Carrera GT accident last year

The settlement reflects payments of insurance policies. The widow did not have to pay anything personally nor did she incur attorney fees because your insurance coverage provides for legal counsel to be paid by the insurance company to defend you. Considering that virtually all insurance carriers have now excluded coverage for track events it will be interesting to see what happens if there is a similar occurrence in the future.

Okay. When it said the settlement was being paid by the estate of the Porsche driver I was under the impression that it was coming out of the pocket of the widow, or out of the amount of settlement she received from her husbands passing. If this is in error, that is my mistake. It still does not take away from the root of what bothers me about cases like this....it seems like NOBODY takes responsibility for their own actions and risks anymore!! The passenger knew the risks, and unfortunately paid the price for a high speed car accident on a race track. Whether it is an individual, or a faceless insurance company who is paying out, the effects still ripple and show others that you can get huge amounts of money for taking risks and having those risks go bad.
 
IMHO the biggest winner is the Attorney - $1.5M and lots of media coverage. Gee thanks for looking out for the safety of the world by suing companies until ESC is standard equipment.

The biggest loser - The two families and track guys. Dragging the suit on for this long just causes more painful memories. Finally, those of us who track cars have lost DE coverage partially due to this event.:frown:
 
Not to hijack this thread but a general analysis of personal injury lawsuits might explain the result. Most often there is a shotgun approach to naming potential defendants in order to get the largest potential pool of insurance monies. Most personal injury lawsuits settle before trial and everyone knows that since it will come down to a business decision in weighing the risk of an unknown verdict with known costs of settling.

Certain states, such as New York, may have what is known as "joint and several liability" which is also referred to as the "1% rule". An example in NY would involve motor vehicle accidents whereby if you are at least 1% responsible your final payment will depend upon how much money the other driver/drivers can pay based upon their insurance limits.

That would mean if there is a $1,000,000 judgment and I have been found to be 10% at fault you would assume that I would have to pay $100,000. However, if the other driver who is 90% at fault has the statutory minimun coverage in NY of only $25,000 my insurance company would have to pay $975,000 from my policy. Not exactly a fair result for me and my carrier but the legislature has determined it is better to share the risk and compensate the victim so the greater burden of paying judgments is borne by those who can afford to pay.

I am not familiar with the procedural rules where the lawsuit was venued but I would suspect the logic behind suiing everyone is analogous to provide the largest pool of monies to be thrown into a settlement to avoid the cost and potential of a trial. That is why I would assume that Porsche contributed in order to avoid the cost of a trial as well as the potential for adverse publicity from a verdict.
 
Certain states, such as New York, may have what is known as "joint and several liability" which is also referred to as the "1% rule". An example in NY would involve motor vehicle accidents whereby if you are at least 1% responsible your final payment will depend upon how much money the other driver/drivers can pay based upon their insurance limits.


Ho-ly Crap how unfair is that? Is this still true in a situation where no one had insurance? Sounds like it's better to be poor and not have coverage. Why even have coverage if the other guy has it.

You know the more I talk with people about the law the sicker it makes my stomach feel. I have yet to hear a law that I said afterwards...That's how it should be!
 
Is this still true in a situation where no one had insurance? Sounds like it's better to be poor and not have coverage. Why even have coverage if the other guy has it.

In multiple driver accidents, the same holds true even if someone did not have insurance which would mean you would pay 100% of the judgment if you are 1% responsible. The scarier part is that if your insurance doesn't cover the rest of the judgment and you have sufficient assets it is possible for the plaintiff to seize your assets. I have never seen it happen since the "unwritten rule" is that you take the available coverage and don't go after anyone personally but it is still legally permissible.

And if you think that is unfair, consider New York labor law liability for construction accidents. Let's say you are a building owner (other than a one or two family dwelling) and hire a contractor to do work on your premises. He subs out the work to ABC Scaffolding company who erects a 4 story scaffold but forgets to secure the planking. Day laborer John Doe decides to drink a six pack of his liquid lunch and is "smashed" before he is to get a lesson in gravity. He stumbles onto the scaffolding and falls between the unsecured planking.

You, as the building owner, are absolutely liable as a matter of law for John Doe's accident. The jury is not permitted to hear that he was drunk and you may not raise it as a defense. Hopefully, your contracts provided for defense and indemnification as well as additional named insured status on your contractors' policies or you will be footing the bill for the injuries.

You should see some of the scenarios I have dealt with over my 20+ years as a trial attorney.

In terms of car accidents in NY, if the person who hits you is uninsured you may collect from your policy under the UM portions up to your available coverage. Unfortunately, many insurance brokers do not advise you that you may purchase additional UM/SUM coverage at a relatively nominal cost in the event you are hit by someone who is uninsured or underinsured. The key portion of this scenario is the concept of "underinsurance" whereby you are stuck paying a premium for coverage in case you are hit by someone who can't afford better coverage.

For example, if I run you down and I have the statutory limits of $25,000, you would look to your own policy to see what your SUM/UM limits are. If you have $100,000 of SUM/UM coverage, you could then recover a maximum of $75,000 from your own policy if you are able to obtain the full limits of my coverage of $25,000. The further ridiculous part of this scenario is that you paid for $100,000 of coverage but your policy provides that your carrier gets an offset for what you collect under the other policy so you never get your full coverage nor a premium refund for the difference.
 
I agree we are way to much of a litigious society, but after reading the findings...there were a few issues...and the waivers really were not worth the paper they were written on.........

"The Track. The track suffered from two major design defectsthe pit-out (exit onto the track) design and the concrete wall along the straightaway that was moved to accommodate the NASCAR race. The problem with the pit-out design was that it brought the drivers onto the track in the middle of the straightaway and the pit-out driver’s view of the straightaway was completely blocked by a guardrail, so the driver had to rely entirely on the flagger when entering.

