Results from the CGT lawsuit
- Thread starter Matt_337
- Start date
This is very disappointing. On pretty much every level. It is sad that two participants lost their lives. However, the law suit is also a bad sequence of events and results.
The worst part is the liability that was placed on Porsche. So, the legal system of the United States is going to tell Porsche which features to put on their cars? So, it starts with airbags, seat belts and now traction control? What if someone comes up with a new safety feature... say dynamic bumpers or a throttle pedal that only goes down 1/2 way? Do we want the courts to tell Porsche (or anyone else) how to build cars? Ridiculous. I want to buy the car I want... not the car *they* want me to have.
Second - pre-event technical inspections do NOT cover oversteer. There is no way a mechanic will know if a car has oversteer or not. I did tech inspections for a Porsche Club for years and I never drove the cars once. In fact, let's propose this tech form based on this law suit:
Oil: none some half 3/4 full (check one)
Leaks: none drips stream flood
Tires: none thin middle 3/4 new
Brakes: none some middle new
Oversteer: none some lots unsafe
Understeer: none some slow dumptruck safest
Traction control: none selectable defeatable working
ABS: none selectable defeatable working
Air bags: none tested not-tested
Seat belts: none lap-belt 3-point 4-point 5-point 6-point California-approved 11-point-carbon-kevlar-JDM-titanium
Please agree that blaming tech inspectors is a stupid idea. So is requiring additional safety features like traction control or dynamic stability assist or whatever.
I also don't see how the Ferrari driver is to blame. So what if he's going slow? He's entering the track and is going to be slow(er) than the cars on the straight. Duh. A driver should be able to avoid a slower car on the straight... easily. What if the Ferrari was unable to maintian or increase speed? Say he had a mechanical problem as he entered? Perhaps his engine is miss firing or a lug nut is loose or he is out of gas. Who is to blame then?
I assume this incident started well before the brake zone, based on the description. It should be a low risk move to miss a slow car, particularly at this point on the track.
Also, the passenger's wife is the one filing the suit? The passenger (her husband) is not a customer of Porsche. The passenger was injured due to bad driving by the driver. This suit should have nothing to do with the track, Porsche or Ferrari, the tech inspector(s), etc... just the driver's estate, if anything.
So, are we setting the precedent that any passenger can sue the driver if something goes wrong? Isn't this a shared risk? If our courts are going to let any passenger sue the driver for any incidents, then we instructors have what reason to ever let a student ride with us? Does each driver need a waiver for each passenger to sign... or will even that not hold up?
If the waivers are not going to hold up, then let's change the waiver to be more accurate of the "we know best" California Supreme Court:
"I promise not to blame the organizers of this event if something bad happens. I drive here at my own risk and I can leave any time I choose. However, if something goes wrong, I didn't mean to sign this and I will hold everyone I can responsible for the outcome." I doubt many clubs will run events if this is what the courts do to the waivers (release forms).
Say I give a ride to someone who gets hurt, are they going to sue Acura? How can it be Acura's fault? If we go that route, then new cars will come with a new policy:
"Acura does not warrant this vehicle for any uses other than sitting in your garage with the engine off. Any use beyond this is strictly prohibited. If we find you actually driving your car, we may come reposses it as that is considered unsafe in California and we (Acura) do not accept the liability of any use of this vehicle."
I can't believe this was all there was to the suit, based on lawyers of today. The prosecuting attorney should be fired for not naming more defendents. What type of tires were on the car? Better tires would CERTAINLY not oversteer. Sue Goodyear also!!! And, were any aftermarket parts on the car? How about springs, shocks or sway bars? I am sure these parts were not "California safe" as they contributed to the oversteer.
And, the rear wing... doesn't it automatically deploy? All cars must now have an auto-sensing and deploying rear wing that will prevent all oversteer. The wing may need to be 20 square feet of surface area and weigh another 50 lbs, but, for safety, no amount is too much.
Similarly, parachutes should be installed that will autodeploy and stop all oversteer and slow down cars from 100 to 20mph within 2 seconds. I can't believe Porsche didn't think of that - how neglegent.
