Fatality at PCA event

From a legal standpoint, I'm not sure it could go this far. I'd have to look at it more carefully, but, generally, I would think the releases will hold-up. The issue is what level of negligence this rose to, if any. Perhaps it's just an accident that ended horribly.

However, unless there has been a change to the way insurance policies are written, they should cover normal track and DE events. The distinction has been passing in the corners, which elevates the event in the minds of the insurers to a race, which isn't covered by your normal insurance policies. So, the specifics of how the event is run and managed, on-track, make a difference.

Yes, it's possible and even likely that someone's going to sue. But, I don't think it will go very far. OTOH, I've heard of even stranger outcomes (I think we're all familiar enough with the Carrera GT crash and lawsuit outcome). That was in CA, though, and CA law applied. Not admitted in NC, so anyone with NC knowledge will have a more informed answer on this.

CW

 

You can not waive your right to sue for negligence; period. If someone is negligent they are liable; period.

If you are killed as a result of someones negligence it's all moot anyway as your Estate didn't sign the meaningless waiver and the waiver is irrelevant.

 

It is not a problem when driving it is a problem overnight for car storage. I remember about 2 years ago I ran an event at 9F in the morning!!!! It was cold. I knew it was going to freeze overnight and I just dumped about 20% antifreeze in and took my fire bottle into the hotel room with me. Frozen AFFF foam freezes at 32F like water. Others ran straight water awoke to slushies in their radiators. When cars got started I guess hot spots developed as water could not flow while cars warmed up in the paddock. A bunch of cars blew hoses before they even got on track and water was everywhere. It was a big a bloodbath as if it was 120F outside and all the cooling systems blew up. I was fine and just ran the minimal antifreeze that weekend although I run water with wetter 99% of the time.

 

This is totally true. The carrerra GT/Ferrari club incident is an example of this. The real problem is that I have not seen any liability insurance you can buy for racing. I checked into excess personal liability umbrella's and they have exclusions in the fine print eventhough my agent swears they will cover. Umbrella policys on home owners does nothing too. Motorsports insurance guys say they cover but what they really cover is stuff like stolen racecars during storage etc. and liability if someone drops your jack on their toe but nothing while on-track. I have tried. I hope someone will read this and prove me wrong because I would like to buy on-track liability coverage.

 

This is an unfortunate and sad situation. In the end he chose to instruct/ride along, from what I read the driver was being evaluated so he could move up to the next class during this run. We as people need to become responsible for the decision we make in life. I would hope that if I went around the track with someone and the worst happened that my family would not sue. Instead I would hope they would realize that I made the decision and was doing what I loved to do.

 

This is what keeps me out ventures like Indoor Karting and Parasail franchises......

It's not a commonly understood concept, they THINK they are signing a Waiver, but as Mr. G. correctly points out, it's really not....

 

horrible and very sad...

re antifreeze, that is only one of several liquids that can spill and cause trouble so no solution just having water in radiator.

what i dont get is why are there trees anywhere near a raceway? esp the so called country club tracks that do not have adequate run off. isnt that the reason amateurs should join, safety? ive been to nj and monticello and there are obstacles along track that can cause major problems. why? ive seen texas track club on tv and that looks like the way to do it. nothing but dirt all around the track with nothing to hit.

as for driving 3/4 speed, what about doing only about 130 at pocono which is slow for there and having tire blow out? no way around the risks.

 

One thing that has just been pointed out to me is that courts have held that wavers can protect up to the point of "willful and wanton misconduct" which is a higher standard than simple negligence or even gross negligence.

 

It is true that is is only one of several but it is the most commonly spilled and the one the cars can do without.

 

Do like the big boys do and drain it.


Small price to pay.

If someone dumps coolant, even if there is not an accident, there will be a lengthy shutdown while it is cleaned up shortening everyones expensive track time. Between that and the safety issue it is a no brainer.

 

1+

 

I believe that the hoses and clamps should be regularly checked on cars used at the track. .
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

If you ever been to Carrolton TX, there is not much choice in the tree department.

 

LOL! The track south of Houston as well......

Still , that does point to the extensive use of Aramco in wooded areas......no car holds up well to being hit with a tree, ask John O'Quinn!

 

CMP is in SC.

Also, not so sure you can really say that "CA law applied". The case was settled; that could have happened in any state.

