What Do You Think of This...DE & Lawsuit?
06-14-2006, 09:57 PM
#61
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Would be nice to see a statistic in regards to miles completed on DE events and in regular traffic. One could then make a safety statement.
Everytime I have participated on a drivers meeting it was all about safety. No racing, pay attention, look out before entering the track, make clear signals.... safety safety safety.
BUT especially first timers get the adrenalin pumping and will make mistakes. So if that happens? Then one sues?
I gues you could say you should have known that you could get hurt...
Everytime I have participated on a drivers meeting it was all about safety. No racing, pay attention, look out before entering the track, make clear signals.... safety safety safety.
BUT especially first timers get the adrenalin pumping and will make mistakes. So if that happens? Then one sues?
I gues you could say you should have known that you could get hurt...
06-14-2006, 10:22 PM
#62
Rennlist Member
Brian,
I love the Liddy quote.
I don't doubt the veracity of what you are saying. We see all kinds of errors that result in wrecks, and I guess any wreck can be fatal. But, after nearly 40 years of competitive motorsports, I haven't seen or HEARD of a passenger dying, and certainly haven't seen a driver die in a DE setting. I think two deaths in one car raises the level of concern, and suggests that some vital combination of skill, caution, and safety measures was not present.
If this accident had occurred on the street, the widow of the passenger would have sued the driver. In that case, one would presume negligence or recklessness since the speed limits were clearly violated. On the track, that presumption doesn't exist, as there is no speed limit.
However, it appears that other conventions or rules were likely circumvented or violated, resulting in the same actionable outcome.
I have previously said that it is kind of nuts to allow rank novices on a track in cars that could have won top end pro races in the past. The CGT stock could probably have won Lemans as recently as the 1970's. It would certainly beat a race-prepped GT40. I know I had competed in many events before I entered a car as powerful as the CGT.
Maybe a true competition license should be a requirement for certain classes of cars. Or maybe, instead of a decible limit, there should be maximum speed enforcement until competence is established.
It certainly seems that there are some methodologies we should change now, to avoid a repeat. Maybe a no passenger rule, maybe graded speed ratings, maybe licensure of some sort.
I didn't notice the white line that is typically present at pit exit. Maybe that's the cause. I don't know for sure. But something sure went wrong, and since I typically track cars with 450+ hp, I'd like it not to happen to me next. AS
I love the Liddy quote.
I don't doubt the veracity of what you are saying. We see all kinds of errors that result in wrecks, and I guess any wreck can be fatal. But, after nearly 40 years of competitive motorsports, I haven't seen or HEARD of a passenger dying, and certainly haven't seen a driver die in a DE setting. I think two deaths in one car raises the level of concern, and suggests that some vital combination of skill, caution, and safety measures was not present.
If this accident had occurred on the street, the widow of the passenger would have sued the driver. In that case, one would presume negligence or recklessness since the speed limits were clearly violated. On the track, that presumption doesn't exist, as there is no speed limit.
However, it appears that other conventions or rules were likely circumvented or violated, resulting in the same actionable outcome.
I have previously said that it is kind of nuts to allow rank novices on a track in cars that could have won top end pro races in the past. The CGT stock could probably have won Lemans as recently as the 1970's. It would certainly beat a race-prepped GT40. I know I had competed in many events before I entered a car as powerful as the CGT.
Maybe a true competition license should be a requirement for certain classes of cars. Or maybe, instead of a decible limit, there should be maximum speed enforcement until competence is established.
It certainly seems that there are some methodologies we should change now, to avoid a repeat. Maybe a no passenger rule, maybe graded speed ratings, maybe licensure of some sort.
I didn't notice the white line that is typically present at pit exit. Maybe that's the cause. I don't know for sure. But something sure went wrong, and since I typically track cars with 450+ hp, I'd like it not to happen to me next. AS
06-14-2006, 10:29 PM
#63
Rennlist Member
Was the driver of the CGT experienced? I thought I read he was very experienced.
Mike
Mike
06-14-2006, 10:36 PM
#64
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Alexander Stemer
Not so irrelevant. Track days where everybody does what the rules say are more predictable.
I'm predicting the waiver won't matter, because there were deviations from self-imposed standards.
AS
I'm predicting the waiver won't matter, because there were deviations from self-imposed standards.
