JimmiLew

This event is just terrible and I feel for the familes. Big Bummer.

In addition to what others have said, I agree this is a settlement. I dont think you will see any spill over to club racing and DE in general. We will likely see a heightened awareness that this a dangerous sport, and we may see some tracks change their configuations for pit in/out in an attempt to make them safer and potentially limit their liability.

The aurgument that Porsche has liability fcor desiging a high performance car without electronic traction aids to prevent injury to the occupants is just crazy. They guy knew what he was buying, and knew the risks before turning the key. Just tragic. I think we all agree that people need to take responsibility for their actions.

c4bliss

Exactly why i raised the question about risk a few months back. Waivers are no good if you can find a lawyer to sue. To a uninformed, non-track jury, all of us on a track are "crazy" drivers. Its not to tough to prove negligence to them and blame everyone but the driver that crashed.

SundayDriver

That is a good point that I missed.

c4bliss

Jimmi, how can this NOT spill over? It was a DE that he crashed at was it not? Not a race of any kind? The Comrade court of California practically stated that waivers are worth the paper they are written on. Can anyone explain why anyone would host a DE now, with this ruling in Calif?

To quote the article..

"The Supreme Court’s opinion was issued shortly after the settlement and was what McClellan predicted. The case involved a release given by the parents of a developmentally disabled girl who participated in a City of Santa Barbara summer camp and drowned while swimming. With no prior California precedent, the Court looked to decisions from other states. Quite a number had addressed the issue, and the majority ruled that properly written releases would be effective against claims of ordinary negligence, but that public policy made them void as to claims of gross negligence. The Court noted that most of the handful of decisions that enforced releases in cases of gross negligence involved auto racing incidents, but also noted that several states had ruled that releases are ineffective against claims for ordinary negligence, even in auto racing situations."

Anyone practically can claim gross negligence...

M758

This is very bad news. Bad bad bad as it opens up anyone to this sort of legal issues.

schwank

This whole thing has struck me as a money grab by the passenger's wife since day 1. She doesn't care about safety in autos or in motorsport... it's the pay day she wants.

The ramifications of this go so far down the line. How many folks will work safety crew as a volunteer and accept liability based on that? What good is a waiver? Do tech inspectors accept liability for missed issues? Who decides when a car is 'unsafe' to be driven on track? Who decides what drivers are safe or unsafe? If a car is a road-going race car, why doesn't it belong on a track? What if some tech gadget might have contributed to a crash... can I sue then? Yes I know these are seemingly ridiculous but so is this lawsuit.

I rue that our country has no concept anymore of personal responsibility. We long ago started down the slippery slope of pandering to the lowest common denominator. This is the kind of crap we get for it. Though I am sorry for her loss, I hope the widow Rudl enjoys what karma has coming for her. Maybe she'll find out how quick people are to sue those with money.

RonCT

Well, I don't think anyone goes to a Driver's Education thinking they are going to return home a cripple or a corpse. If everyone understood that was possible, there might be far fewer coming to our DEs. I suppose we all have to ask ourselves what's reasonable in this situation and learn from there to try to make our events as safe as possible. It sounds like Pit-Out was really a problem and perhaps the flagger did the best he could given the limited visibility. At our DE's everyone is instructed that when we release you mid-session, you have to go and I mean really go. So maybe the other driver hesitated, used 50% throttle instead of 100%, etc. Did the passenger really know the skill level and vehicle dynamics of the CGT? Did he have a reasonable expectation of a safe event?

I think one of the things that continues to happen is we all see less than qualified people buying supercars, whether for street or track. Just look at some of the new clubs out there, that market these as places where people with resources can bring their supercars for a fun day at the track. "Just hit it big in hedge funds and traded your Lexus for a Ferrari? -- come drive at the track!" Actually not a bad idea for them to learn how to handle such a car instead of wrecking it on the street (how many Enzos destroyed so far?).

Whenever I saw a Green (1st level) student at a DE with either a 996/7 GT3 or a fully modified car (ie: Race prepared) I thought to myself -- wow, that's a handful when you are just starting to learn. Then I look at the 1st time student with a street car and think "Much easier -- less chance of getting into big trouble, though we all need to learn from mistakes so some trouble is inevitable".

