pedsurg

John Brown: Such a list (including the lawyers) was being generated in the medical field to allow practioners to id such folk. Idea apparantly collapsed under threat of legal action. However, individual practioners have been successful in excluding members of the trial bar from their individual practices, not that I would ever advocate such an approach. : )

Jack

pedsurg

Keeping people inclined to sue (and their lawyers) out of motosports may be easier than keeping them out of medicine; medicine is often/sometimes considered a right while motorsports is much more a privilege.

Additionally, all that might be needed, is a higher level of scutiny for such low lifes. Picture ID at track registration, notorized entry forms, tech sheets and waivers; a very careful (master instructor) sign off ride to solo or entrance into instructing.

Local or state groups could easily identify such people (I use the word loosely) and I'm sure PCA national is capable. Also, such sanctions don't have to be absolute and could be subject to appeal (I didn't mean to sue Porsche re the design of the 930, it just happened!)

Jack

TD in DC

Yeah, IIRC, doctors in some parts of the country exclude lawyers and their families from receiving medical care regardless of whether the lawyer has ever had anything to do with suing a doctor. Pathetic.

I don't see how excluding someone from medical care based upon profession and assumptions about likelihood to sue is consistent with this:

HIPPOCRATIC OATH

I swear by Apollo Physician, by Asclepius, by Health, by Heal-all, and by all the gods and goddesses, making them witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture: To regard my teacher in this art as equal to my parents; to make him partner in my livelihood, and when he is in need of money to share mine with him; to consider his offspring equal to my brothers; to teach them this art, if they require to learn it, without fee or indenture; and to impart precept, oral instruction, and all the other learning, to my sons, to the sons of my teacher, and to pupils who have signed the indenture and sworn obedience to the physicians¹ Law, but to none other.
I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but I will never use it to injure or wrong them. I will not give poison to anyone though asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a plan. Similarly I will not give a pessary to a woman to cause abortion. But in purity and in holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife either on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein. Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will do so to help the sick, keeping myself free from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from fornication with woman or man, bond or free. Whatsoever in the course of practice I see or hear (or even outside my practice in social intercourse) that ought never be published abroad, I will not divulge, but consider such things to be holy secrets.
Now if I keep this oath and break it not, may I enjoy honour, in my life and art, among all men for all time; but if I transgress and forswear myself, may the opposite befall me.

Source: W.H.S. Jones, The Doctor's Oath. ( Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1924), 11, 12.

(For the record, I am not a plaintiff's attorney).




Rather than trying to spend a lot of time and money trying to make PCA exclusionary based upon assumptions about which participants might potentially sue in the event of an incident, why don't we just (1) make sure that we run top notch events and train our instructors very well; and (2) rely on guys like me to make certain that the legal foundation for PCA, including the waivers that participants must sign, is as strong as possible and provides the best possible protection for instructors and participants. That would be a far more constructive approach than trying to create a mini Department of Homeland Security. I mean, we all know how effective that is. I know I feel much safer.

Of course, if you happen to realize that someone directly responsible for past or current actions that are hostile towards the club is a member of the club, then you can, depending upon the circumstances, revoke the membership. (You would have to look at the circumstances of the action. The last thing you would want to do is revoke membership for someone who claimed to be the victim of a crime -- think rape -- at an event). No membership, no participation. This would be much more effective than creating an SS faction for the local PCA chapter.

P.S. I do not mean this comment as a criticism of the way things are done now. I just want us to keep our eyes on the ball and not create additional problems for ourselves.

John Brown

Jack, Todd.

My specific comments weren't intended to suggest an institutional organized 'blacklisting' at all. Rather focused on individual responsibility and actions for specific instances.

For reasons that escape me it seems to be 'secret' when an action is brought against the organization. If the factual details were made known then I, as an individual, might choose to not associate with one party should it appear to me that their behavior was dishonest or not reflective of accepting full responsiblity for their own actions. I can not do anyone any harm. But I can choose to 'shun' them.

Sure, anyone is free to sue. Just be able and willing to stand proudly and publicly behind your action.

TD in DC

John,

I know you and understand your comments. Anyone who knows me personally knows how addicted I am to track events, and knows how I personally would feel towards any jerk who tries to ruin it for the rest of us.

Understand that PCA keeps the details secret in order not to inadvertently hurt themselves in court. It is the right thing to do. It is also why PCA should be the ones to make the decision whether to revoke membership. If they revoke membership, then your goal would be accomplished without anyone ever needing to know the gory details.

TD

macnewma

I don't like BS lawsuits, but I also don't like the idea of stipping people of legal recourse. Certainly there are shady lawyers like there are shady doctors, accountants, teachers, pilots, cops, etc. Somehow I don't think those lawyers will last long taking on BS lawsuits as those almost always thrown out. I have faith in our system laws but I also don't expect perfection. The alternative, where there is no recourse is far uglier.

If your spouse was killed in a plane crash and you later find out that the pilot had faked his credentials and that the airline knew about this but did nothing, I would hope there would be an avenue for legal recourse.