Perhaps more airbags would have helped. Studies show that if cars have 17 air bags per passenger seat, 0.00020031 lives per year would be saved.
In fact, why make cars that have 600hp? Also, let's put speed limits on race tracks. If he would have been moving only a "reasonable" speed of 55mph, then he would have lived.
Ok, here is one last serious issue that I don't like about this case.
Let's say that, for this incident, the exact same action was undertaken by the track owners, the event organizer and both drivers. But, let's just say that the Ferrari entered the track one seocnd earlier or later, and that the spin ended up hitting the wall a few feet away from the actual location. Say that the driver's weren't killed. Say that they were just mildly injured - broken wrists and ankles - or that they got lucky and walked away.
In this case, what is the liability? Probably none, right? That is what is so stupid about this. A driver makes a mistake, and in a sequence of events, a pretty bad result occurs. However, the "cause" and "actions" in the event... none are negligent in my mind. No one would even be talking about this if the passengers weren't killed. While, at tracks all over the country, drivers lose control and smack walls all day long and no one is to blame.
Have our lawyers made our system work like this: "You are all released from liability... unless something bad happens. Then, you are all held accountable. Good luck."
Let me bore you with two incidents that occurred at Heartland Park this weekend. One incident was Sunday morning, first session, instructor run group. It was the warm up lap. I was behind the event coordinator (he in 944 turbo, me in NSX with passenger.) Upon entry to the highest risk turn sequence (new 8/9 combo), he got wide in 8, went two rear wheels off, then snap spun around, across the track, and off again in 9. Fortunately, the walls were many more feet back in both cases... but he did go off at 80mph.
Tell me, if he hit a wall, he could have hit hard, and whose fault would it have been?
The 2nd incident was much worse. It was session 2 I believe, on Friday. Friday is only open to advanced students and instructors. This was another 944 turbo with an advanced driver. We were exiting the new turn 1/2 combo at HP. He exited 2 too fast and went wide. He steered more to avoid going off in the grass, but this caused a big oversteer. He saved the first oversteer but snapped into another one. At this point he was still going stright. But, he had his foot in it, like they do in NASCAR. Ultimately, he oversteered back to the right again, then hard back to the left. He lost all control this second time and the car flew hard left, ass-end first, smacked the inside retaining wall with the right rear corner and then with the right front corner. From our perspective (right behind) this looked like a hard side impact, very likely to cause an injury. Fortunately, it was more of a corner strike than it looked. He walked away but the car is totaled.
Now, whose fault is this? Should we apply all the same "rules" from the California case to this? Should Porsche recall all 944s and equip them with further safety equipment? Should tech inspectors test each car for possible oversteer? How? Should Heartland Park move the walls farther back after they've been in this same place for at least the last 20 years? Should the coordinators disallow drivers from spinning at that part of the track? (Yes, that's a joke.)
To me, life is about taking and managing individual risks. It is also about taking responsibility for your decisions. If you buy a 600hp car and you drive it on tracks with other cars and you lose control, its up to you to be resonsible for your actions. If the chance that you might spin out due to unforseen circumstances is a risk you can't accept, then perhaps track driving isn't for you.
And, that is exactly what the waivers (releases) say. They say, "Track driving has inherent risks. If YOU don't accept the risks, then don't drive. If you DO ACCEPT the risks, sign here."
Can't rational people sign these contracts (releases) and have our legal system (lawyers!) back us up? Its a sad situation in our courts, especially in CA.
$0.02
The worst part is the liability that was placed on Porsche. So, the legal system of the United States is going to tell Porsche which features to put on their cars? So, it starts with airbags, seat belts and now traction control? What if someone comes up with a new safety feature... say dynamic bumpers or a throttle pedal that only goes down 1/2 way? Do we want the courts to tell Porsche (or anyone else) how to build cars? Ridiculous. I want to buy the car I want... not the car *they* want me to have.
