Politically incorrect about CGT crash

Lawsuits and trial lawyers are the single biggest reason for creeping mediocrity in American society. They singlehandedly remove the incentive for anyone to reach out and offer anything that may carry any degree of risk to the user or consumer.

Even in cases like the Fontana tragedy, every participant there was participating of their own free will, fully cognizant of the risks involved in running high powered cars on a race track, yet some lawyers believe that they can earn a huge percentage fee by finding someone responsible.

I believe it is absurd to try and ascribe blame to anyone in this situation.

 

That is BU!!****. You dont go out and buy a CGT because it is going to be your "drive only to church" vehicle. If something is wrong with the car you dont take it on the track or give test rides in it. Porsche should not be blamed for selling one of their products. That is like suing McDonalds cause it makes us fat. If it does that to you then dont eat the ****. Has America became a country of such "b!tches" that you have to sue the car manufacturer just for selling a quality, high speed sports car because someone died behind the wheel of it. I bet if he was in a civic, honda would not have a lawsuit on their hands.

 

This was discussed in OT recently...

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=106104

The TORT system in this country has become sanctioned extorsion in many cases... and is in dire need of reform IMO.

Interesting to read through the posts in the link above and play "guess who's a lawyer..."

 

100% Correct!

 

actually , I track alot and am pretty clued into the 'at your own risk' thing.

that , and I am a litigation lawyer to boot.

but from reading about that CGT crash , I think that that "track marshall"
that waved that Ferrari onto the track made a very very big error of
judgment which had , as it turned out , an even more unfortunate
consequence.

of course , suing Porsche is plain stupid.

cheers.
.

 

Wow I just read the article, what an ****** attorney and a bigger ****** client. To sue Ben's family, these things happen on racetracks. Sure the Marshall should be flogged, but to blame everyone involved is a joke. Boy would I like to see that JOKER of a lawyer having his nuts in a vice grip.

 

its sad when people take advantage of the stiuation and do things like this. I dont know how they could "win" this one since there are disclamers all over the car/track. but i frogot that in this day and age you can sue some one for getting burned on hot coffie. what is this country comming to?

 

Two words: LOSER PAYS

 

Note to LLOYD and TURBOFLAT -

please don't (for our collective sakes) , get into this thread.

please , please.

haha.

 

Just wish to point out that the track marshall/flagman was potentially negligent by waving out the ferrari which initiated the chain of events that caused the tragedy. Suppose the ferrari did not make it out on the track then probability of the accident was nil.

Someone made a mistake that caused the accident. The passenger's wife is suing which is very understandable.

 

That would be the best thing to ever happen as far as tort reform.

Motive is the least likely thing to be known, but most often thing imputed in our emotionally driven society. How the h*ll can you judge such a blatant unknown. Logic takes a holiday, yet again.

 

I've said it before and again: When you sue, you need to list everybody.

 

A sobering reminder of risks involved, which personally I am well sensitive of in Track Environments....

This is sad, as I'm sure the survivors had adequate personal insurance, but when there's children in the picture....well, you obviously don't understand maternal instinct if you don't think...

THIS MONEY GRUBBING WENCH IS GONNA SQUEEZE EVERYBODY WITHIN A FIVE MILE RADIUS OF THE TRACK!

However, IMO her husband sign HER rights away if he entered the event, signed a waiver, and climbed in and slammed the door....we'll see what the Judge says.....odds are she'll net something. Not from Porsche...

At the events there is a Rider in place, usually, I have purchased them...that's as deep as she can recover, I'd think.

 

Not to highjack the thread, but the CGT crash brought home to me how fast streetable cars have become and an inherent higher risk of injury and death should something go wrong. I track cars a lot, did so today, but I'm no pro and I am fully aware that if something goes wrong at 150mph, I do not have the necessary skills that pros have to recover a car out of shape or make a life saving move. Just as important, the CGT (and others) while capapble of very high speeds, do not have the safety equipment required in race cars that can save your life.

I'm sure the marshall is punishing himself enough over this. I don't know what the solution is, but personally, I would not want to be doing 150 on a track where the marshalls are amateur club members (no offense, I put in plenty of corner duty myself) and the other cars have a wide range of capabilitites as do the drivers. I read a letter in Roundel recently where one of the BMW instructors has quit because he no longer wants to ride in cars capable of reaching 125-150 on straights with newbie drivers who think the car makes them into Juan Montoyas.

I hope this lawsuit fails, but all of us who track cars need to take safety more seriously than before. We should insist that clubs have some policy to help newbies when they show up with 500HP and are overloaded with testosterone. Perhaps there needs to me more sorting of sessions by car capabilities and driver capabilities. Would hate to see this happen again.

Dave

 

It sounds like the widow had someone put a bug in her ear about how wrong everything was and that she is entitled to compensation. This was an accident resulting in a perfect storm. Why not sue Corry for not using better judgement and driving with a non-professional driver in a street car? Same kind of thing.

