500

I am surprised how many actually think the lack of PSM was the central issue. The effiacy of it in this incidentis questionable at best.

I work as an engineering and product development manager in a large concrete construction and industrial services company (primarily scaffolding). Two dangerous businesses. We are constantly involved in various litigation actions. From my observations of our own experiences I would concur that this is actually a relatively small settlement, which indicates that the case was not really as strong as one might think (but obviously had some merit).

In any litigation that we are involved in, we first try to be dismissed entirely from the action, which depending on circumstances may be possible. Failing that, it usually comes down to attempting to reduce your portion of a potential settlement to the "break-even" point where our insurance carriers determine that further defense of the claim would be at least as costly as the settlement, if not more. This is most certainly the case with Porsche's portion. $360,000 is nothing, really. Once there is a legal action, and you are named, unless you can get dismissed, you are automatically "locked-in" to ante up either the defense cost, and/or settlement. It just comes down to a NPV decision.

Although what befell the plaintiff was a real tragedy, I agree that she, with her husband, should have prepared for this. Responsible people pay for enough life insurance to properly take care of their dependents should the worst happen.

EDIT: I should add that the plaintiff and her husband may in fact have done this, in which case the suit may have been simply to get more money. If the plaintiff then turned around and used the awards in some way that specifically benefitted society, then my opinion would change considerably (and it is only an opinion, I am sure there is much here that we do not know).

jakermc

I must be in the minority, but this wall does not bother me at all. I've never been to this track, but from the picture it appears that the wall is adjacent to a very long straight. No turn at all where the wall bumps out. I would never expect to spin in this area, expecially in a DE. Yes, **** happens, but read on.

There are plenty of other spots that many of us drive that bother me much more. Although the speeds are much slower, the wall at MSR Houston before the front straight is your track out point. How about the NASCAR wall at TWS? When running CW you are flying when entering the oval with a big wall facing the driver. There appears to be a MUCH greater chance of having a problem here versus where BK wrecked yet many of us have driven TWS without any concern about an 'unsafe' track design.

I've never been, but is it Watkins Glen that appears to be surrounded by walls with no run off? (Trying to remember a track I've watched on TV)

All race tracks are dangerous, some are simply more dangerous than others. In comparison to others that we have previously accepted as 'safe' this particular stretch of wall that is adjacent to a straight away appears OK by comparison. I'm not saying I wouldn't have liked to have seen the wall moved back (of course I would), but I'm trying to understand why everyone thinks this was such a horrible track design when compared to other tracks. In hindsight, sure it should have been moved. But how many of you would have declined to drive that day if someone pointed out the wall to you before taking the track?

Is the picture misleading? What am I missing?

M758

What you are missing is that there is no fundemental reason for the wall to be in that orientation. All tracks do have places where you would rather not have a wall, but due to constraints of the site a wall must be there. In this location you had a wall moved from a "safe" position to a "less safe" position for temporary purposes. The wall could have easily been moved back, but was not. Also if the way needed to be in that location a tire barrier should have been used to reduce the forces from a front impact. The issue is that there were very simple countermeasure that could have been inplace to reduce the risk.

Brian P

I'm saying that instead of hitting head on into the wall, if he crashed into the wall 20 feet later, he would have hit the side of the wall rather than the front of it. It really depends on the angle of his trajectory though.

Brian P

Personally, I agree 100% with you. Obviously some compelling case was made for people to have decided that a settlement was the way to go. However, to play devil's advocate...

Let's say that I take my 600HP megabeast car to my mechanic for a safety/tech inspection before a DE event. He tells me that something is wrong with the car and that it is unsafe to drive. I decide to ignore his advice, take it to the event, and then spin in nearly every session I'm on the track...

You then come to me and say, "Hey, nice car. I'm thinking of getting one. Can I have a ride?" I say sure, and don't tell you about any of the problems that I'm having. I then crash, you are sent to the hospital and end up being a quadrapolegic. You don't have adequate medical insurance and disability insurance for your family to be cared for.

Do you not pursue legal action against me? If you do, can I say tough - you signed the waiver, and you shouldn't ask for rides from anybody? And even if you do, I don't have to give you any warnings about the danger of the car?

Bull

The compelling argument these days is usually simply that the pursuit of a defense of this matter would have cost more, and potentially much more, than a fairly quick, small settlement. The merits of the suit often have little to do with the decision.

Brian P

Yes, but I'd think people would fight something that is totally frivolous. It sounds like it got to a point where the plantiff's lawyer had a somewhat compelling case that this might be gross negligence and they were waiting for the outcome of the California Supreme Court case before proceeding forwards. Then again, maybe they made the decision to settle early on and they were just waiting for the Supreme Court decision to decide what the exact amounts were.