Second - pre-event technical inspections do NOT cover oversteer. There is no way a mechanic will know if a car has oversteer or not. I did tech inspections for a Porsche Club for years and I never drove the cars once. In fact, let's propose this tech form based on this law suit:
Oil: none some half 3/4 full (check one)
Leaks: none drips stream flood
Tires: none thin middle 3/4 new
Brakes: none some middle new
Oversteer: none some lots unsafe
Understeer: none some slow dumptruck safest
Traction control: none selectable defeatable working
ABS: none selectable defeatable working
Air bags: none tested not-tested
Seat belts: none lap-belt 3-point 4-point 5-point 6-point California-approved 11-point-carbon-kevlar-JDM-titanium
Please agree that blaming tech inspectors is a stupid idea. So is requiring additional safety features like traction control or dynamic stability assist or whatever.
I also don't see how the Ferrari driver is to blame. So what if he's going slow? He's entering the track and is going to be slow(er) than the cars on the straight. Duh. A driver should be able to avoid a slower car on the straight... easily. What if the Ferrari was unable to maintian or increase speed? Say he had a mechanical problem as he entered? Perhaps his engine is miss firing or a lug nut is loose or he is out of gas. Who is to blame then?
I assume this incident started well before the brake zone, based on the description. It should be a low risk move to miss a slow car, particularly at this point on the track.
Also, the passenger's wife is the one filing the suit? The passenger (her husband) is not a customer of Porsche. The passenger was injured due to bad driving by the driver. This suit should have nothing to do with the track, Porsche or Ferrari, the tech inspector(s), etc... just the driver's estate, if anything.
So, are we setting the precedent that any passenger can sue the driver if something goes wrong? Isn't this a shared risk? If our courts are going to let any passenger sue the driver for any incidents, then we instructors have what reason to ever let a student ride with us? Does each driver need a waiver for each passenger to sign... or will even that not hold up?
If the waivers are not going to hold up, then let's change the waiver to be more accurate of the "we know best" California Supreme Court:
"I promise not to blame the organizers of this event if something bad happens. I drive here at my own risk and I can leave any time I choose. However, if something goes wrong, I didn't mean to sign this and I will hold everyone I can responsible for the outcome." I doubt many clubs will run events if this is what the courts do to the waivers (release forms).
Say I give a ride to someone who gets hurt, are they going to sue Acura? How can it be Acura's fault? If we go that route, then new cars will come with a new policy:
"Acura does not warrant this vehicle for any uses other than sitting in your garage with the engine off. Any use beyond this is strictly prohibited. If we find you actually driving your car, we may come reposses it as that is considered unsafe in California and we (Acura) do not accept the liability of any use of this vehicle."
I can't believe this was all there was to the suit, based on lawyers of today. The prosecuting attorney should be fired for not naming more defendents. What type of tires were on the car? Better tires would CERTAINLY not oversteer. Sue Goodyear also!!! And, were any aftermarket parts on the car? How about springs, shocks or sway bars? I am sure these parts were not "California safe" as they contributed to the oversteer.
And, the rear wing... doesn't it automatically deploy? All cars must now have an auto-sensing and deploying rear wing that will prevent all oversteer. The wing may need to be 20 square feet of surface area and weigh another 50 lbs, but, for safety, no amount is too much.
Similarly, parachutes should be installed that will autodeploy and stop all oversteer and slow down cars from 100 to 20mph within 2 seconds. I can't believe Porsche didn't think of that - how neglegent.
Perhaps more airbags would have helped. Studies show that if cars have 17 air bags per passenger seat, 0.00020031 lives per year would be saved.
In fact, why make cars that have 600hp? Also, let's put speed limits on race tracks. If he would have been moving only a "reasonable" speed of 55mph, then he would have lived.
Ok, here is one last serious issue that I don't like about this case.
Let's say that, for this incident, the exact same action was undertaken by the track owners, the event organizer and both drivers. But, let's just say that the Ferrari entered the track one seocnd earlier or later, and that the spin ended up hitting the wall a few feet away from the actual location. Say that the driver's weren't killed. Say that they were just mildly injured - broken wrists and ankles - or that they got lucky and walked away.