AS
When I had my shunt at Road America, I received a follow-up letter from the track which made it quite apparent that they were worried about getting sued. I wrote them back and told them they had nothing to worry about.
If my wife sued the racetrack after my death, I would try to come back from the afterlife to talk some spooky sense into her. After watching Kentucky lose 137 net ob-gyns in the past 3 years, I see the very legitimate toll these lawsuits are having on folks' access to needed services (or perhaps much desired hobbies in the case of racetracks). In our city of Lexington, a majority of ob-gyns are not accepting new patients, and many have completely given up obstetrics or at least high-risk obstetrics. Is this making the world a better or safer place?
06-14-2006, 10:46 PM
#65
Originally Posted by Alexander Stemer
TD,
My prediction is not based on certainty, because this whole process can be very caprecious. There is a "facts speak for themselves" element, however. (Yes, I admit we don't really KNOW all the facts 'til presented in evidence, tested, and verified). That is what underlies my prediction.
The obvious point is that people don't die at DE events. Have we heard of other organized DE events where a passenger has died? I certainly accept that this may have happened, but, if so, it is a rare event. The implication is that the death transpired because of events not known to or predictable by the passenger. He therefore accepted a risk he could not have reasonably known.
If everyone who thinks this cas has no validity were confident of that conclusion, there would be no debate, because the facts would be so clear that even if a jury erred, an appellate court would clean up the mess. AS
In the end, I don't think we will see the end of track days. There are now more opportunities than ever. Costs may rise, but they always do, until they reach the limits a willing buyer will pay a willing seller.
From Cory's widow's perspective, there are some facts she really needs to know, and she is at least entitled to that. AS
My prediction is not based on certainty, because this whole process can be very caprecious. There is a "facts speak for themselves" element, however. (Yes, I admit we don't really KNOW all the facts 'til presented in evidence, tested, and verified). That is what underlies my prediction.
The obvious point is that people don't die at DE events. Have we heard of other organized DE events where a passenger has died? I certainly accept that this may have happened, but, if so, it is a rare event. The implication is that the death transpired because of events not known to or predictable by the passenger. He therefore accepted a risk he could not have reasonably known.
If everyone who thinks this cas has no validity were confident of that conclusion, there would be no debate, because the facts would be so clear that even if a jury erred, an appellate court would clean up the mess. AS
In the end, I don't think we will see the end of track days. There are now more opportunities than ever. Costs may rise, but they always do, until they reach the limits a willing buyer will pay a willing seller.
From Cory's widow's perspective, there are some facts she really needs to know, and she is at least entitled to that. AS
In the end, though, the facts will count. Was there negligence? If so, to what degree? Were the dangers open and obvious, or where they so hidden that nobody would expect it to be a possibility?
If you voluntarily get into a 600 HP car capable of 200 mph with a complete stranger, particularly someone you did not pay for the privilege or taking you for a ride, you surely have to expect that death is one possible consequence. Hell, I assume that I can die in my car during my commute to work, and my commute is only 1.5 miles long!!!!
In the end, this will be an extraordinarily fact intensive issue, and we, collectively, do not currently have access to the relevant facts. All of our discussion is pure speculation . . . . It is far too early to make predictions, at least in my opinion.
06-14-2006, 10:50 PM
#66
Originally Posted by Anir
In medicine, the presence of a "written informed consent" (a waiver) does almost nothing to protect the physician or hospital. However, the lack of a signed waiver means you're screwed. So, you have to get one but it doesn't help much. Hopefully, the same is not true for racetracks.
When I had my shunt at Road America, I received a follow-up letter from the track which made it quite apparent that they were worried about getting sued. I wrote them back and told them they had nothing to worry about.
If my wife sued the racetrack after my death, I would try to come back from the afterlife to talk some spooky sense into her. After watching Kentucky lose 137 net ob-gyns in the past 3 years, I see the very legitimate toll these lawsuits are having on folks' access to needed services (or perhaps much desired hobbies in the case of racetracks). In our city of Lexington, a majority of ob-gyns are not accepting new patients, and many have completely given up obstetrics or at least high-risk obstetrics. Is this making the world a better or safer place?
When I had my shunt at Road America, I received a follow-up letter from the track which made it quite apparent that they were worried about getting sued. I wrote them back and told them they had nothing to worry about.
