it.
It also sounds like an acceptabley or fairly safe track design went awry under NASCAR pressure and the track maintenence guys should have replaced that KWall to it's original position before the track went hot that day...
E
IMHO, the track should have the burden if not all of the judgement held against them. Perhaps, a small portion of judgement could be attributed to the driver. I can't accept Porsche sharing or bearing any responsibility for the accident unless driver competence is a prerequisite to driving the car and Porsche certified the driver as competent. There is nothing that I am aware of that makes this car/design unsafe except for its driver. If in fact the driver did lose control of the car multiple times, then one would, IMHO, assign some portion of liability to the sponsor(s) of the event.
In short, a talented plaintiff's attorney, a liberal and/or uninformed jury/judge and socially activist judicial system will win most of the time!
In short, a talented plaintiff's attorney, a liberal and/or uninformed jury/judge and socially activist judicial system will win most of the time!
10-24-2007, 04:11 AM
#56
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Sep 2001
Location: Gig Harbor WA
Posts: 2,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your W/c premiums are outrageous because there is an insurance company making a profit on them, regardless of thier altruistic marketing
and ad copy
oops, sorry to hijack
Last edited by DREGSZ; 10-24-2007 at 04:39 AM.
10-24-2007, 04:12 AM
#57
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Dec 2006
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Posts: 7,251
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
14 Posts
The only peoplE that win are the F$#%%@! lawyers. 4,5 MILL EASY 2 MILL FOR THE ^%$#%$#@ LAWYERS!
and the judges just hand them everything on a platter
Truly sorry for the deaths
but if you or your family do not understand you can die doing this stuff.. do not do it !!!!!!!!!!!!
I swear THE LAWYERS ARE TRYING TO BUILD THESE CASES TO THE POINT THEY WILL SUE FOR SOLDIERS DYING AND THERE WILL NO LONGER BE AN ARMED SERVICE IN THIS COUNTRY, THEN WE ALL BETTER START LEARNIND ARABIC AND PRAY TO ALLA!!
and the judges just hand them everything on a platter
Truly sorry for the deaths
but if you or your family do not understand you can die doing this stuff.. do not do it !!!!!!!!!!!! I swear THE LAWYERS ARE TRYING TO BUILD THESE CASES TO THE POINT THEY WILL SUE FOR SOLDIERS DYING AND THERE WILL NO LONGER BE AN ARMED SERVICE IN THIS COUNTRY, THEN WE ALL BETTER START LEARNIND ARABIC AND PRAY TO ALLA!!
10-24-2007, 04:21 AM
#58
Le Mans Master
Now let's contrast that with our government. The government does not makes a profit. Now tell me, what part of government is a good deal?
Oh yeah, it must be those $800 toilet seats and $150 hammers....
10-24-2007, 04:24 AM
#59
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Sep 2001
Location: Gig Harbor WA
Posts: 2,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-24-2007, 04:25 AM
#60
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Sep 2001
Location: Gig Harbor WA
Posts: 2,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All companies make a profit, or they are supposed to, yet there are still many great values out there. But if your cost of doing business is very high, then your price must be high. That is the world of workers comp, not the profits. Seeking a profit forces companies to drive costs down.
Now let's contrast that with our government. The government does not makes a profit. Now tell me, what part of government is a good deal?
Oh yeah, it must be those $800 toilet seats and $150 hammers....
Now let's contrast that with our government. The government does not makes a profit. Now tell me, what part of government is a good deal?
Oh yeah, it must be those $800 toilet seats and $150 hammers....