Many of the rules and regulations that we have to deal with today were from law suits that restrict future activities. Unfortunately stuff like this ruins it for everyone else.

 

They forgot to sue Lamborghini for a defective car; If Rudl's Lambo had been working properly, he wouldn't have been in Ben's car....

 

"I think that that "track marshal" that waved that Ferrari onto the track made a very, very big error of judgment which had, as it turned out , an even more unfortunate consequence."

Unfortunately, that may be true... But of course, the case can be made that the driver of the Ferrari had the final decision whether to exit pit out...

Whatever happened to common sense and personal responsibility?

 

The risks associated with track days are generally clearly articulated at the drivers briefing. Suing Ben Keatons family, to my mind at least, is a new low. The basic contention that Ben Keaton wilfully and recklessly mislead Corey into taking undisclosed risks in a dangerous car is sickening. I'm sure the widow will say she is following her lawyers advice and has nothing against the Keaton family, but this isn't good enough. SHAME SHAME SHAME...

 

it sadly has become that way

 

Sure they would.

 

This entire situation is very sad. But I think it is a symptom of our society in general.
On October 17, 2000, my first wife was driving a 1999 Subaru Outback on I-40 between Greensboro and Winston-Salem, NC, when she lost control of her car...according to the state patrol, the driver's side tires went off the side of the road, she likely overcorrected bringing the car into a spin and was struck on the driver side by another car at full Xpressway speed. The other driver was driving with a revoked license. I never saw my wife alive again. She was 35 years old at the time; I was 36. It took a long time to put my life back together....but suing someone or everyone is NOT the answer. Bad things happen...yes, people need to be held responsible, but suing Porsche is just plain stupid. Yes, my wife was hit by an unlicensed driver. No, the Subaru did not have side-impact airbags, and they were being introduced into new vehicles. But she was the one who lost control of her car initially. Is suing going to bring her back? Will it make me feel better to make others suffer?

I have recently become interested in tracking sportscars. I even recently participated in a High Performance Driving school to improve my skills or lack thereof. Yes, there are risks associated with this. But I am not convinced that they are greater than what all of us do every day. Some people are convinced that my adventure travel to places like Vietnam or Mongolia is very risky...I say that the people who were killed on 9/11 simply went to work that day. My first wife was on the way to a beauty salon. The truth is that most people die at or near their home doing for the most part their routine activities. Sometimes, disaster strikes...and it will strike all of us sooner or later. And nothing we do can bring back the lives of the deceased.

Anyway, I am sympathetic to the widow, as I know what it is like to experience tremendous sadness and loss...but I am NOT sympathetic over this attempt to blame everyone for a terrible tragedy. My 2 cents!

 

Jesus, Ethan... I'm sorry for your loss... No one can know what you've been through. Thoroughly sobering post...

-Peter (believe that tracking is safer than public roads. Have the data to prove it.)

 

I agree with you.

but unforunately , from what I have read about this incident , its a 'strange'
kind of track where when a car exits the pits , they exit right in front of
cars speeding down the straight (a very strange place indeed to have a
pit exit).

At both the local tracks which I have attended , the pitlane exits onto the
end of the main straight where cars coming up are already beginning to brake,
hence the risk of a highspeed collision/avoidance/swerving is very much
reduced.

That and there is that thick white line that an exiting car must not cross as
its getting up to speed.

I very much agree with you about the driver having the final say about 'how'
he exits. I am (and I am sure all who track) very very mindful of my mirrors
as I exit and would usually not even bother to exit if there are cars coming
down the straight as I don't want to impede them in any way.

It would all depend , I feel , on how/why the pit exit was designed as it was
in the CGT case and whether the exiting Ferrari driver even had a view (or
was capable of getting a view) of the speeding cars. If the Ferrari driver had
no view and relied totally on the marshall , then something is very wrong with
the whole marshalling system AND the track layout itself.

cheers.
.

 

You can question the layout of the pit exit --- but that layout existed (as did the wall by the play area) before the participants decided to sign the release form and go racing there.

Does the widow also sue her late husband's estate for choosing that track to race at? (rhetorical)

The suit would have to negate the free choices made with the pre-existing conditions, so the basis of the suit appears to be that the participants weren't competent to make their own choices in this matter, thus shifting the blame to everyone else for not "taking care of" us poor dumb peepil.

How long can our courts support such theories before concluding that government is far too complex to be left in the hands of "We the People"?

At some point in the grieving process, you do tend to be angry at the departed loved one for dying on you -- especially in a sporting accident -- and at a world where they could be taken from you. But translating your grief into a lawsuit against everyone for not excluding individuals from the sport of their own choice is insulting to the lost one's memory.

How many club racers have addressed this issue with your own spouse? Do you go racing despite their objections? Do you simply leave the risks undiscussed, ignoring the issue?