If my wife sued the racetrack after my death, I would try to come back from the afterlife to talk some spooky sense into her. After watching Kentucky lose 137 net ob-gyns in the past 3 years, I see the very legitimate toll these lawsuits are having on folks' access to needed services (or perhaps much desired hobbies in the case of racetracks). In our city of Lexington, a majority of ob-gyns are not accepting new patients, and many have completely given up obstetrics or at least high-risk obstetrics. Is this making the world a better or safer place?
anir, the track situation is radically different than the medical situation. When you are a patient, you are entrusting your health to a professional who is getting paid by you, or your insurance, to do everything they can in the most professional manner possible to make you better. When you do not get better, if it is due to negligence by the part of the doctor, the fact that the doctor forced you to sign a piece of paper to get help that you presumably need is of little consequence.
By contrast, you do not need to participate in track events. Well, I do, but I am a little crazy that way. Since I do not need to participate in the track event, my decision to undertake the inherent risks voluntarily does provide much more of an excuse to the operators of the event, who are merely providing an optional diversion to you . . .
So, in short, it is very different.
06-14-2006, 10:54 PM
#67
Still plays with cars.
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Guys, as usual there are a lot of thought provoking statements in this thread. As the CI of a region for the past 7 years, I'd like to weigh in on some of them.
1) DE Events - should be low risk. If they aren't, then the organizers are not on top of things. I go to Zone One CI meetings and report (with shame) that we had one incident causing damage during the season. Yeah, 1, it was a fender bender but it counts. I just returned from a two day event, we had visitors from the US who remarked "no crashes, that's rare, at home we crash 3-4 cars per event". That's flat out wrong. One of the reasons we run safe events is that we throw black flags for agressive driving and for drivers who are not in full control. Prevention is the best remedy. DE is not racing and we rapidly re-educate those who confuse the two. In case there are skeptics, we run 15 track days per season with an average of 140 cars per event. That's a lot of driver-days. Other regions who run events on the same rack report more incidents per event that we report in several years.
2) The idea that one is risking life or limb at a properly organized track event is absurd. If the event is that scary, organizers need to get their (stuff) together.
3) In case someone gets the idea that our events are Ralph Nader-ized, no they aren't. Drivers can exploit the amazing potential of their cars without risking a crash. This week, our novice run group was running 2 minute laps. Johannes Von Overbeek was 20 seconds faster in his GT3 RSR. Speed and safety are not mutually exclusive.
Best,
1) DE Events - should be low risk. If they aren't, then the organizers are not on top of things. I go to Zone One CI meetings and report (with shame) that we had one incident causing damage during the season. Yeah, 1, it was a fender bender but it counts. I just returned from a two day event, we had visitors from the US who remarked "no crashes, that's rare, at home we crash 3-4 cars per event". That's flat out wrong. One of the reasons we run safe events is that we throw black flags for agressive driving and for drivers who are not in full control. Prevention is the best remedy. DE is not racing and we rapidly re-educate those who confuse the two. In case there are skeptics, we run 15 track days per season with an average of 140 cars per event. That's a lot of driver-days. Other regions who run events on the same rack report more incidents per event that we report in several years.
2) The idea that one is risking life or limb at a properly organized track event is absurd. If the event is that scary, organizers need to get their (stuff) together.
3) In case someone gets the idea that our events are Ralph Nader-ized, no they aren't. Drivers can exploit the amazing potential of their cars without risking a crash. This week, our novice run group was running 2 minute laps. Johannes Von Overbeek was 20 seconds faster in his GT3 RSR. Speed and safety are not mutually exclusive.
Best,
06-14-2006, 11:00 PM
#68
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by TD in DC
In the end, this will be an extraordinarily fact intensive issue, and we, collectively, do not currently have access to the relevant facts. All of our discussion is pure speculation . . . . It is far too early to make predictions, at least in my opinion.
A case in point: my mother died a few years ago of metastatic lung cancer. Three months prior to the point at which we found it in her hip (bone), she had a completely negative screening evaluation, including a negative chest x-ray. Of course, the tumor was present in the lungs at the time of the x-ray, but it was hidden behind the heart shadow. The radiologist did not "miss it" because it just wasn't visible within the accuracy of the procedure.
Does this inherent inaccuracy mean that she should have had a more thorough radiologic evaluation, e.g. CT scans, despite the lack of any symptomatology at the time? Of course not, because CT scans also have definite limitations, are much more expensive, and expose the body to significantly more radiation and possibly dangerous radiocontrast solution.