In this case, what is the liability? Probably none, right? That is what is so stupid about this. A driver makes a mistake, and in a sequence of events, a pretty bad result occurs. However, the "cause" and "actions" in the event... none are negligent in my mind. No one would even be talking about this if the passengers weren't killed. While, at tracks all over the country, drivers lose control and smack walls all day long and no one is to blame.
Have our lawyers made our system work like this: "You are all released from liability... unless something bad happens. Then, you are all held accountable. Good luck."
Let me bore you with two incidents that occurred at Heartland Park this weekend. One incident was Sunday morning, first session, instructor run group. It was the warm up lap. I was behind the event coordinator (he in 944 turbo, me in NSX with passenger.) Upon entry to the highest risk turn sequence (new 8/9 combo), he got wide in 8, went two rear wheels off, then snap spun around, across the track, and off again in 9. Fortunately, the walls were many more feet back in both cases... but he did go off at 80mph.
Tell me, if he hit a wall, he could have hit hard, and whose fault would it have been?
The 2nd incident was much worse. It was session 2 I believe, on Friday. Friday is only open to advanced students and instructors. This was another 944 turbo with an advanced driver. We were exiting the new turn 1/2 combo at HP. He exited 2 too fast and went wide. He steered more to avoid going off in the grass, but this caused a big oversteer. He saved the first oversteer but snapped into another one. At this point he was still going stright. But, he had his foot in it, like they do in NASCAR. Ultimately, he oversteered back to the right again, then hard back to the left. He lost all control this second time and the car flew hard left, ass-end first, smacked the inside retaining wall with the right rear corner and then with the right front corner. From our perspective (right behind) this looked like a hard side impact, very likely to cause an injury. Fortunately, it was more of a corner strike than it looked. He walked away but the car is totaled.
Now, whose fault is this? Should we apply all the same "rules" from the California case to this? Should Porsche recall all 944s and equip them with further safety equipment? Should tech inspectors test each car for possible oversteer? How? Should Heartland Park move the walls farther back after they've been in this same place for at least the last 20 years? Should the coordinators disallow drivers from spinning at that part of the track? (Yes, that's a joke.)
To me, life is about taking and managing individual risks. It is also about taking responsibility for your decisions. If you buy a 600hp car and you drive it on tracks with other cars and you lose control, its up to you to be resonsible for your actions. If the chance that you might spin out due to unforseen circumstances is a risk you can't accept, then perhaps track driving isn't for you.
And, that is exactly what the waivers (releases) say. They say, "Track driving has inherent risks. If YOU don't accept the risks, then don't drive. If you DO ACCEPT the risks, sign here."
Can't rational people sign these contracts (releases) and have our legal system (lawyers!) back us up? Its a sad situation in our courts, especially in CA.
$0.02
It's called the jackpot lottery- and is not in anyone's best interest aside from those whom choose to abuse America's civil legal system. It's always everyone else's fault, and when that doesn't pan out.. they start to dig and name everyone with money and just let the pieces fall where they may. Both sides of the table knows the game... hoping a teary eye tragedy plus a sympathetic jury will allow emotion to triumph common sense, and doll out a huge payout.
The reality of course is that sometimes accidents happen, nothing could have prevented it, and no one need have their family attorney on quick dial due to a death.
What a joke.
I can't say for the PCA or Ferrari club down that way, but if anyone tries to sue our local (Porsche, Alfa, Audi, BMW) chapters you might get a free T-Shirt out of the deal, perhaps in your size depending on inventory. :biggrin:
The reality of course is that sometimes accidents happen, nothing could have prevented it, and no one need have their family attorney on quick dial due to a death.
What a joke.
