Carrera GT Lawsuit Settled - Printable Version

Carrera GT Lawsuit Settled - Printable Version

+- Riesentöter Forums (https://rtr-pca.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Club Activities (https://rtr-pca.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+--- Forum: Driver's Education (https://rtr-pca.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=29)
+--- Thread: Carrera GT Lawsuit Settled (/showthread.php?tid=597)

Pages: 1 2

- jmr3 - 10-23-2007

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

- Larry Herman - 10-23-2007

You beat me to it. Worth reading, especially for our DE program.

Link to Rennlist discussion:

http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/showthread.php?t=386749

- Tony356993 - 10-23-2007

Quote: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.

Fron RL but well stated. Where to go from here?

- Phokaioglaukos - 10-23-2007

This will occaision a LOT of discussion, as it should. I'll try to find the rule for the states in which we sponsor events as to whether the waiver works for gross negligence or only simple negligence.

For new production cars the point on stability control (PSM) may not be so significant--I think the US has rules soon to become effective that will require it.

From what I remember reading of Corey Rudl's financial position (he could afford a CGT, among other things), the settlement struck me as relatively low. I wonder if the waivers are more effective than the headline makes it appear.

In any event, there are lessons here for our club:

continue to take tech inspection seriously (thanks, Paul!) and consider whether we should expand or change the items covered[/*]
stress the blend line, whether it's painted on the racing surface or not[/*]
no "fun rides," this is instruction[/*]
if a track or a car does not seem safe, speak up!

[/*]
Some of this result can be written off as fear of a CA jury, but there are things for us to consider.

- michael lang - 10-24-2007

Well put Chris, tech inspection is definitely a priority and every car should be looked at and signed off on regardless of how new or old, how well prepared, or the overall condition.

- ccm911 - 10-24-2007

Just leave it to the lawyers to remove the fun from everything.......

And folks wonder why street racing is so popular?

- Hammerin Hank - 10-24-2007

Here's a simple solution. Have everyone write on a piece of paper, "Am I prepared to die or be mamed today?", and attach it to their key fob. As part of their startup checklist, they, and any passengers, should be required to answer the question. If the answer is "no" they should find the nearest exit of the facility. They have no business being there. Hopefully, they'll make it home "safely" in their 200mph super car.

- Tony356993 - 10-24-2007

Quote:Here's a simple solution. Have everyone write on a piece of paper, "Am I prepared to die or be mamed today?", and attach it to their key fob. As part of their startup checklist, they, and any passengers, should be required to answer the question. If the answer is "no" they should find the nearest exit of the facility. They have no business being there. Hopefully, they'll make it home "safely" in their 200mph super car.

- AMoore - 10-24-2007

Here is a solution. Continue to follow the types safety precautions used by our club.

In the case referenced, The Ferrari club allowed:

1. a passenger who was not an instructor in the car;

2. a car on track that had not been inspected; and

3. a car on the track that had spun out 3 or 4 times that day prior to the accident, once with the event organizer in the car.

The driver:

1. knew his car was not performing properly, as he stated to numerous people prior to the accident;

2. did not get his car inspected; and

3. allowed a passenger in his car who was not an instructor, ( A driver would be more likely to lose focus if a passenger was not an instructor. He may even try to show off);

The track:

1. moved a wall in at an area that was obviously the most dangerous part of the track;

2. had a pit out at the most dangerous part of a track; and

3. did not have a pit out lane.

What we do is obviously dangerous and that is the risk we are prepared to take and the waivers we sign should be enforced. This case, however, offers guidance on how an event should be run. I for one am grateful for the strictness applied in our own club and would never participate in an event like the one in California if I knew such egregious conduct was allowed to take place.

Keep up the fantastic work Reisentoter.

- Darren - 10-24-2007

The issue doesn't seem to be that there was a problem with this specific car, just that the CGT has inherent oversteer (oh gee, does that have something to do with 600 hp?) The points about the car not being inspected, etc, are totally irrelevant. Its all lawyer spin.

It's ridiculous that Porsche was named in this -- the guy that bought the car certainly knew he was buying a "race car for the street" and the guy who got in the car knew it as well (besides it was a track incident, what does race car for the street have to do with it anyway?). This is somehow Porsche's fault because the car didn't have PSM? Please...So now does Porsche have to put PSM on every car they make because they have the technology? Can I sue Chevy when I sprain my ankle getting out of my truck because of the inherent design flaw that it sits too high?