"2) track owners roles in ensuring their facilities don't possess unnecessary risks." US tracks are chock full of risks for drivers; you can kill yourself almost anywhere. I suspect everyone who races can see that. it is impossible IMO to eliminate "any and all risks to provide the safest racing environment possible." This year I participated in a test day, at Road Atlanta, that paired my car with others turning laps 20 seconds slower - very dangerous, IMO, and yet I played. Art may be more comfortable than most of us with the application of legal liability standards to racing and track days. Given that lawsuits are inevitable, IMO only the most extreme "gross" negilgence should lead to liability of drivers, track owners, teams and the like. I likely disagree strongly with Art on this. For example, I am sorry that Porsche and the other defendants felt it necessary to settle in the sad Fontana incident of a few years back. I think a lower standard of negligence should apply to injury to spectators.
Agreed on all counts. Perhaps Art will correct me on this, but as an event organizer and longtime Club officer operating competitive and non-competitive events, my understanding is that by having ALL participants and crew sign the waiver upon entry to the facility, they would HAVE to prove gross negligence on my part to have a chance to move forward on a suit for death or injury. My understanding has always been that the signing of the waiver "raises the bar" to the point where negligence is not sufficient and gross negligence must be proven.
Depends on the jurisdiction. In California, a signed release for a competitor generally means that unless the negligence is gross (and there isn't a definition of what gross means), the release will usually work. The leading case is the Knight v. Jewet case, which defines the doctrine of assumption of risk. However, having a mechanic sign such a release is going be more of a problem, and spectators even further problems. The general test in California is: has the defendant track put something in that isn't needed for the particular sport that increases the danger to the competitors. The case, which I can't recall the name, was a skiing case where they put in some poles that weren't used, and someone ran into one of them, and the court held liability on the ski resort. Same thing with the track, if it isn't essential, and someone gets hurt because of it, then there is probably liability, irrespective of the release. Hope that helps. Art
