Sab

Everytime there is an accident people turn around and have to find the person responsible. Now everyone else has to pay for their mishap. First they'll put the organizing club out of business and then collect a huge insurance settlement. Then all of us can't have DE's anymore.
Whats wrong with just accepting a terrible tragedy?
When I sign that waiver, I understand that I am at risk to get hurt or killed.
This lawsuit is simply wrong.

A930Rocket

I told my wife recently that if anything happens while I'm on the track, NOT to sue anybody. I'm out there willfully and I know the risks.

Of course she makes sure my million dollar insurance policy is up to date.

mrbill_fl

"As the Porsche was completing a lap, the flagman sent a Ferrari onto the front straight. The driver hesitated, then started late and slow. The flagman saw the Porsche come onto the straight and tried to stop the Ferrari, but it was passing him by then, and neither the driver nor passenger noticed his waving arms or heard his shouts." -

from:'www.businessweek.com/autos/content/jun2006/bw20060608_466074.htm'

IF this writeup is true.... yet another reason it is SO important to GO when given the go signal at pit out....

(imho)
Best pit out practice is to stop cars 50'+ in front of where pit out marshall stands, so they can stop them again if needed.

agio

We all know that driving can be, by definition, a dangerous endeavor. A vehicle is a "dangerous instrument" in many states (if not all). The entire situation, while very tragic for all, begs many questions...some obvious, some not.
Here is one of them: recently going onto a hot track, the pit out official gave the signal to proceed. I did so rapidly, but noticed a car coming down the front straight "***** out." I deliberately stayed very wide and away and avoided what could have been tragic. I made sure that the driver on the track was very clear about where I was and where I would not be--no guess work for him.
I later complained to the chief driving instructor about the lack of safety with the pit out flagger and was clearly told that it was the driver's responsibility to get out on the track safely. Clearly, I agree with this, but the pit out flagger cannot "fall asleep" at the switch, particulary when the track is hot and full of student drivers. Those out on the track must pay particular attention to "pit out" and "pit in." Both areas on the track can and do present special problems to drivers who don't pay close attention.
Just my .02

E. J. - 993 Alumni

Come on Brian, you - more than most - should know better than that. You have seen the memorial I built for the IRL victims at LMS, right? Its right down there at the lake of the campground. If I recall correctly, you were sitting in turn 4 the night the bridge fell down (could have been the following week)? You must still read newspaper stories about those 'victims' receiveing funds and payments from SMI?

As much as I want to (and do for the most part) agree with you, oftentimes the reality we hope to be true is nowhere near the actual truth.

One thing that I, and my former coworkers are going to be following VERY closely - is how well the blanket waiver that they all signed holds up in court. If you know the business you'll know that every road track, saturday night special dirt track and billion dollar speedway uses the EXACT same waiver for every person actively taking part in any activity at the track (short of spectating from the stands). That aspect of this whole thing will be very interesting.

BTW - hope you're doing well.

JCP911S

Some thoughts:

First, the article is not specific, but was there full safety equipment in the car, or just street belts... personally (and this is just me) I would never EVER get into a car that fast without a full safety equipment including HANS.

Second, I instructed once with the Ferrari club, and if my experience was any indication, it was one of the most poorly run, poorly controlled, lax and unsafe track days I have ever spent...

Third, the flagman has NO guilt here, he is simply an assistance... it is 100% the DRIVER'S responsibility to manage track entry... its like claiming the intersection should have been clear becasue the light was green.

Fourth... allowing inexperienced drivers on racetracks with 400Hp+ cars with no instruction is IRRESPONSIBLE... and it is IRRESPONSIBLE for an inexperienced driver to do it...

I am very ambivelent about the lawsuit... IMHO we have consenting adults here... but anybody who didn't see multiple acts of negligence well beyond the normal bounds of good sense that I am used to seeing applied in DE has their head in the sand...

ltc

Settle, perhaps.
It should also be noted the influence of jury selection on the decision to forego a settlement offer and pursue a trial.
It is possible to empanel a jury of average middle class citizens, present to them a case about 2 rich young men with expensive cars that may cost more than some jurors' homes and not get a sympathetic response....yes, it can/does happen.

TD in DC

Here is what I do not understand. How come whenever a lawsuit is filed everyone is suddenly an expert and they know all the facts?

Do any of us here really know EVERYTHING that happened? If you do not, then how can you have a valid opinion about whether the lawsuit has merit? Seriously people.

Things are not always as they first appear. The same type of thinking is happening with respect to the Duke prosecution. Maybe something happened, maybe it didn't. We most likely have not heard all the facts there, yet the press first made it sound like the students were all definitely guilty, and now they are making it sound like the woman wasn't even raped in the first place. It pays to be patient when drawing conclusions about the merits of any claim . . .

Now, that said, I love Porsches, DEs, racing, and I would be one of the attorneys who most likely would be defending against a suit like this. But . . . it sickens me to hear bashing of the widow's family, attorneys and potential juries . . . your peers . . . when you do not even know the facts, and cannot know them without discovery, which probably hasn't even happened yet, and even if it has, you, as a layperson, probably will not have any legal means for accessing it.

