I am not a lawyer, but in my experience this was probably a pretty straightforward case. I think the problem is that people view the PCA as a simple club. It is a club...but it deals in a dangerous sport with very expensive toys. PCA never should have taken on the responsibility of caring for that car without doing two things:

1. Insuring against the possibility of damage
2. Ensure that PCA will not need to call said insurance company

It is my opinion that the PCA could easily do both of these things. If they can't fulfill these two requirements, then the club has no business handling a car of this nature. I am not heavily involved with PCA, but I would imagine it is within their capabilities.

It is a lesson learned and now the PCA will try to recover at least part of the $250k and legal fees.

Oh and driving a race car drunk is absurd. Driving a historic race car on the street is stupid. Driving someone else's historic race car drunk on the street has the markings of some grade A ********!

 

Well, legal issues aside I still think its crap that the PCA is on hook for this. PCA is a club, not business. I think it is really sad that a club (guys that mean all of us in PCA) get put on the hook for the actions of a couple yahoo's.

The right thing to do from the beginning was really for the "Club" to never take possession of the car in the first place. While 95% of the time it may have been a non-issue the club as part of is bylaws should never put it self into a potential bailment situation. It should be understood that if a car is "borrowed" for a PCA event it is never entrused to the "club", but only to indviduals acting on their own. Now this may make it hard for owners of certain high dollar cars to bring then out to concours and the like, but lets face it. PCA is group of Porsche owners, not some big fancy profit bearing organization. I feel ANY time a PCA event occurs the owner of the car is ultimatly responsible for it or to entrust it to INDIVIDUALS fo their choosing. Here in Az I have seen a wide array of high dollar classics pulled out for concour events. In fact rarely I have I ever seen (if ever) the owner of these cars. What I do often see however is their "handler". That is the person dictiated by the owner to bring the car(s) to the PCA event, watch over them, and safely return them. Forunatly I also have never seen any Az PCA member abuse any car not their own.

Like I said inspite of any legal issues I still think it sad the WE in the PCA need to take the hit for the actions of couple folks most of us have never met or even heard of.

 

I haven't received my Pano yet so I haven't read Tom Bobbitt's column. According to the blog, the car was still at the shop that hosted the event until pick up was arranged 6 weeks later. The event was long since over. I am not an attorney, but how was it that PCA was still on the hook and not the shop? The shop owner took it upon himself to take the car for a joyride. At this point it was no longer a PCA event.

Also, if it was my car, I wouldn't have left it in someonelses shop for over a month unsupervised.

 

Luckily, you don't have to.

It seems that a court and/or jury has already decided the matter.

 

Joe, I agree to a certain extent. I think it is crap that this PCA chapter or someone acting as an agent of PCA would do this. I would guess the issue came about when there it was PCA who took temporary possession of the vehicle. Then again, we don't know the exact details and we aren't lawyers (from my memory you are an engineer, but forgive me if I am wrong).

Maybe it is hindsight, but if I were in charge of that region or of PCA national, I would have had a more well-defined agreement in place and some insurance. Hell, if I were just an individual asked to take charge of someone's valuable car I would want to make sure nobody else messed with it and that I was insured.

 

My guess, and this is just a guess as I am not privy to all the info, is that there was an agreement in place beyond the appearance at the event. I would have been pretty uptight leaving my $250k historic car with someone else.

Then again, we don't know all the details.

 

One thing I think we can agree is true. This was an unusual thing to have happen. Perhaps the reason PCA was not in a better position to defend or was put in this position in the first place is that car nuts loan nice cars to other car nuts all the time. Most times there is no issue in this and many cars see some daylight and are seen and enjoyed by other like minded car nuts.

Mt guess is the long term outcome, besides PCA being lightened of $250K, is there will likely be less of the rare cars coming out of the big $ guys garages for us little $ guys to enjoy.