The aerial view of the track shows how the concrete wall that normally ran parallel to the track was moved to enlarge the area behind it. A second photo shows the Carrera GT crashed in the worst possible place—right where the wall protruded. It looks as the CGT would normally have hit the wall and bounced back toward the track. Whatever happened then would have been better than a 130-mile near head-on crash.

The Organizers. The Ferrari Owners Club requires that all cars pass a technical inspection by an approved repair facility. At a previous event, the FOC President and organizer had been warned by one of their vehicle certifiers that he believed that something was wrong with the handling of Keaton’s car and it should not be allowed to run. They let it into that event anyway, and it spun out three to four times—one time the event organizer was even on board and became nauseous. But he didn’t tell anyone about the warnings and did not exclude Keaton from that event. (As you will see below, it appears the concerns the mechanic had were related to the oversteer inherent in the design of the car, not to any particular mechanical defect.)

Keaton did not have the CGT inspected before this event, but was allowed to sign his own tech inspection form stating that the car was fine. Investigation revealed the FOC had never denied a participant access to a track day on account of a failure to pass tech.

The organizers also failed to enforce the track safety rule about cars entering the track. Pit-out was in the middle of the straightaway, with entry on the left side. But cars on the straightaway tended to stay to the left to set up for the right-hander at the end. To avoid collisions, cars entering the track were required to move to the right side as soon as possible. However, at this event, cars were entering the track and staying on the left side.

The Driver. Keaton was warned about the handling problems with the CGT, ignored his mechanic’s advice, and invited Rudl for a ride without mentioning the problems. And, when the Ferrari came onto the track slowly, he overreacted and spun.

The Ferrari Driver. The Ferrari driver and the flagger blamed each other for what happened, but it was concluded that the Ferrari entered the track too slowly, forcing Keaton to evade him.

Porsche. The sole claim against Porsche was that the CGT was defective because it was designed without electronic stability control, which Porsche calls PSM. McClellan deposed two German engineers on the subject, and their answers were inconsistent. One testified that Porsche did not think that its PSM system would work on the CGT because the car’s frame structure and suspension mountings would create strong vibrations that would interfere with its operation. The other engineer testified that PSM was not offered because the customers didn’t want it."
at a minimum, i would expect thorough vehicle inspections by qualified inspectors, check-rides by qualified driver / instructors before a driver was signed off to take a passenger on the track, etc... much the same standards required of pilots before being allowed to fly solo, carry passengers, fly in certain conditions, etc.

my feelings are if you're providing the venue and managing the event, you have the responsibility to ensure the event is as safe as possible for all involved, given the circumstances.

given the documented poor judgment displayed by the track, organizers and cgt driver, i can't really think of any of my friends who wouldn't take legal action were their loved one (passenger) killed in this same situation. (based on what i've read in my "quick skim", i disagree with the liability assigned to porsche.)
 
I'm surprise for that amount of $$$ someone to this effect is not involved:

Hitman_WPa1280-1024.jpg
 
In terms of car accidents in NY, if the person who hits you is uninsured you may collect from your policy under the UM portions up to your available coverage. Unfortunately, many insurance brokers do not advise you that you may purchase additional UM/SUM coverage at a relatively nominal cost in the event you are hit by someone who is uninsured or underinsured. The key portion of this scenario is the concept of "underinsurance" whereby you are stuck paying a premium for coverage in case you are hit by someone who can't afford better coverage.

For example, if I run you down and I have the statutory limits of $25,000, you would look to your own policy to see what your SUM/UM limits are. If you have $100,000 of SUM/UM coverage, you could then recover a maximum of $75,000 from your own policy if you are able to obtain the full limits of my coverage of $25,000. The further ridiculous part of this scenario is that you paid for $100,000 of coverage but your policy provides that your carrier gets an offset for what you collect under the other policy so you never get your full coverage nor a premium refund for the difference.


I know all about this one as I have been hit by someone who had no insurance in 1994. The person who hit me received 7 tickets for the accident. The accident was their fault. My insurance company had to pay. They also tried to sue my insurance as well. I believe they received some sort of payment as a nuisance payment. The insurance guy told me they would give them something because it was cheaper to pay them ~5k I think it was then to take it to court. The worse part is it was their fault, I had to pay AND my f...ing rate went up because of it. :mad: :rolleyes:
 
Okay. When it said the settlement was being paid by the estate of the Porsche driver I was under the impression that it was coming out of the pocket of the widow, or out of the amount of settlement she received from her husbands passing.

A ha ha my friend you missed a slight detail I beleive. She DOES pay out, but not in a lump sum so to speak. She pays out, ALONG WITH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US, by means of higher insurance premiums. So in essence, we ALL pay into lawsuits like this where its a matter of finger pointing as opposed to talking responsibility of ones own actions. Next time I get in a car accident I'll sue the concrete company who made the road. :tongue: :biggrin:
 
She pays out, ALONG WITH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US, by means of higher insurance premiums.

This was also a big factor in virtually every carrier excluding coverage for HPDE. Although the trend was to eliminate that coverage, this high profile case was a wake up call to those carriers still thinking that HPDE did not involve any risk. In 2002 one of my carrier clients retained my firm to provide an opinion about disclaiming coverage for a Porsche club event at Lime Rock which was an HPDE event. They only realized what HPDE involved because the owner had the adjuster look at the damage while the numbers were still on the car, the harness belts were over the seats and the helmet and neck collar were on the driver's seat. They ultimately paid the claim but did additional research into track events and became one of the first to exclude that coverage.
 
Back
Top