+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Carrera GT Crash Settled at $4.5m (/showthread.php?tid=6619)
Pages:
1
2
Carrera GT Crash Settled at $4.5m - Apoc - 10-24-2007
Interesting article that addresses the culpability of everyone when there's an on-track death.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.sportscarmarket.com/content/carrera">http://www.sportscarmarket.com/content/carrera</a><!-- m -->
Last summer, "Legal Files" reported about a lawsuit resulting from the fatal crash of a Porsche Carrera GT at a club track day at the California Speedway (June 2006, p. 30). The lawsuit was recently settled for a reported total of approximately $4.5 million. The contributions to the settlement were about 49% from the estate of the driver, 41% from the track owners and the event organizers, 8% from Porsche, and 2% from the driver of the Ferrari that was claimed to have triggered the crash.
To refresh our memory, Tracy Rudl filed the lawsuit alleging the wrongful death of her husband, Corey Rudl, who was a passenger in the CGT owned and driven by Ben Keaton at the Ferrari Owners Club track day. Rudl was represented by attorney Craig McClellan, a former racer and a successful plaintiffsÔÇÖ attorney from San Diego. As the CGT was traveling at about 130 mph on the straightaway, a Ferrari entered the track at a relatively slow speed. Keaton swerved to avoid it and the Porsche skidded into a concrete barrier wall, killing both men. The wall had been placed closer to the track than its original position, in order to enlarge the area behind it for use as a childrenÔÇÖs play area during an earlier NASCAR race.
- white_2kgt - 10-24-2007
What?!? You mean a waver doesn't actually mean _anything_?!?! How can that be
- Andy - 10-24-2007
white_2kgt Wrote:What?!? You mean a waver doesn't actually mean _anything_?!?! How can that be
Apparently a waiver is only effective if they can't find negligence with the racetrack. I guess that stipulation is there to protect drivers from racetrack owners who don't take necessary precautions e.g. insufficient tirewalls or no safety crew.
- Mike - 10-24-2007
wait... how/why does his estate contribute penalty money for a lawsuit that his wife filed?
- Apoc - 10-24-2007
The suit was brought on by the wife of the passenger in the CGT.
I had to read it twice before I got that.
read: Don't give people rides.
- Mike - 10-24-2007
ooooooo ok, i get it. shit... 2% for the ferrari = 90k. ouch!
- Goodspeed - 10-24-2007
I'm guessing that the passenger approached the driver for a ride along...half of it coming out of his estate is pretty shitty. Lets take money from a dead man!
And why did Porsche have to pay for anything? For not giving the CGT even better brakes? They should file a lawsuit against the laws of physics
- WRXtranceformed - 10-24-2007
She should have sued Einstein's estate.
- Apoc - 10-24-2007
Goodspeed Wrote:And why did Porsche have to pay for anything? For not giving the CGT even better brakes? They should file a lawsuit against the laws of physics
I think it was because of the "engineered oversteer" in the car.
AKA: People with too much money who don't learn car control.
- VT Remmy - 10-24-2007
Apoc Wrote:Goodspeed Wrote:And why did Porsche have to pay for anything? For not giving the CGT even better brakes? They should file a lawsuit against the laws of physics
I think it was because of the "engineered oversteer" in the car.
AKA: People with too much money who don't learn car control.
I think it was because they didn't offer porsche's traction control on the car. The car makes too much power for untrained drivers to operate w/o TC.
- PDenbigh - 10-24-2007
VT Remmy Wrote:I think it was because they didn't offer porsche's traction control on the car. The car makes too much power for untrained drivers to operate w/o TC.
An untrained driver has no business in that car in the first place, yet alone going 130mph at a track event. It's dumb moves like that that scare the auto industry out of doing the really cool projects.
- Andy - 10-24-2007
I guess it was cheaper for porsche to settle than to use their uberlawyers. I'll say this right now so we have to predeath statement to use. If I ever decide to buy a Corvette and then decide I have to skill to operate that mofo, and then I wreck it, I have no right to sue anyone for anything*.
*Seriously, I'm going to sue every last motherfucking of you for my lack of skill. Beleed that shit.
- VT Remmy - 10-24-2007
PDenbigh Wrote:An untrained driver has no business in that car in the first place, yet alone going 130mph at a track event. It's dumb moves like that that scare the auto industry out of doing the really cool projects.
I agree completely that an untrained driver has no business piloting a 600hp land rocket. But truth be told, many students in HPDE 1,2,3 and 4 are capable of carrying that kind of speed down the front straight away by pit out at VIR and and some at Summit Point. Even with an instructor in the car, or with a perfectly balanced car, if a driver lifts of the throttle abruptly and jerks the wheel to the side they will lose control of the car.
What scares me is how the driver of the car is liable for 49% of 4.5mil because according to the settlement he failed to announce to his passenger the handling problems the car suffered from. He apparently had 4 off track excursions the day before and was complaining that the car was having handling problems (as I and probably most others believe had nothing to do with the car and everything to do with the driver). By not informing the passenger that he was having problems driving the passenger did not have enough information to give consent, invalidating his liability waiver. There also sounded like some shady activity getting the car it's at track technical inspection (but if the car was essentially stock, I can't imagine it not being able to pass a tech inspection for an open track day).