Anyway -- people with money buy supercars that they may not have the skills to drive. That's one issue and perhaps car companies and clubs that entertain these cars and drivers need to have such buyers sign additional liability waivers. It's no wonder that the tires for the 997 GT3 are re-designed and formulated or that all future Porsches will come with some version of PSM. On that point I don't mind -- PSM on my 997S doesn't negatively impact my enjoyment of the car on the track -- keep it smooth and use your skill set and it will never get in the way.

JimmiLew

C4Bliss,

Call me crazy, but I think people are gonna do the things they love to do, risk or no risk. Its true this was a case of "gross negligence" for settlement purposes (not that I agree, I dont), and its true that even ordinary negligence can be actionable (at least in Califiornia according to the article). What I could see is that event insurance costs could escalate in response to a ruling such as this. DE entrance fees could rise accordingly as costs get passed along. I just dont see DE events coming to a grinding halt as everyone runs for cover trying to avoid the risk of litigation due to an "accident" at en event.

JL

Alan Herod

Jim - Thank you for posting this. Those of us in leadership roles in our DE programs need to be aware of all potential legal ramifications and our personnel exposure. Some of the tracks we frequent may use our events as training venues for track personnel, notably corner workers and control/pit-out.

Other issues potential issues that we have seen and discussed here is policy concerning the use of the On/Off switch for PSM and other such devices.

4master

[QUOTE=ltc;4704478]I love this part:
"Right on! If her suit was for altruistic means, then money would not have entered the equation.

I feel for her loss but her "believing" that the lawsuit will benefit others will only be true in that it will benefit the next plaintiff who sues after an accident at a track event.

4master
1985.5 SP2 944
#909#
"slow and steady"

Flying Finn

+1!

BTW, here's a link to a story of Pastrana's jump.

sechsgang

"I think one of the things that continues to happen is we all see less than qualified people buying supercars, whether for street or track. Just look at some of the new clubs out there, that market these as places where people with resources can bring their supercars for a fun day at the track. "Just hit it big in hedge funds and traded your Lexus for a Ferrari? -- come drive at the track!" Actually not a bad idea for them to learn how to handle such a car instead of wrecking it on the street (how many Enzos destroyed so far?)."


Absolutely agree...1000 percent...


I was fortunate enough to drive a cgt for a bit (20 or so total minutes) and while it was a blast to drive, I couldnt BELIEVE owners of this car didnt have to a racing license or go through a special school to handle the car as the thing breaks WAY loose with the smoothest of throttle application from first through third and is by FAR the most nervy and edgy car I have EVER driven. Some of the people I know that drive these things around and do stupid fast runs on highways just amaze me in that most have no prior experience and just hopped into a car that is FAR, FAR away from their ability (hell, many pro drivers say a CGT is harder to drive fast around a track than their comperable race cars). That said, I think the suit against porsche and PSM is a load of **** and if the owner and passenger knew what they were getting in to, in NO way shape or form should porsche be penalized for it.


RIP Keaton and Passenger but man, this WHOLE situation is screwed up...

chrisp

The driver would not have been able to legitimately make a lot of these claims because they were aware of the car issues and were in a position to remove themselves.

My personal experience is that the regions I've run with will under no circumstances allow a passenger unless it's an instructor. I can tell fromt he article or remember from when it happened whether or not the passenger was an instructor.

Put yourself in Tracy's (the wife) shoes or better yet your significant other's shoes and it's easy to agree with everything she said in the last paragraph.

On a side note, I think having volunteers controlling any part of the hot surface, pit in and out included, is asking for trouble.

ronbo56

As the SCM article points out, one of "no waiver of negligence" states is New York (home of Watkins Glen) and another is Virginia (home of VIR). I don't know about VA, but IIRC New York has had that rule for many years. Tracks adapt - probably by self-insuring via higher fees - so this case may not spell the end of club track days and races.

I have my doubts about the conduct of the track, but I tend to think that Judl assumed the risk of his buddy's driving ability and the condition of the car. I also think that Porsche's liability is a crock - it's a design defect to omit equipment not required by law? - but it's in the nature of litigation for some defendants to settle rather than take the risk of having greater liability simply because they have the deepest available pocket.

ltc

Just out of curiosity, how many cars are designed to stay in a striaght line and completely controllable if you intentionally swerve at 130mph?

I'd ask Sir Isaac Newton for an opinion, but he's no longer with us, but he did leave his laws of Physics to answer such questions.

I guess some people really do believe PSM stands for Please Save Me