Track liability waivers not enforceable?
12-15-2017, 07:33 PM
#46
Rennlist Hoonigan
which cost no drachmas
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
which cost no drachmas
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
For PCA, if you have questions, email the national insurance person, Ken Laborde. He'll answer any questions you have and is the person to give you the information.
12-15-2017, 09:16 PM
#47
Rennlist Member
I have meet this US District Judge on a university sponsored trip and so queried the internet because I remembered he was appointed by Bill Clinton,
Read his appointment and an overturned decision.
Stay turned for Stewart trial, or out of court settlement, or if trial with jury decision, dependent could appeal.
On the recommendation of U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Hurd was nominated to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York by President Bill Clintonon February 12, 1999, to a seat vacated by Constantine Cholakis, as Cholakis was assumed senior status. Hurd was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on September 13, 1999, on a majority vote and received commission on September 22, 1999.[3]
A federal appeals court recently questioned a local federal judge’s neutrality toward a Utica drug case and has ordered that the matter be transferred to another judge.
According to a Dec. 23 written decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a previous decision by District Judge David N. Hurd that suppressed drug evidence seized in connection to the 2008 arrest of Dean Steppello.
The three-judge panel found that Hurd was wrong to rule that members of the state police Community Narcotics Enforcement Team, or CNET, did not have probable cause to arrest Steppello, 39, in the driveway of a potential drug buyer.
A federal appeals court recently questioned a local federal judge’s neutrality toward a Utica drug case and has ordered that the matter be transferred to another judge.
According to a Dec. 23 written decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a previous decision by District Judge David N. Hurd that suppressed drug evidence seized in connection to the 2008 arrest of Dean Steppello.
The three-judge panel found that Hurd was wrong to rule that members of the state police Community Narcotics Enforcement Team, or CNET, did not have probable cause to arrest Steppello, 39, in the driveway of a potential drug buyer.
Read his appointment and an overturned decision.
Stay turned for Stewart trial, or out of court settlement, or if trial with jury decision, dependent could appeal.
On the recommendation of U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Hurd was nominated to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York by President Bill Clintonon February 12, 1999, to a seat vacated by Constantine Cholakis, as Cholakis was assumed senior status. Hurd was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on September 13, 1999, on a majority vote and received commission on September 22, 1999.[3]
A federal appeals court recently questioned a local federal judge’s neutrality toward a Utica drug case and has ordered that the matter be transferred to another judge.
According to a Dec. 23 written decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a previous decision by District Judge David N. Hurd that suppressed drug evidence seized in connection to the 2008 arrest of Dean Steppello.
The three-judge panel found that Hurd was wrong to rule that members of the state police Community Narcotics Enforcement Team, or CNET, did not have probable cause to arrest Steppello, 39, in the driveway of a potential drug buyer.
A federal appeals court recently questioned a local federal judge’s neutrality toward a Utica drug case and has ordered that the matter be transferred to another judge.
According to a Dec. 23 written decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a previous decision by District Judge David N. Hurd that suppressed drug evidence seized in connection to the 2008 arrest of Dean Steppello.
The three-judge panel found that Hurd was wrong to rule that members of the state police Community Narcotics Enforcement Team, or CNET, did not have probable cause to arrest Steppello, 39, in the driveway of a potential drug buyer.
12-16-2017, 02:21 PM
#48
This appears to be the text of the ruling. Honda guys are apparently better researchers than us:
united states district court northern district of new york - S2Ki. (.pdf)
12-16-2017, 03:22 PM
#49
This line says it all: "Despite the strong words of warning included in both the ESS Release and the CMP Release (collectively the "Releases"), it is unlikely that either Stewart or Ward Jr. needed to
be reminded of the dangers—the August 9 sprint car race was a far cry from being either driver's first time around a race track."
If there hadn't been the abnormalities in the releases (who signed what when), the result probably would have been different. Throw in the question about whether both drivers were being asshats (ward for getting out, stewart for getting too close) and there's no chance a court is going to throw this one out.
Most courts will honor releases that are written, presented, and executed properly.
be reminded of the dangers—the August 9 sprint car race was a far cry from being either driver's first time around a race track."
If there hadn't been the abnormalities in the releases (who signed what when), the result probably would have been different. Throw in the question about whether both drivers were being asshats (ward for getting out, stewart for getting too close) and there's no chance a court is going to throw this one out.
Most courts will honor releases that are written, presented, and executed properly.
12-16-2017, 05:55 PM
#50
Rennlist Member
This line says it all: "Despite the strong words of warning included in both the ESS Release and the CMP Release (collectively the "Releases"), it is unlikely that either Stewart or Ward Jr. needed to
be reminded of the dangers—the August 9 sprint car race was a far cry from being either driver's first time around a race track."