If you got in a car with an instructor and the instructor had lied about his experience and somehow PCA was negligent in ensuring that you received a qualified instructor and all of this resulted in you dying in a wreck, I would hope that there would be recourse for your spouse.

Certainly I would hope that neither of these situations would occur and I am confident that PCA is competent. Now if someone sues because they open the radiator cap on their 930 and it sprays their face causing blindness during a DE and decides it is PCA's fault for being there, that is BS! (actually, I would have to give them credit for having a radiator on a 930 ) I am also confident that a judge would laugh at them.

Somehow I doubt you would need to worry about shunning people as I can't imagine it would be that rampant within PCA. Beyond that, they person is probably so exceptionally socially disturbed they probably wouldn't notice the shunning.

Finally, I think TD is right. PCA will be fine so long as they take the necessary precautions to ensure that they hold responsible events. Responsibility is a two way street with DEs. If PCA holds up their end of the bargain I wouldn't be too worried.

BTW, what kind of liability do I take on when I have a passenger in the car such as an instructor? Would the instructor's family have much recourse in the case of an accident caused by a student?

pedsurg

Don't be so sure a judge would laugh at them. : )

Jack

macnewma

You might be right. I guess that is just an issue with the laws. I really can't speak to the likelihood of a BS lawsuit making it to trial. Maybe I have more faith in the legal system.

TD in DC

The problem isn't really with the judges. If it truly is a frivolous lawsuit, most judges and juries would laugh it out of court. Even if they didn't, most would get tossed out on appeal. The problem really has to do with the cost to defend yourself against any type of lawsuit, whether frivolous or not. That's what makes some people settle without too much regard to merit.

It still doesn't really change anything, and I stick by my comments above.

APKhaos

This is the precise point that specialtive lawsuits attack. They assume, often rightly, that the insurer will settle rather than incurr the cost of litigation. In many cases, they are right [which makes their slimy strategy no less odious].

pedsurg

TD: You're right. It's usually about the money; as Jerry would say "Show me the money!"

That's why I cannot understand why anyone would desire to electively admit a personal injury attorney into his or her private practice (particularly in Florida) let alone their car.

Jack

TD in DC

Jack,

I don't have a problem with people despising these types of tactics. I have a problem with the suggested response to the tactics. Specifically, not all personal injury attorneys are created equal (again, I am not one, so I don't really have a dog in this particular fight). Some dirtbags deserve to be sued. Our society is better in part because dirtbags are called to task and they fear getting sued. Ethical personal injury attorneys -- yes, it is not an oxymoron -- would not involve themselves with any frivolous suits, and they could very well be extremely productive members of any driving club without increasing the risk that the club would get sued. In fact, they might be one of the club's greatest assets in fighting frivolous actions. So, you have good personal injury attorneys and bad personal injury attorneys. Until you have evidence that they have taken actions to hurt the club, it is offensive and a waste of time to try to weed out the bad ones from the good ones, or, worse yet, exclude them all just to be safe.

Actually, the same is true with doctors, including pediatric surgeons. Some, but certainly not all, are true dirtbags whose crimes can result in the death or maiming of innocents. I don't want to have anything to do with such dirtbags. However, until you do something to prove me wrong, I am going to assume that you are a good surgeon worthy of the benefit of a doubt. I feel the same way about personal injury attorneys (alright, they make me nervous too, but, as I explain below, excluding them would cause greater injury than I am willing to accept).

In the end, I participate in track events not only because I like to drive, but also because I like to meet other people who share my interests. I simply want to have a good time. If the club starts trying to predict my worth on the basis of my profession, or requires me to serve some sort of a policing function against my fellow members (the elected officers and workers are responsible for this -- for example, calling out drivers based on reckless moves or failure to give point bys, etc . . .), then it will interfere with the type of atmosphere I personally would like to see in the paddock. I want everyone to drive as hard as they want on the track (in accordance with the club "spirit") and have a great time off the track, preferably involving as much alcohol and cigars as possible without interfering with the on track activities

TD

kurt M

Is the attorney more likely to sue you? What is the data on this? Not are they more likely to sue you on behalf of someone else but to sue you on their own.

Barristers can reject a potential client for any or no reason. You can just say no and keep your reason to yourself. A Dr. should be able to as well. I am not talking withholding needed treatment but to not add someone to a private practice beforehand.

TD is spot on, you cannot judge someone based on the actions of others in the same line of work.

TD in DC

Great point. You probably have more to fear from the idiot non-attorney who can easily go out and hire any attorney they want than from an attorney. The same is true for both PCA and doctors.

Medical care is a need, not a want, and it is just like the need to have defense counsel should you be accused of a crime. If you need a defense counsel, a judge will order someone to respresent you for free even if no attorney wants to represent you because they think you are a dirtbag. Is it unpleasant? Of course, but it is the price that you must pay for having the privilege of being a professional in an exclusionary profession.

pedsurg

Fair enough and touche. But I remain disturbed that our mutual hobby and my profession remain under fierce attack by such unscrupulous individuals. Think of all the time , money and major BS we unnecessarily endure every Sat AM at the track because of this situation.


Jack