Our legal system is based on notice pleadings, so a plaintiff does not have to spell out all the details and facts upon which they base their suit. So, you cannot always tell (indeed, you can rarely tell) the merits of a suit by merely reading the complaint.

Also, with respect to "personal responsibility," it is not fair to trot this line out as a defense against every lawsuit. You make choices based upon information that is available/given to you. If you had access to, or were told, accurate information, and you made a choice to do it anyway, then, sure, shame on you and take personal responsibility for your actions. On the other hand, if someone misleads or lies to you, or changes the rules on you without warning, then they prevented you from making a valid choice, and personal responsibility has nothing to do with it.

For example, imagine if you went to Mid Ohio, and you fell into a 30 foot deep sinkhole that had opened up on the backside of madness. Ok, if it happened during the session and nobody could have predicted it or signalled you in time, fine, take personal responsibility and do not sue. On the other hand, if the track officials knew it was there, and they let you drive the track anyway without warning you or throwing a flag and you were injured as a result, I don't see how signing a waiver means that you should take personal responsibility for the fact that you were hurt because someone else was an extreme idiot or greedy at your expense. Is this a ridiculous example? Of course. It is extreme, and I am using it to make a point.

Every incident falls somewhere between the extremes. The problem is that, without all the facts, you are JUST GUESSING as to where the case falls in those extremes.

Think I am lawsuit happy? Think again. I have already volunteered (i.e., for free, so I don't stand to profit) to help PCA to the extent they need my help to protect all of us from lawsuits that might arise out of any incidents that occur during one of our events. I am on your side, and I do not want ANYTHING to threaten our ability to continue in this sport we all love and for us to have the right voluntarily to undertake the risks associated with (1) DEs, (2) racing, and (3) driving cars without any electronic driver's aids. But, I think that people need to understand that they may not know all the facts, and the response of "take personal responsibility" is not always reasonable. It reminds me of the old line "take your laws off my body," which, IMHO, is equally absurd. Also, it is funny how your perspective might change if it were your spouse who died.

Sorry for the mini rant, and I am not directing this at anyone in general. I am equally frustrated by people who say the lawsuit is meritorious as I am at those who say it obviously has no merit. All I care about in the end is that incidents like this do not affect us and our ability to enjoy the sport we love.

kgorman

These people have not been victimized, this is simply just a tragedy.

Professor Helmüt Tester

Three of those four examples involve illegal activities that helped create the bad situation. Try again, Counselor.

Lemming

I told my fiancee the same thing and she immediately asked me to increase my life insurance to $1,000,000 (not a joke!).

RJay

So I'll rant back and hopefuly we can still be friends afterward.

There are undoubtedly details that we're unaware of, but the basic circumstances are pretty clear. Certainly what is crystal clear, assuming the reporting isn't comletely spurious, is that everyone short of the track cafeteria who had any involvement whatsoever is being sued. You're argument might hold some sway with me if the plaintiff's weren't firing a shotgun blast at everyone involved, but in the absense of that, are you really trying to say that this is simply about punishing those who were negligent and that it has nothing to do with a search for financial compensation from wherever it can be had?

But your point about not having the details of this event in the public record is in another sense spot on. We, as a community, remain at risk as the information, for what ever reason is not available to us. The real neglience here and with the incidents at the Glen and NHIS last year, is that the facts of these cases aren't fully known a year on so that perhaps those of us who run these events might be able to avoid the circumstances that caused these accidents in the first place. That in my opinion is true criminal act in all this.

I currently serve as Vice President of Activities for PCA NER and have been on the board for three years now. We are always concerned about the safety of our participants, we discuss it continuously, it enters into almost every decision we ever make. We've adopted some new rules this year as a result of what we have percieved to have been at play in the some of the incidents we saw last year. But with all that, we are all amatuers and volunteers. And increasingly we are becoming more and more aware everyday that we are vulnerable to lawsuits from all quarters, not simply from death on the track, but from such widely varied problems as improperly guarding health records acquired in a DE application to accusations of sexual harressment or racism. None of us are experts, nor do we organize these events for personal gain. So I ask you, why should any of us take on this sort of responsibilty if we are risking our families well being. And why should anyone have ever gotten into a car with you to help educate you on performance driving if they risk financial ruin in the process? Why should we any of us risk the emotional distress should any of us be unfortunate enough to have had such an incident occur on our watch?

So not to seem unfriendly or condescending, but I'd suggest that volunteering legal advice, as we've got plenty of that, is just a little too easy for you. If you haven't already volunteered for the track committee or the Board, I'd suggest you do so. Then the target will be squarely on your own back. It might change your perspective a bit on these issues.

TD in DC

No problem here. I am assuming that we have the same goal, which for me is ensuring that nothing interferes with our ability to enjoy this sport.

Our current legal system creates incentives for plaintiffs to sue everyone. So, if you are going to sue anyone, you might as well sue all who might be involved in order to protect yourself. I am not saying this is "fair," I am just saying this is how it is.