There is no way to completely eliminate risks. This lawsuit is one of the most egregious I've seen, because the only "negligence" is that this gentleman and his family were negligent in allowing him to participate in track days (particularly in 200 mph cars) if he was not willing to accept the risks. He absolved everyone else of any liability the minute he stepped onto the racetrack grounds, as he agreed in his signed waiver and as any of us understand via our innate common sense. His family is perpetuating the tragedy and damaging his good name by pursuing this, and money simply is not enough to erase that damage.
This is all about deep pockets. If a man contracted an STD by sleeping with a prostitute, would he sue her for negligence in not informing that this might possible? Or not having obtained written consent? How about the owner of the seedy motel? Or his wife for not satisfying his sexual desires so that he felt the need the fornicate in the first place? Sounds ludicrous, I know, but so are the vast majority of these lawsuits and our legal system does an extremely poor job of filtering them. There's simply too much inherent conflict of interest in the system.
My apologies to all the non-plaintiff attorneys out there. I realize the ambulance chasers represent a very small percentage of all attorneys, and many attorneys are just as bothered by the state of affairs - as am I with the small percentage of unethical plastic surgeons who will perform any procedure on any patient to earn a buck.
Last edited by Anir; 06-14-2006 at 11:18 PM.
06-14-2006, 11:03 PM
#69
Originally Posted by Bob Rouleau
Guys, as usual there are a lot of thought provoking statements in this thread. As the CI of a region for the past 7 years, I'd like to weigh in on some of them.
1) DE Events - should be low risk. If they aren't, then the organizers are not on top of things. I go to Zone One CI meetings and report (with shame) that we had one incident causing damage during the season. Yeah, 1, it was a fender bender but it counts. I just returned from a two day event, we had visitors from the US who remarked "no crashes, that's rare, at home we crash 3-4 cars per event". That's flat out wrong. One of the reasons we run safe events is that we throw black flags for agressive driving and for drivers who are not in full control. Prevention is the best remedy. DE is not racing and we rapidly re-educate those who confuse the two. In case there are skeptics, we run 15 track days per season with an average of 140 cars per event. That's a lot of driver-days. Other regions who run events on the same rack report more incidents per event that we report in several years.
2) The idea that one is risking life or limb at a properly organized track event is absurd. If the event is that scary, organizers need to get their (stuff) together.
3) In case someone gets the idea that our events are Ralph Nader-ized, no they aren't. Drivers can exploit the amazing potential of their cars without risking a crash. This week, our novice run group was running 2 minute laps. Johannes Von Overbeek was 20 seconds faster in his GT3 RSR. Speed and safety are not mutually exclusive.
Best,
1) DE Events - should be low risk. If they aren't, then the organizers are not on top of things. I go to Zone One CI meetings and report (with shame) that we had one incident causing damage during the season. Yeah, 1, it was a fender bender but it counts. I just returned from a two day event, we had visitors from the US who remarked "no crashes, that's rare, at home we crash 3-4 cars per event". That's flat out wrong. One of the reasons we run safe events is that we throw black flags for agressive driving and for drivers who are not in full control. Prevention is the best remedy. DE is not racing and we rapidly re-educate those who confuse the two. In case there are skeptics, we run 15 track days per season with an average of 140 cars per event. That's a lot of driver-days. Other regions who run events on the same rack report more incidents per event that we report in several years.
2) The idea that one is risking life or limb at a properly organized track event is absurd. If the event is that scary, organizers need to get their (stuff) together.
3) In case someone gets the idea that our events are Ralph Nader-ized, no they aren't. Drivers can exploit the amazing potential of their cars without risking a crash. This week, our novice run group was running 2 minute laps. Johannes Von Overbeek was 20 seconds faster in his GT3 RSR. Speed and safety are not mutually exclusive.
Best,
For the purposes of the effectiveness of the waiver, what counts is whether the participant understands that there is a risk of death, but is nonetheless willing voluntarily to waive his rights to sue in the event of a death.
It is great that the risk rarely comes to fruition, but that is almost beside the point.
Of course, if you went around telling people that they "cannot possibly" die at a DE, and then someone dies, then your waiver may not be effective, even if it says that the person waives his right to sue in the event of a death. That is very different from saying that death is a real possibility, but we try to do everything we can to minimize that risk, and deaths are rare.