 

When we go to PCA events, we are supose to sign a release. I'll bet the owner never signed it. So now he can sue, and he did. He figured which does he value more, his PCA membership, or $250,000 for a wrecked car that his insurance company said they were not going to cover. I'm not sure I would not have done the same thing. I've seen two brothers sue each other over their daddy's estate.

Yes, the two idiots that drove the car should have paid for it, but he couldn't get blood out of a turnip, so he figured if he could sue the PCA, what the heck, why not. PCE, we love you to death, but $250,000, Well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After I read that Bobbit article, I called our Activities Chair, and told him about it, and recommended we get a signed release for our outing last Saturday. Because it was a meeting, and not a driving event he said we didn't need one. He and I argued for 5 minutes, me saying we needed it signed, him saying we didn't. I let it drop, but he obviously thought about it, because when I arrived, I had to sign one.

Bill Seifert

1983 944 Race Car

 

Wonder if our dues will increase?

 

Post #15 and #25 covered the issue well I think.

Wavers are of little weight when the S*** hits the fan. From what I understand you cannot assign liability regardless of what the paper has on it. If you were bound by the contents of ther waver above all other law it would mean in a sense thay you could write you own law as you saw fit. All you need to do is get people to sign the paper.

 

Based on the published PCA P&L and Balance Sheet, they had better not!

 

Some time back I was playing around with learning how I could search for information about legal actions. Nothing to do with the present discussion. However, among the 'hits' was this information. I know next to nothing about what to make of it. Appears to match the pattern:

Defendant: PORSCHE CLUB OF AMERICA
Address: 2312 RIDGE TR
BIRMINGHAM, AL 35242

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plaintiff: THERESA MEDELLIN
Court: JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT/BIRMINGHAM
716 21ST STREET
BIRMINGHAM AL 35263
Case Number: CV2003007142
Filing Description: CASE NO.
Filing Date: 11-10-2003
Status: DISMISSED
Status Date: 01-26-2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.
Defendant: CARY C COLLINS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendant: CHARLES P SWANSON

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendant: JOHN ROMANO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendant: JON LOWE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendant: MARGIE M COLLINS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendant: PORSCHE CLUB OF AMERICA HEARTO' DIXIE REGION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendant: PORSCHE CLUB OF AMERICA INC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plaintiff: STATE FARM MUTAL AUTOMOBILEINSURANCE COMPANY
Court: U S DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
1729 5TH AVE N
BIRMINGHAM AL 35203
Case Number: 3CV2632
Filing Description: CASE NO.
Filing Date: 09-25-2003
Status: PENDING
Status Date: 09-25-2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.
Defendant: PORSCHE CLUB OF AMERICA HEART OF DIXIE REGION
Address: 105 TOWERING PINES CT
HUNTSVILLE, AL 35806

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendant: PORSCHE CLUB OF AMERICA INC
Address: 3244 WINGFIELD LAKE RD
WILLIAMSBURG, VA 23185

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plaintiff: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS CO
Court: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
100 N SIDE SQUARE ST
HUNTSVILLE AL 35801
Case Number: CV03002083
Filing Description: CASE NO.
Filing Date: 11-25-2003
Status: PENDING
Status Date: 11-25-2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.
Defendant: CARY C COLLINS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendant: CHARLES P SWANSON

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendant: JON LOWE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendant: MARGIE M COLLINS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendant: PORSCHE CLUB OF AMERICA HEARTO' DIXIE REGION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendant: PORSCHE CLUB OF AMERICA INC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendant: STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendant: XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plaintiff: JOHN ROMANO
Court: U S DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
1729 5TH AVE N
BIRMINGHAM AL 35203
Case Number: 3CV1829
Filing Description: CASE NO.
Filing Date: 07-17-2003
Status: PENDING
Status Date: 07-17-2003


THIS DATA IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. CERTIFICATION CAN ONLY BE OBTAINED THROUGH THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY.

 

I think the fallout for us will be a lack of interesting cars at future events since those two bozo's destroyed any trust would-be loaners of rare autos to PCA might have.

 

I believe the standard verbal request for release of liability is:

 

WOW!