 

Doc, I'm a CPA by profession. However, I used to do quite a bit of expert witness work and ended up hanging around the courthouse more than I care to admit.

So please understand the following is a poor layman's understanding of how the system works:

1. Anybody can sue anyone in the USA for just about any reason. Thus, it is incorrect to question whether someone can sue.

2. If you are sued, you generally have 30 days to respond. If you don't, the plaintiff gets a default judgment, and you're screwed.

3. The key for the plaintiff is getting a lawsuit past a motion for summary judgment. Because the trial courts are the finders of fact, all a plaintiff needs to do is show a genuine controversy as to the facts. This used to be easy to prove. However, the Rehnquist Court raised the bar somewhat. But once over this bar, it is time to put the jock strap on.

4. Most cases settle because a the odds of a jury trial can be worse than playing craps at the casino when you are drunk on your ass.

5. Furthermore, most cases are driven by insurance. If, in this case, the coverage is, say, $100,000, the insurer will probably just pay and move on. But, as was the case I believe in the California Fontana tragedy, if the death benefit is in seven figures, the paying insurer will probably decide to shake the tree to see if any dough falls out.

Bottom line? The legal system is a game run by and primarily for the benefit of lawyers. This is a game you and I cannot win.

This means if you have a seven-figure net worth, which is not so hard to do anymore, you better, at a minimum, carry a seven-figure liability umbrella. "But wait," you say, "Doesn't carrying a large insurance policy attract lawyers like the stink on **** does to flies?"

Sadly yes. It is all part of the great circle of life, Simba. There are the hunters and the hunted, and the road goes on forever.

Personal accountability, at least in a legal sense, is a thing of the past.

Dale

 

All --

Again, I don't mean any disrespect to this man's family. But if you are interested in racing and track days, you are probably aware there is a lot of buzz on the various racing forums. But in the interest of trying to learn from this tragedy, I thought I'd summarize what I have pieced together.

1. The basic facts are a Porsche 930, during a DE event, hit a patch of spilled coolant at speed that caused the car to spin off the track to right and into the trees. Unfortunately, the passenger, a DE instructor, died when apparently the right side of the car slammed into a tree.

2. Was the driver or the instructor at fault? It appears not. I have never been on this track. But, looking at the map, I'm guessing he was doing more than a ton when he hit the coolant, maybe considerably more. Given the slippery nature of antifreeze, I doubt there was anything the driver could do, particularly given the tail-happy nature of an older Porsche.

3. Was the driver of the car that dumped the coolant at fault? I'm going to say no. The story is he immediately pulled off the driver's line, which is what he is supposed to do. Should he have known the hose was going to blow? This is tough one for me because I am a checkbook mechanic. I always take my car to the shop for a tech inspection before heading to the track. I'm guessing some of you will disagree.

4. Was the track tech inspection at fault? Assuming the inspection was done, I wouldn't think so. I just don't think it is reasonable to say a 15-minute once over will catch potential broken hoses.

5. Was the corner worker at fault? It doesn't sound like it. Apparently this car was in a group of three that came right after the hose blew.

6. Was the track at fault? Who knows? In hindsight, having Armco to keep cars out of the woods sounds like a good idea. But there is no such thing as a 100% safe track. Is it reasonable for the track to incur the expense of Armco for a curve that is only a "kink?" I dunno?

7. Was the DE system at fault? Now, the rubber hits the road. As someone said on another thread, "Trackdays on high speed tracks w/ half the safety equipment to decrease cost are like amateur skydiving w/ only half a parachute."

I'm gonna guess DE nature of this case will be a key legal issue. Because a DE is not a "timed race," my insurance carrier, AIG, will provide coverage for my car. (I checked.) Moreover, I'm thinking that PCA and the track will be held to a higher standard than if this had been a race.

But looking beyond the legal issue, there are a lot of comments that the days of DE have come and gone. At 265 horses, my Cayman is considered a slow car by today's standards. But it wasn't that long ago when race cars made this kind of power. Today, of course, it is nothing to see production sport cars with 500 or more ponies.

So maybe DE will no longer be the entry into racing. Maybe we have gotten to the point where racing schools like Skip Barber and Bondurant will have to be the first step.

What do you think?

