CGT crash settled at $4.5M
 

I know this story hits home to some here. If this post is offensive, I would be happy to remove it.

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/content/carrera

wow... I think it was a terrible accident but some of those details are a little disturbing. As is the amount of money payed to the wife.

thanks for posting link, information is always of value it serves to remind us the need to focus our attention to details when planning or participating in a track event,
Thanks

Kiss goodbye to the ability to turn off PSM on any future US sold Porsches.

I think that it is absurd to legislate (which that ruling does) that because a certain safety technology is available, it should be immediately incorporated into every car due to legal concerns.

Tragic for sure, but maybe we can all learn something from this terrible accident.

I think everyone that reads this post should think about the DEs they participate in and forward the link to their home chapter with comments / suggestions in an effort to help make our events safer. It's easy to play Monday Morning QB, but when you look at all of the factors in this accident, there might be a few simple ones that could prevent a future situation. For example, encouraging your home track to do a risk assessment to find things like a blind spot at pit-out or a modification of runoff. Maybe suggest more training and supervision for pit-out volunteers to make sure they understand the ramifications of their decisions. Better to be overly cautious and slowly let cars into the track.

So from what I read, the mechanics "knowledge" of the handling characteristics of the car seemed to be fairly important to the case. Odd.

What are waivers worth now?

Lots of disturbing things there.
 

I'm very sorry for the families of both men but the size of the settlement from the driver's estate is astounding. No mention at all of the official who put the ferrari on the track in the path of the CGT.

Very troubling information and a very sad situation. As an outgoing De-chair I just emailed my team on the link (Thank's Jim). I suspect the true implecations of this are yet to be felt but will certainly touch all programs.

In some states, apparently nothing.

There are a lot of interesting things in this ruling. I think the most important is whether the court found that there was gross negligence or whether they found no more than ordinary negligence and ruled that the waiver did not apply. If it was the latter, then all bets are off concerning track waivers. It would be interesting if any of the attorneys here are able to find the actual rulings and interpret them for us.

It is also clear that organizers need to pay way more attention to tech inspections and that they need to be consistent in what they do (for that organizer). This ruling seems to make it clear that if you do not follow your own procedures, then you are at risk, as an organizer.

So here is a question for the group...
Who is it that you think determines if a track is safe to run or not? What, if anything, does your organization or sanctioning body do in this regard? Does your group even do anything or do they assume that the track is OK?

One potential implication is that the tracks (at least the major ones) see too much risk for the reward of DE income. Time will tell, but I have to wonder why CA Speedway would want to risk that kind of settlement for the paltry dollars of the DEs they host.

In the context of a non-droving jury pool, is there such a thing as a "safe" track?

Holy cow. Jackpot Justice, Kalifornia-style. :(