James-man

Someone that is not covered for potential harm in a dangerous activity shouldn't participate in a dangerous activity. Can we call this contributory negligence?

In the case of leaving someone destitute after an accident, this is where the "here let me help you out" attitude should come out in a moral society. It shouldn't be a lottery jackpot. Given the other resources available, maybe a quarter of a million would adequate provide security for the person harmed?

We don't live in a moral society. We live in a legal society. People look to what is legal in place of looking to what is right, and that just ain't right? Right?

I have every right to be disappointed with humanity when I see behavior that comes across as greedy and taking advantage of what the system has to offer. The CGT settlement thing could have been much worse, but was definitely more than what was necessary. A not-for-profit legal system, not that one exists, wouldn't have brought us to this conclusion.

I am not trying to call any players in this greedy, per se. I do not know them and don't have the facts to understand motives. Just saying that this LOOKs like smiling attorneys equated right and legal for the victim's family and it was bought. These guys get paid to persuade and win, not to be right.

sjanes

The problem I have with all of this is that the accident wasn't just because Ben was over his head and crashed on his own. A slower car entered the line and Ben swerved to avoid it and crashed. I think people who believe that at that speed, in that situation, that they would have stayed in control may be giving themselves too much credit. Pro drivers crash into cars that slow unexpectedly, let alone one that appears from behind a wall. Plenty of street drivers crash by putting two wheels onto a soft shoulder, overcompensate and spin off the road in cars far more mundane than a CGT.

The mechanics comments about the CGT were that the design is flawed, not a mechanical problem (eg: loose suspension component) with the car. Should PCA no longer allow the CGT to run in PCA sanctioned DE events? If a mechanic told you that mid engined cars are dangerous because they spin too easily, would you still take your car to the track?

The only reason "issues" with the car are in the lawsuit is to get money out of Porsche.

JasonAndreas

Ben's estate is technically not paying one cent, his insurance company was forced to cover it (not that it makes things right or wrong). The family was actually removed from the lawsuit a long time ago?

TD in DC

I haven't read all of the posts here, but I think I may be missing something.

First, from the article, this was just a SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT rather than a ruling from any court. In other words, it was a voluntary agreement among the parties to end the lawsuit.

Second, the summary of the facts on the record seem to confirm what most of us already suspected: This was a freak accident caused by a number of errors made by a number of different people that led to a tragic result. When the parties involved in the suit saw this record, they decided it was better to settle rather than go forward with a jury of laypeople (who could agree with the plaintiff that a number of stupid errors had been made).

Third, this result doesn't really change a damned thing. It was based upon a risk assessment by the various parties that this might not end well, or merely that it was cheaper to settle rather than fight. I doubt that it changes anything with respect to waivers, because, again, this was a voluntary settlement agreement, not a ruling. The agreement seems to suggest that the parties felt that a jury might find there to have been gross negligence, which you generally cannot waive.

Fourth, I based all of these thoughts on the article rather than a personal review of the record. So, I could be wrong to the extent the article is wrong.

Finally, this is not legal advice, but merely the thoughts of a fellow enthusiast.

TD
P.S. The widow in this case very well may have felt justified. I can imagine that she thought her husband was going to a DE, and he instead wound up dead due to, what she believes, inexcusable and unjustifiable errors. So, I would not assume that her motivations are solely monetary. Hard to say unless you know her.

JimmiLew

TD nailes it on the head, IMHO. Its a settlement, not a legal ruling. Clearly all the parties saw it in their best intersted to settle rather than fight, which is the case with 95 plus percent of all lawsuits. Damn shame is what it is. Learn the lessons from this event. Smart people dont make the same mistake twice.

Bull

You might think, or hope, that, but it happens differently every day. There is a cost associated with fighting and prevailing in even what you may think to be a frivilous suit. When those projected costs are weighed along with the uncertainty of the outcome that exists these days, settlements happen.

Professor Helmüt Tester

Not practical, as they keep trying to take away our guns.

A civil society is an armed society.

pedsurg

Brian: You're probably correct re personal responsility; things are soo bad it can be eliminated from the equation ... leaving: (very) bad outcome plus deep pockets (or unprotected assets) equal a very large check

Richard: A great lawyer can overcome a good waiver any day. Do you really think that paper we sign in darkenss at 6 AM with several hundred other people in 30 ish minutes is worth the paper it's printed on. At the last event I attended the waiver was signed by Danika Patrick and AJ Foyt!! Funny, I didn't see either one at the track that day.

Professor: "*** catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt"

Jack