I have to take issue with you suggesting that I think the lawsuit has any merit whatsoever. I didn't. I just said that we don't know the facts, so it is silly for us to speculate about the motives of the plaintiffs or the potential merits, or lack thereof, of the suit. Period. That is my ONLY point.

In the end, though, we "know" what should be done to protect those who run and volunteer for PCA events. First, use common sense. Second, if you have rules, enforce them. If you do not enforce the rules, then do away with them. Third, pay attention to the laws regarding waivers, and make everyone who attends or participates sign a waiver. Sure I am oversimplifying, but, in the end, these steps will get you almost there.

I don't blame you for worrying about volunteering. That is why you want PCA to do it right.

With respect to your comments about how it is a "little too easy" for me to give legal advice, I don't know why you would say such a thing. I do volunteer to help while I am at the track. With three kids three years old and under, I do not have the bandwidth to responsibly volunteer for additional time. The only thing worse than people who do not volunteer, are those who say they will do something and then let everyone else down. I try not to be "that" guy. So, until I have the time to volunteer the "right" way, I will not. I don't see how you can twist my offer to provide help in my field of expertise as somehow a negative thing, or any worse than volunteering in any other manner. How would me volunteering to be on a track committee be less valuable to the club than me offering my area of expertise? If you don't want my help at all, I will gladly oblige

And also, I don't see what you "think" "my perspective" is? It seems as though you think that I support the lawsuit. I didn't say that at all. In fact, I said that I would much more likely be the guy to defend PCA or Porsche. So, why would me volunteering to help PCA "change" this perspective? Seriously?

I just think that any lawsuit gets everybody's panties in a wad. There is no reason for that. The lawsuit didn't change anything -- specifically, the way we should run things has not changed -- and we can't change anything about the lawsuit . . . Now, if some wacky decision or settlement occurs, then we can rightfully get concerned, but even then there is always the appellate process. I am just saying wait and see . . . things have a way of playing themselves out. Indeed, it is actually possible that the outcome of the case could make it "better" for PCA by clarifying the law on this issue in a manner that is favorable to us. See?

Still friends?

RJay

Without a doubt. My only point of contention is that its a different posture to be defending oneself than to be defending others. At the end of the day, its the defendents who bear the personal risk after all.

Make no mistake, IMO this sort of thing is indeed threatening the sport we love, particularly in the gray area of DE, if for no other reason than ultimately if the potential for litigation becomes too onerous only professionals or for profit organizations will be able to cope with the problems. Just in terms of track fees, at least here in the Northeast PCA is substantially under the cost of our sister not for profit clubs, and half the cost of the for profits. If we were out of the picture, who know how much it might cost for a day at the track.

I thought long and hard about whether I really wanted to take on this particular job for the club, as every activity that involves moving cars is theoretically, my responsibility. For the moment, given the protections PCA has in place, there are people willing to serve. But its never been easy to get volunteers and adding any sense of personal risk into the equation isn't going to help. You mention the time commitment, and its true. The time commitment is significant enough with out the possiblity of receiving a subpoena and having to testify at a trial. Particulary so if the only reason I'm there is because its standard practise to sue everyone in sight regardless of the frivolity of it.

Increasingly boards are spending more time doing risk assessment as opposed to event planning. National, as you may or may not know has forbidden regions from running Karting events for example. While I'm not privy to the precise circumstances that led up to this decision, its clear that the underlying problem is the risk of injury and resulting lawsuits despite the presense of waivers and the other precautions you mention.

None of this is to say that any non-profit club should be exempt from situations where there is clear evidence of negligence on the part of the club. But **** happens. I can't count how many times I've heard of a green run group driver nearly making onto track in the wrong group for example. If they did and there was a serious accident, should there be legal recourse? If a driver is promoted to white and first time out at that level hits a tire barrier and winds up seriously injured, should the instructor that promoted him fear a legal action (something, minus the serious injury, I've seen happen btw). Short of obvious negligence, like knowing the track is covered in antifreeze and sending everyone out anyway cause, what the heck, it'll be a good learning experience, I'd like to hope that again, reasonable people would be prepared to say thats there is risk and reward in what we do, and that sadly, on rare occasion, some of us will pay a heavy price knowing full well that that was the deal we signed on the line for. And no offense to your chosen profession, but I, for one would rather not have to engage an attorney to have to assert this point in court.

Apparently, according to Redline, I missed shaking your hand at the Glen last year at Zone 1. If you're attending again, lets make sure that happens.

SundayDriver

I see two significant area where it could change things a great deal:

1) Tracks may well abandon DE's as that does not make much money (I think I already mentioned that one)

2) Volunteers - knowing, through this example, that a flagger, instructor or any other worker can get dragged into a suit like this will certainly make some reconsider whether they want to volunteer. Will it be enough to mess up events? I don't know but it would not take much as most events struggle with getting enough workers.

BTW - I understand that the passenger had some relatively high level road racing experience. There is just more and more interesting detail leaking out about thsi case. It would be fascinating to be able to see all the real evidence when it finally comes out, but there are lot of interesting details in both directions. But, like you said, that is what discovery is for.