Carrera GT Crash Settled at $4.5m

I am not close to the situation, but from the outside
1. The passenger signed a waiver at the beginning of the track session
2. The passenger asked for a ride (nobody held a gun to his head and said "Get In")
3. The passenger was present during the time the CGT had spun multiple times and still wanted a ride

Bottomline
The passenger made a decision as an adult to participate.

Result
Two families are left without fathers and the Keatons also made to fork over $2.2M to the make them feel better.


Not cool.

Lesson learned
I will NEVER give a ride to anyone on a track, EVER.

 

Preventing that is exactly what the HANS device was designed for. What a shame.

 

Thankyou! - "Learn something every day" - I just have a bad feeling I've seen people wearing 'em with "stock" belts - Now I'm hoping I'm mistaken.....

Cheers,
Ian

 

BTW, I was so eager to pass on my thanks for you telling me to RTFM - I forgot to ask if the CGT has the "4/6 point harness" thats a pre-requisite for the HANS device?

Cheers,
Ian

 

Not to my knowledge; I've not seen that level of detail in any of the case notes. I suspect it was a bone-stock CGT.

Not only that, I've never seen anyone wear a HANS in a road car, which this CGT clearly was. I have seen lots of poseurs wearing karting neck collars, though!

 

And therefore equipped with the "default" 3-point seatbelts.

OK - Thinking more on this, I've decided I was wrong (!) - The guys I remember with the HANS were driving challenge cars / "stock cars" and the like. Phew!

Cheers,
Ian

 

So true... <grin>

The event operators, from what I understand, failed the "negligence" test. That kicked it into "gross negligence" territory, which is why it went this far and was settled for this much...

-Peter
www.peterkrause.net

 

There was a bad accident [loss of life] a few years ago at a 'sister' event to "my" event - Fortunately for us, the only "visible" change was the waiver grew from a single page to about five pages.....

I don't have a copy (it gets sent in with the entry - no last minute sign ups here!) BUT I'm pretty sure it explicitly excludes *everything*, including "gross negligence" and "invasion from Mars" on the part of the operators; and anyone else come to that.......

I'm not an attorney [thank-God] but at least a few must have decided this thing was "watertight" enough to allow us to continue to play.

I guess the "waivers" in this (terrible) case weren't the same.....

Cheers,
Ian

 

I'm pretty sure the waivers in this case were just as watertight. That's what is so upsetting about this case: They just overruled the waiver and said gross negligence is not covered no matter what the waiver says.

After this I'm stunned anybody is still organizing any kind of track events in California.

 

Agreed - The event to which I'm referring is in Nevada [Gotta love Nevada ]

 

It's the court's way of saying that no man has the free will to agree to anything, as well as that no Congress or Constitution has the right to limit a court's power.