Dale

PS I was going to do a PCA DE event to have some fun with my Cayman. After getting raked over the coals because I have never done a PCA event, I have decided to go to a test and tune day.

 

Life is dangerous. This was a terrible tragedy. I cannot express how sorry I am for everyone involved - the driver, the instructor, the driver of the car that lost coolant, the and all of the families.

But this was an accident. Driving on a track is dangerous. So is driving on the road. People die every day on the road. Sometimes it is because somebody did something stupid. Sometimes not.

Sometimes, even when we try our best to do things right, accidents happen. Sometimes, no one is to blame. I think this is one of those times.

 

I was instructing at Watkins Glenn many years ago and was behind the wheel of a factory Carrera Cup car when after coming out of the boot and turning left onto the NASCAR loop (where they turn right) I hit some coolant. Thought I was going to save it but ended up costing me $20k plus in parts at cost and my labor to fix the car. Fortunately neither the student nor myself were injured.

Racing is dangerous but there really is ZERO reason that DE inspections and requirements are not more closer to pro racing requirements.

I'm always dumbfounded when folks ask me where they can buy a cheap helmet for DE events.

My response: I believe my head may be worth as much money as the most expensive safest helmet you can buy what is your head worth?

Then they will reply its only a DE and we are not racing, my response is do you know the formula for Momentum? Mass x Velocity. If your car weighs typically 1000 to 1500 lbs heavier than a race car why would your impact with a wall (momentum) be less destructive not withstanding missing a full rollcage, etc, etc ?

 

+1 Well said.

 

Sorry, folks, been away for a bit, so just now getting back to these.

Really, WCH has addressed them all, but it is worthwhile clarifying.

1. You can waive simple but not gross negligence. We don't KNOW the facts. All we've got are some relatively vague descriptions of what happened. I'm sure we'll know more in the future as they emerge, though. Regardless, the legal question is what "grossly negligent act" did CMP, the organizers, the driver of the vehicle that may have sprayed coolant and any other potentially liable party commit? If, among other factors, it's "grossly negligent" to use or permit the use of coolant, of that the track design was unsafe so that it was "grossly negligent", then liability may attach. However, these are questions for a jury (or judge) to determine once they've heard the evidence. Perhaps this was just an unforeseeable event that ended tragically. They do happen. Also, the instructor himself certainly must take the responsibility of assuming some risk. That's not to say the deceased was "contributing" to the negligence, though (contributory negligence is a different legal concept). Some instructors won't go NEAR a car for just this reason. Instructing novice (and other level) drivers can be dangerous. Driving cars fast has the potential to do damage. Accidents can, and do, happen. This doesn't diminish the grief.

2. Your waiver can bind your heirs, assigns and successors. In this case, without seeing the waiver that was signed or knowing SC law, his Estate could certainly be bound. Or not. But, again, then you'd have to revert to determining IF there was simple or gross negligence. If simple, the waiver should stick, and the Estate would be estopped from bringing the case. However, one can only establish whether the case shouldn't proceed once the level of negligence is determined. So, it's a bit of a problem. To some degree, the suit would have to proceed so as to determine whether there was gross negligence. It all hinges on this.

3. CA was the situs and nexus of the Carrera GT suit. IIRC, the case was filed in CA. The plaintiffs were in CA. The incident was in CA. The deceased was sold and had purchased the vehicle in CA. The track was in CA. Whether PCA or Porsche NA were located in CA, I don't know. However, because they're doing business in CA (selling cars and subscriptions), CA can assert jurisdiction over them. CA also has very favorable consumer protection laws. Thus, I'm virtually certain, without having reviewed the complaint in a long, long time, that CA law was applied (or would eventually have been after any procedural and technical choice of law issues were exhausted).

4. Lawsuits are expensive to file, prosecute and defend. Filing is one thing. Proving the case is another. Collecting, again, is another. So, many suits are settled due to the costs and uncertainties related. Just filing a suit doesn't mean ANYTHING. Settling a suit on economic grounds is not an admission of guilt.

5. My apologies to NC.

CW

 

+2 I suspect the last thing this fellow or his family expected was that he would not be coming home after this event. He may have died doing something he loved, but we owe those who volunteer to be instructors an extra thanks after considering that they put themselves in harm's way every time they strap themselves in as a passenger. May he rest in peace and his family cherish their memories of him.