If there hadn't been the abnormalities in the releases (who signed what when), the result probably would have been different. Throw in the question about whether both drivers were being asshats (ward for getting out, stewart for getting too close) and there's no chance a court is going to throw this one out.
Most courts will honor releases that are written, presented, and executed properly.
be reminded of the dangers—the August 9 sprint car race was a far cry from being either driver's first time around a race track."
If there hadn't been the abnormalities in the releases (who signed what when), the result probably would have been different. Throw in the question about whether both drivers were being asshats (ward for getting out, stewart for getting too close) and there's no chance a court is going to throw this one out.
Most courts will honor releases that are written, presented, and executed properly.
I do think the operative fact is the allegation (and ambiguous evidence against and in support of that allegation) that Stewart intentionally acted to hit Ward. If this was a clear case of unintentional conduct, I think the activity is suddenly not recreation and the waiver is upheld. That's unfortunately how courts do things sometimes.
12-16-2017, 07:26 PM
#51
Rennlist Member
The decision is... weird. The apparent willingness by the judge to deem any activity that isn't net profitable to be "recreation," and therefore the statute voids the waivers, is indeed troubling. Under that framework Sauber F1 should be clamoring for a return to Watkins Glen in 2018. It's just not a workable or logical framework or one that fits within the ethos of the sport which the court emphasizes (and is highlighted above) before ignoring. I'd be very interested to see what an appellate court thought of this decision.
I do think the operative fact is the allegation (and ambiguous evidence against and in support of that allegation) that Stewart intentionally acted to hit Ward. If this was a clear case of unintentional conduct, I think the activity is suddenly not recreation and the waiver is upheld. That's unfortunately how courts do things sometimes.
I do think the operative fact is the allegation (and ambiguous evidence against and in support of that allegation) that Stewart intentionally acted to hit Ward. If this was a clear case of unintentional conduct, I think the activity is suddenly not recreation and the waiver is upheld. That's unfortunately how courts do things sometimes.
The ruling tries to build a strong case that in this case,.Ward was a recreational race driver because his father funded the effort from his business. The ruling stated that he did not receive sufficient prize money to cover expenses, thus it was recreation.
BUT, the judge's ruling is based on anecdotal information on whether Ward racing is recreation. The court should ask for Ward's father's federal income tax filing because he might be taking these expense as a loss through his business or formed a limited partnership to take the expenses as a loss on federal and state income tax.
There's more to this case than just what you are reading in the opinion.
12-16-2017, 11:58 PM
#54
12-17-2017, 09:00 AM
#55
Rennlist Member
Just read the overturned ruling in a drug case. I believe he is a "social justice" federal judge and for victim aka President William Jefferson Clinton
12-17-2017, 10:13 AM
#56
Rennlist Member
And not just for instructors.
12-17-2017, 10:46 AM
#57
WRONGLY ACCUSED!
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Connecticut Valley Region
Posts: 14,469
Received 3,285 Likes
on
1,589 Posts
Again, this is why appellate courts are necessary. Trial court judges are more apt to be swayed by the facts of a case, rather than the legal merits, such as where a young boy is struck down in his prime by a rich professional race car driver. The judge has to walk around in that community after the ruling.
Appellate judges are more dispassionate and are supposed to just look at the law - although you only have to look at the SJWs at the Supreme Court level to realize what a problem it is when judges start letting their feelings enter into their decision making process.
12-17-2017, 11:21 AM
#58
Rennlist Member
Absolutely.
Again, this is why appellate courts are necessary. Trial court judges are more apt to be swayed by the facts of a case, rather than the legal merits, such as where a young boy is struck down in his prime by a rich professional race car driver. The judge has to walk around in that community after the ruling.
Appellate judges are more dispassionate and are supposed to just look at the law - although you only have to look at the SJWs at the Supreme Court level to realize what a problem it is when judges start letting their feelings enter into their decision making process.
Again, this is why appellate courts are necessary. Trial court judges are more apt to be swayed by the facts of a case, rather than the legal merits, such as where a young boy is struck down in his prime by a rich professional race car driver. The judge has to walk around in that community after the ruling.
Appellate judges are more dispassionate and are supposed to just look at the law - although you only have to look at the SJWs at the Supreme Court level to realize what a problem it is when judges start letting their feelings enter into their decision making process.
12-17-2017, 11:40 AM
#59
No court in America, conservative or activist, local or from a geographical area different from the parties, would have ruled differently. All this court did was rule that there are issues of fact that a jury must decide. This court is not making any determination of fact, and is not making any law.
12-17-2017, 11:54 AM
#60
Rennlist Hoonigan
which cost no drachmas
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
which cost no drachmas
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
No court in America, conservative or activist, local or from a geographical area different from the parties, would have ruled differently. All this court did was rule that there are issues of fact that a jury must decide. This court is not making any determination of fact, and is not making any law.