I just think that anyone who gets into any kind of car, or goes scuba diving, or sky-diving etc . . . and doesn't think they can die, even if death at that particular place is rare, is NOT reasonable. And that is what counts for the purposes of the lawsuit.
TD
06-14-2006, 11:17 PM
#70
Still plays with cars.
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
TD - I commented on the waiver previously. My comments about the safety of DE were in response to other posts which seemed to imply that the risks are high. If I seriously believed that I risked my life, I would stop helping to organize DE's and absolutely resign as CI.
Yes, we need to over emphasize when it comes to waivers. Good thing we don't have to sign them before crossing a street. You can die from that too. Come to think of it, you can die from eating. Should restaurants make diners sign waivers? There is a reason the Heimlich technique is taught to anyone taking a first aid course. Is it reasonable to expect to die from eating out? No. DE should be like that IMHO.
Best,
Yes, we need to over emphasize when it comes to waivers. Good thing we don't have to sign them before crossing a street. You can die from that too. Come to think of it, you can die from eating. Should restaurants make diners sign waivers? There is a reason the Heimlich technique is taught to anyone taking a first aid course. Is it reasonable to expect to die from eating out? No. DE should be like that IMHO.
Best,
06-14-2006, 11:27 PM
#71
Originally Posted by Bob Rouleau
TD - I commented on the waiver previously. My comments about the safety of DE were in response to other posts which seemed to imply that the risks are high. If I seriously believed that I risked my life, I would stop helping to organize DE's and absolutely resign as CI.
Yes, we need to over emphasize when it comes to waivers. Good thing we don't have to sign them before crossing a street. You can die from that too. Come to think of it, you can die from eating. Should restaurants make diners sign waivers? There is a reason the Heimlich technique is taught to anyone taking a first aid course. Is it reasonable to expect to die from eating out? No. DE should be like that IMHO.
Best,
Yes, we need to over emphasize when it comes to waivers. Good thing we don't have to sign them before crossing a street. You can die from that too. Come to think of it, you can die from eating. Should restaurants make diners sign waivers? There is a reason the Heimlich technique is taught to anyone taking a first aid course. Is it reasonable to expect to die from eating out? No. DE should be like that IMHO.
Best,
Nonetheless, there is a different magnitude or risk associated with eating and driving on the track. At a restaurant, if everyone follows the rules, then your chances of death are very slim. On the track, even if everyone follows the rules, something can happen and you could die as a direct consequence of choosing to go on the track. Heck, my control arm snapped this past weekend and I am fairly obsessive about safety. Under the wrong circumstances, me and/or my passenger could have been seriously hurt or killed. Nonetheless, since the accident would not have been unforseeable or the fault of anyone in particular, I wouldn't have wanted my family to sue had I died.I want people to make the track as safe as possible everyday, which is why I think that the lawsuit is, at least at this point, utterly irrelevant since we need to be doing are best regardless of its outcome.
TD
06-14-2006, 11:33 PM
#72
Still plays with cars.
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
TD - I agree about the lawsuit. With respect to the control arm, what if it let go on the freeway? Mechanical failures are a hazard on or off the track. If one chooses to drive a 20 year old car.. well, stuff can happen. When I see people driving the snot out of 70 year old cars (as I did last weekend and will see some again this weekend) I wonder if they worry about metal fatigue and such.
Best,
Best,
06-14-2006, 11:50 PM
#73
Originally Posted by Anir
With all due respect, I disagree. The underlying problem with all these lawsuits is the current American perception that every endeavor can be sanitized to the point that there is no risk or potential for a bad outcome. Unfortunately, this utopian ideal is unachievable in any aspect of life, and bad things happen to good people.
A case in point: my mother died a few years ago of metastatic lung cancer. Three months prior to the point at which we found it in her hip (bone), she had a completely negative screening evaluation, including a negative chest x-ray. Of course, the tumor was present in the lungs at the time of the x-ray, but it was hidden behind the heart shadow. The radiologist did not "miss it" because it just wasn't visible within the accuracy of the procedure.
Does this inherent inaccuracy mean that she should have had a more thorough radiologic evaluation, e.g. CT scans, despite the lack of any symptomatology at the time? Of course not, because CT scans also have definite limitations, are much more expensive, and expose the body to significantly more radiation and possibly dangerous radiocontrast solution.
