Jules Bianchi's family to sue F1

Not sure why weather factors in. There where people on track on inters still! Ricciardo was staying on wets and only if the rain would get much heavier he would pit for Extreme's.

Sending the JCB out whilst cars where on track was the norm back then, SC was out etc.

Wrong way to remind the world of Bianchi, IMO. Instead, they should actively work with F1 to find solutions, some of them like the VSC are working just fine. Any sueing or settlements should've been behind closed doors...

 

I think one of the factors was the time of the day of the race to maximize viewership in Europe. This made the race later in the day which with the storm made it too dark to see.

But racing is racing and it's dangerous. Every accident is "avoidable" if the factors are changed slightly. I can't see this going very far. There is a an inherent risk in driving fast and Jules understood the risk he was taking.

 

Hummm, I would not be surprised if Bianchi's family get something out of this.

They must have received legal advice before initating the legal actions, and there are in fact prededents, where the family of drivers killed racing have received compensation by suing the car builder, the helmet maker, the track organiser, the sporting authorities, the tyre manufacturer, etc... basicaly anyone involved in the race he was taking part.

If I remember correctly, the family of Mark Donohue obtained compensation from Bell helmets. I think the family of Stephan Bellof obtained compensation from Porsche, etc...

 

Generally speaking three things cause crashes:

1. Mechanical failure
2. Contact with another car
3. Driver error

As far as I know no one has alleged mechanical or tire failure.
I haven't looked at the video for a while, but I don't recall any other cars being around Bianchi's.

No one seems to want to talk about it, but I believe he was simply carrying too much speed for conditions. This will probably be a (major) contributing factor according to the defense.

I truly believe that the incredible safety of these cars gives drivers a false sense of security, if not immortality. Yes, the cars and tracks are safer than ever, but then there's always the chance of the unexpected.

 

Agreed.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

Yes.

 

I'm afraid I have to agree, and let's face it, even us spectators have a waiver on our safety written on the back of tickets for Motorsport, competing is an entirely more dangerous proposition. It's sad what happened, but it didn't break the law as far as I can see

 

They will perhaps argue that the safety car should have been deployed, before the crane came out to retrieve Sutil's car. With the heavy rain, late time of day, poor visibility to see yellow flags.

 

I feel horrible for the family but this is not going to turn out well. With every great thing in life there is an opposite effect. To be in the pinnacle of motorsport living out a dream that most could barely imagine there has to be a tremendous downside. For them, its risk. You cant have all the upside and not expect to have exposure or worse...experience the full impact of that risk. Whether its the financial industry where im at... Being an astronaut.. Whatever...its the dame dynamics albeit with great variances of that impact obviously. But the bottom line is that you cant have things both ways.

How are they going to feel when they have to face that the very courage and tenacity... The exact relentless competitive spirit which got him where he was are the very same traits which likely greatly contributed to his horrible accident. Thats is going to be very painful for them.

 

^^ Pretty much agreed.

Could/would set a terrible precedent should they win. Would do immense harm to Motorsport in general.

"Motor racing is dangerous."

Sure, mistakes were made. With the benefit of hindsight. Always a wonderful thing.

RIP Jules,
Ian

 

This is where you may be wrong.

A law suit is going to be judged in a civil court, where the judge may not be as complient as someone quite versed with motor racing matters. The family attorney may well invoke as negligence some aspects of F1 that we take for granted, and the judge may be very receptive to his arguments.

- Why didn't the organisers stop racing when the rain came, knowing the risk?
- Who wrote these rules?
- Why the organisers allowed rescue vehicles before all cars had stopped?
- Why are drivers heads not better protected? (yes, that again !!!)
- Who allowed the car design?

After all, families of drivers have won their case before and obtained compensation too.

 

Wasn't there much talk at the time about the race being far too late and then the chopper not being able to fly him to hospital?

These would from the perspective of my arm chair indicate possible negligence from those in charge.

Potentially blaming rain in general or lack of safety is in my perspective foolish. It was JB after all that, under yellow flag situation, tragically lost control.

 

The argument that will be inevitably be raised by the family's attorney will be "Could the death have been prevented, and by who?"

Yes is the answer. It would have been prevented by the race being stopped. The crane not being present on the circuit. Bianchi's vehicle being able to whistand the impact. His helmet protecting his head. etc... All this amount to a massive lack of safety from a civil law-suit point of view.

The lawyers will have a field day putting the FIA, the circuit owners, the organisesr, the rescue services and Marussia on the stand to answer these accusations. So, I wouldn't be surpised if some parties prefer to settle out of court, rather than having a trial that goes on and on.

 

When there is ambiguity with the rules and whether or not a party breached any duty, however questionable, there will be damages awarded.


One of many questions I would have concerning this matter pertains to the number of co-defendants and their various countries agreements with F1 in general regarding torts of this nature, as this cannot be the first time something like this in F1 had taken place.

 

Really?

Who?

I may certainly be ignorant here, but that's a new on me.

Rip Jules
Ian

 

or,
1/ a car had just slid off the track at this location, driver not injured
2/ green flag was out even though recovery equipment was encroaching on the run-off area
3/ another car slides off track at same location, hits recovery equipment, driver (fatally) injured

So if not for recovery equipment being in the run-off area it could be argued that the accident would not have been fatal. By running under green the run-off area was compromised, thus un-necessarily (i.e. negligently) endangering the drivers.

 

Mark Donohue who got killed at the Austrian GP.

Stephan Bellof who was killed in a sports car race a Spa.

but there are more.

I am not sure if the family of Elio de Angelis obtained compensation as well for him being killed at the Paul Ricard.

 

Are you sure about that?

I thought they were very definitely under yellow.

The team told him to 'push' to close up the train, which with 20/20 was a mistake, but no basis for any friggin' lawsuit IMO.

Ian

 

And those guys families won legal cases/compensation? Who paid?

Excuse my ignorance.

Ian

 

Green flag was AFTER the recovery equipment.

 

That's the way I recall it too.... They're clear of the accident, ergo the track is green.

 

Watch the short video in this link
First Video Of Jules Bianchi Crash Shows How Violent The Impact Was

 

And the (correct) explanation in the same article;

A terrible accident for sure, but a lawsuit is way out of line IMO.

Ian

 

and from that same link