If I'm doing an HPDE with NASA and have an off track excursion on Saturday, then take a passenger out Sunday and we both get hurt, by the president set by this case I (and my estate, ie, family) would be liable for the passengers injuries if I failed to disclose every possible thing about my driving history and the car's performance history. And as people know, sometimes instructors have passengers thrust upon them 1 minute before being released on track. And while the instructor can refuse the passenger, most are affable enough to accept, no questions asked.
It's a shame really, cause I fear this ruling could have far reaching effects to how other HPDE's and open track days are run. I've learned a lot in the passenger seat riding with others on track, and I'm sure I've helped others by allowing them to ride with me. To cut out that part of the experience hurts the learning process.
- Apoc - 10-24-2007
What strikes me about this... well... one of the things that strikes me... is that cars entering from put are supposed to move immediately from track left to track right avoid the line and possible at-speed cars.
Doesn't that seem crazy to anyone else?
- Andy - 10-24-2007
Apoc Wrote:What strikes me about this... well... one of the things that strikes me... is that cars entering from put are supposed to move immediately from track left to track right avoid the line and possible at-speed cars.
Doesn't that seem crazy to anyone else?
Honestly, the whole situation seems like a perfect storm of fuck ups. Did you see the picture of the concrete wall that is perpendicular to the track?
- Apoc - 10-24-2007
NASCAR should have to pay... it's all their fault.
I mean a playground? Seriously?
I knew kids were bad news.
- ScottyB - 10-24-2007
VT Remmy Wrote:It's a shame really, cause I fear this ruling could have far reaching effects to how other HPDE's and open track days are run. I've learned a lot in the passenger seat riding with others on track, and I'm sure I've helped others by allowing them to ride with me. To cut out that part of the experience hurts the learning process.
it's definitely a shame and i agree with what you have to say here.
i guess we need to type up a generic waiver the day before our HPDE weekends and keep a few copies in the glove box in case a passenger wants to jump in. they sign, they get to ride
- BLINGMW - 10-24-2007
VT Remmy Wrote:By not informing the passenger that he was having problems driving the passenger did not have enough information to give consent, invalidating his liability waiver.
a) How the heck were they going to prove that he didn't?
VT Remmy Wrote:by the president set by this case
b) I would be really concerned by this too!
c) BUT, I think we're ok here. There was no precedent set if it was settled before going to trial. One rich family/lawyer managed to scare another rich family/lawyer enough to pay out. I'm glad it didn't go to court, I'd be really upset if this was an actual verdict!
However, I am surprised that Porsche gave in so easily. Them fronting 8% is total BS, I would think they'd take that to trial. This whole part of the article makes me gag:
McClellan thinks that the manufacturersÔÇÖ greatest exposure in this regard may not be crashes on racetracks, but what might happen on the street. Imagine a CGT driver who gets in over his head on a public road, the rear end comes around, and he spins into an oncoming car, killing its occupant. Faced with expert testimony that electronic stability control could have prevented the spin, what will the jury think?
I could get in over my head in my 4cyl, 15 yr old BMW, spin into an oncoming lane and kill someone too. And while traction control certainly exsisted then, I don't think it was an option on my car. How irresponsible of BMW! :roll:
- VT Remmy - 10-25-2007
From the artical:
"Interestingly, the Court received amicus curiae briefs from a number of organizations, including NASCAR and the California Speedway Association, predicting the demise of spectator racing and numerous types of recreational activities if the Court adopted this rule. The Court brushed them off, pointing out that NASCAR holds three races each year in Virginia and New York, both of which have laws that bar releases even in cases of ordinary negligence."
Can someone explain this to me in idiot speek. Does this mean that in Virginia the releases we sign at the track wont hold up againts claims of negligance (let alone gross negligance)?
Quote:However, I am surprised that Porsche gave in so easily. Them fronting 8% is total BS, I would think they'd take that to trial. This whole part of the article makes me gag:
McClellan thinks that the manufacturersÔÇÖ greatest exposure in this regard may not be crashes on racetracks, but what might happen on the street. Imagine a CGT driver who gets in over his head on a public road, the rear end comes around, and he spins into an oncoming car, killing its occupant. Faced with expert testimony that electronic stability control could have prevented the spin, what will the jury think?
I've always been told at the track that traction control and abs cause safety concerns for drivers around you, if indeed you do spin your car will wobble around the track rather than sliding straight off making it more dangerous. I'm suprised Porsche (or the Ferrari Club) didn't try to argue this point. I guess it's just easier to settle when you've got deep pockets.
- WRXtranceformed - 10-25-2007
It's bad PR for companies like that to have pending or active lawsuits, and like someone said, it was probably cheaper for them to spend the 3% or whatever it was than get tied up with expensive lawyers in court.