Legal issues CGT/Ferrari/track days PHOTO WARNING!

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/content/carrera

 

Man I hate reading things like this, its always sad to see someone lose there life in a sistuation that could have been avoided from the beginning.

 

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/content/carrera

Death/Lawsuit/Includes photo after crash of covered dead body

 

Might as well merge my post in Racing with this one.

Shame on SCM for using that photo.

Edit: I sent an e-mail to SCM's editorial contact objecting to use of the photo
I have strong feelings on the legal issues, as do many here, but after all this time I'm not sure what purpose is served by use of this photo. Remember the photos of Jens' and Amar's crash, long ago?

 

Very unnecessarily gruesome picture.

 

+1

 

Aside from everything else, there are two grieving widows at the end of this story. My heart goes out to them.


As for Porsche being found negligent, even at eight percent, I think that's indicative of an overly litigious society. If the CGT, by the court's decision's standards, should've been equipped with ESC, then that's a feature that should come stock on every car made today, and should not be considered or listed (or charged!) as a luxury item. There are myriad features (or lack thereof) that make a vehicle unsafe - but the number one feature is the driver's inability to operate said vehicle (speaking in general here, not at all referencing Keaton). It's senseless to fault Porsche when every buyer of the CGT was well aware of what they were purchasing. Just my two cents.

 

...damn, what a sad history...completly absurd...

 

Wow, lawyers saving us from ourselves in their own justifications for the $$

Porsche gets slammed again like the 80s with the 930 building a too powerful tail happy car from not installing traction control

Ferrari driver nailed $80000

 

Horrible photo. Who let that happen ??

 

Gotta agree with you, Carbon. I found another article from last year that goes into some of the specific legal arguments: http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/jun2006/bw20060608_466074.htm.

Tony

 

The Ferrari driver was not entering the track fast enough? Seems tough to lay blame on him if that's all he did, track etiquette aside - what if he missed a shift or the car wasn't feeling right when he took off - it's just a track day with street cars after all.

 

There are a lot of things to think about...

 

Tragic story.

Tragedy aside due really think electronic stability control would have saved a spinning car at 130 mph?

 

The Ferrari driver gets 2% fault, so $90,000??? After signing a waiver, sounds bad to me. I prefer a slower driving environment that feels really quick, but that's just me. The illusion of speed is equally thrilling, and far less dangerous in reality.
BT

 

So what was the attorney's take?

Im sure the attorneys did not wave their fees for this “just” cause. I’m sure they are paying off the CGT they have in their garage with the coin they just collected.

 

Back in the 1980s in Oklahoma City, I used to have an aerobatic plane, and there were a group of us who went to shows and usually would give informal rides (not stunt rides, just flying around) to people who expressed an interest.

One of the guys had an AT-6. On one occasion, he had a fuel flow stoppage and had to put down in a field. No one was killed. The passenger claimed an ugly whiplash and won a fairly large settlement.

This pretty much put an end to the friendly free rides in the Pitts Specials, Cubs, Warbirds, etc.

Without judgement in this case, I have always thought that it was a crying shame.

 

And you know this to be true because...

I hope SCM doesn't mind me posting this here:

Are you saying that every buyer of a CGT knew that the car, "...exhibited a tendency to oversteer during high lateral acceleration."

If these comments are even half-way true, shame on Porsche for selling this car to anybody with enough dough in their hands. Building a AMLS race car with quirky handling is one thing, but building the same car that anybody with enough money can buy, take to a track day, and run full bore with a mixture of cars and driver skills is nuts.


Dale

 

Makes you think...

If you go out on a track day...and are involved in an accident...you may get sued into bankruptcy. You have NO coverage.

Auto insurance will deny coverage...So will homeowners...so will any umbrella you have. And thats to be expected.

But do folks who do trackdays understand that they are risking their entire net worth? I doubt it.


Its the kid with the honda civic and a net worth of $200 who can really enjoy a track day. If your ferrari hits his civic, or vice versa, there will be lawsuits. But only one of you will ever see a dime...

Sad...

 

gee....let's blame the manufacturer - that's genius. What's next? Owner's make their own decisions...poor decision making and driving skills on behalf of the owner has nothing to do with the manufacturer. Is it Porsche's job to ensure buyers are qualified on the track before they sell a car? Let's only hope this rationale is not popular. Otherwise, enthusiasts [as collectors, drivers or otherwise] will be regulated. As if the world we live in is not regulated enough.

 

So - lets see here: You have a car which can do three times the speed limit in most states. You take it to the track for safety reasons to enjoy it. You enter the track, upon being flagged out by the track worker. Another car crashes in front of you, although you have not made contact. The plaintiff sues everybody in sight - track, car maker, driver of crashed car's estate, and also YOU.

It has been suggested that the only place these super sports cars can really be driven is on track days. If this is a trend, even the track day will evaporate as a legitimate place to drive these cars. And, what use would a 200+ mph 600K car be to anyone without being able to have track days?

This is the factor that pretty much put all the single engine private planes out of the reach of ordinary owners (and most of them out of business altogether) - the perceived liability of the manufacturer for almost any kind of pilot error.

 

Absolutely true. Anyone who participates in a track day should think long and hard about what happened here. Especially about giving rides to someone. The potential liability that this presents is mind boggling. There is also no question that Manufactures will think about what happened here and that the cars we buy in the future will be different.

 

Very true and very sad.

 

Any car under high lateral acceleration (130 mph in this case) that all of a sudden lifts on throttle or worse yet, brakes with a sudden steering input to avoid another car will spin. Race car, street car, formula 1 car, .....

You can't blame Porsche for that. As I posted above, I don't think traction control would have saved them in this case.

 

The really disturbing part of this story is, that waivers are no longer good enough to hold track events: They only protect against simple cases of negligence, but not gross negligence.

This could have a dramatic effect on amateur racing. As a track event organizer you can be held responsible if something goes wrong. Despite the waivers! After this verdict I will never ever organize a track event for my club again.

Also note, that the Ferrari driver (who drove onto the track too slowly) had to pay 90,000 USD. Do you want to risk that kind of money as a participant in a track day? Not to speak ill of the dead, but imagine what this means: If you're going slow and some guy behind you comes like a bat out of hell, looses control and crashes, YOU could be responsible and might have to pay huge amounts of cash.