There is no way to completely eliminate risks. This lawsuit is one of the most egregious I've seen, because the only "negligence" is that this gentleman and his family were negligent in allowing him to participate in track days (particularly in 200 mph cars) if he was not willing to accept the risks. He absolved everyone else of any liability the minute he stepped onto the racetrack grounds, as he agreed in his signed waiver and as any of us understand via our innate common sense. His family is perpetuating the tragedy and damaging his good name by pursuing this, and money simply is not enough to erase that damage.
This is all about deep pockets. If a man contracted an STD by sleeping with a prostitute, would he sue her for negligence in not informing that this might possible? Or not having obtained written consent? How about the owner of the seedy motel? Or his wife for not satisfying his sexual desires so that he felt the need the fornicate in the first place? Sounds ludicrous, I know, but so are the vast majority of these lawsuits and our legal system does an extremely poor job of filtering them. There's simply too much inherent conflict of interest in the system.
My apologies to all the non-plaintiff attorneys out there. I realize the ambulance chasers represent a very small percentage of all attorneys, and many attorneys are just as bothered by the state of affairs - as am I with the small percentage of unethical plastic surgeons who will perform any procedure on any patient to earn a buck.
A case in point: my mother died a few years ago of metastatic lung cancer. Three months prior to the point at which we found it in her hip (bone), she had a completely negative screening evaluation, including a negative chest x-ray. Of course, the tumor was present in the lungs at the time of the x-ray, but it was hidden behind the heart shadow. The radiologist did not "miss it" because it just wasn't visible within the accuracy of the procedure.
Does this inherent inaccuracy mean that she should have had a more thorough radiologic evaluation, e.g. CT scans, despite the lack of any symptomatology at the time? Of course not, because CT scans also have definite limitations, are much more expensive, and expose the body to significantly more radiation and possibly dangerous radiocontrast solution.
There is no way to completely eliminate risks. This lawsuit is one of the most egregious I've seen, because the only "negligence" is that this gentleman and his family were negligent in allowing him to participate in track days (particularly in 200 mph cars) if he was not willing to accept the risks. He absolved everyone else of any liability the minute he stepped onto the racetrack grounds, as he agreed in his signed waiver and as any of us understand via our innate common sense. His family is perpetuating the tragedy and damaging his good name by pursuing this, and money simply is not enough to erase that damage.
This is all about deep pockets. If a man contracted an STD by sleeping with a prostitute, would he sue her for negligence in not informing that this might possible? Or not having obtained written consent? How about the owner of the seedy motel? Or his wife for not satisfying his sexual desires so that he felt the need the fornicate in the first place? Sounds ludicrous, I know, but so are the vast majority of these lawsuits and our legal system does an extremely poor job of filtering them. There's simply too much inherent conflict of interest in the system.
My apologies to all the non-plaintiff attorneys out there. I realize the ambulance chasers represent a very small percentage of all attorneys, and many attorneys are just as bothered by the state of affairs - as am I with the small percentage of unethical plastic surgeons who will perform any procedure on any patient to earn a buck.
I am not sure what you think I said. All I said is that waivers and disclosures in the medical field are subjected to very different standards than optional hobbies that are inherently dangerous, which, for our purposes here, is a very, very good thing (assuming that you like to go to the track).
My sole interest here is to ensure that all of us have the freedom to chose to participate in the hobby we love -- track events and racing -- and drive the cars we like without having rules and electronic driver aids forced upon us for our own protection.
TD
06-14-2006, 11:53 PM
#74
Originally Posted by Bob Rouleau
TD - I agree about the lawsuit. With respect to the control arm, what if it let go on the freeway? Mechanical failures are a hazard on or off the track. If one chooses to drive a 20 year old car.. well, stuff can happen. When I see people driving the snot out of 70 year old cars (as I did last weekend and will see some again this weekend) I wonder if they worry about metal fatigue and such.
Best,
Best,
06-15-2006, 12:04 AM
#75
Nordschleife Master
AS: I thought you gave up on this this lame argument ..... 160+ mph 3 point, no HANs, The car goes where you point it.
Anir: a friend of mine(lawyer) had a waiver case. The person bringing the suit ended up having to pay the costs of the defendant. $900K. That person is now going after his lawyer for bad advice.
Anir: a friend of mine(lawyer) had a waiver case. The person bringing the suit ended up having to pay the costs of the defendant. $900K. That person is now going after his lawyer for bad advice.