I can't say for the PCA or Ferrari club down that way, but if anyone tries to sue our local (Porsche, Alfa, Audi, BMW) chapters you might get a free T-Shirt out of the deal, perhaps in your size depending on inventory. :biggrin:
Ok...my own .02 here. I don't think that idiots should be allowed to buy and drive cars that they aren't capable of driving (this is of course, not the issue here) but i find it rediculous that some rich jackass can go into a dodge dealership...pick himself up a 550hp viper that's completely unstable and damn near impossible to keep under control in the hands of a "sports car rookie" and they're allowed to drive on the streets. One of my ex's was given one in highschool no less...and ended up putting 4 people in the hospital and almost killing herself cause she lost the rear end into oncoming traffic...we can all say it's her dad's fault...but it sure isn't the 4 peoples fault the were driving home on a thursday night. I believe that you should have to prove your ability to drive these types of vehicles and be held responsible if you allow someone, without these skills, to take it for a spin and hurt someone.
As for the track, if you look at where they relocated the wall for the nascar race and then didn't move it back for road racing...someone made a big booboo...that was an accident waiting to happen...at the very least they should have given instructions in the drivers meeting indicating that the usual runoff had been severly cut back and that the new angle the barrier made with racing traffic was considerably more dangerous. theres was almost no way they could have glanced off in the new location.
As for tech inspection...i don't know how many times i've seen organizers allow all sorts of cars on, without real inspections. I've even seen them hand someone who didn't even know about a tech inspection form ( PCA ), a blank form and the guy would go over to the registration table and fill it out...without ever stepping outside to look at their car. I saw the same guy later that day asking for lugnuts cause he'd lost 2 of them in the first session. they really need to step it up in this dept...mostly cause i'm on track with these guys, and no i don't trust that they've done the right things to their cars until they've been to the track for a year or more.
oh and just a side note...in recent years many of the "supercar" manufactures have had to be really careful delivering thier cars because the transport people have wrapped a few around poles and such, we've all seen the aftermath...if they don't see their own employees who drive porsches everyday fit to drive these cars...don't you think John Q. public is also too stupid to drive them...just my opinion.
I don't think laws should require any of them to put any of these safety items on their cars, as long as they're doing their part to sell to a responsible customer...
As for the track, if you look at where they relocated the wall for the nascar race and then didn't move it back for road racing...someone made a big booboo...that was an accident waiting to happen...at the very least they should have given instructions in the drivers meeting indicating that the usual runoff had been severly cut back and that the new angle the barrier made with racing traffic was considerably more dangerous. theres was almost no way they could have glanced off in the new location.
As for tech inspection...i don't know how many times i've seen organizers allow all sorts of cars on, without real inspections. I've even seen them hand someone who didn't even know about a tech inspection form ( PCA ), a blank form and the guy would go over to the registration table and fill it out...without ever stepping outside to look at their car. I saw the same guy later that day asking for lugnuts cause he'd lost 2 of them in the first session. they really need to step it up in this dept...mostly cause i'm on track with these guys, and no i don't trust that they've done the right things to their cars until they've been to the track for a year or more.
oh and just a side note...in recent years many of the "supercar" manufactures have had to be really careful delivering thier cars because the transport people have wrapped a few around poles and such, we've all seen the aftermath...if they don't see their own employees who drive porsches everyday fit to drive these cars...don't you think John Q. public is also too stupid to drive them...just my opinion.
I don't think laws should require any of them to put any of these safety items on their cars, as long as they're doing their part to sell to a responsible customer...
I would agree with your view, but I don't think that was the primary issue in this specific case.
It sounds to me more akin to jumping out an airplane, then having the family sue Cessna, the airplane pilot, the parachute manufacturer, the person that packed it, the home owner whose roof he landed on, etc... when he goes (cue up the sound effects) waaa...waa.... wa.... splat.
The bottom line is that accidents can and do happen. Yes, probably more so in high risk extreme activities like say motor-sports than the Topeka Friday Night knitting club, but that is expected. They are unfortunate but that doesn't mean that anyone is entitled to anything more than to grieve for their loved one and move on.
There is a huge difference between an innocent or unavoidable accident and total wanton negligence. It is a very grey line. Yet, our legal climate has been closing that gap to the point whereas surgeons are expected to preform perfect operations every time or get sued, which raises premiums, which really is one reason why health care costs are out of control. Expecting perfection from the world is just not reality. Look... Sh!t Happens. It's not a perfect world. People die. Be a man and take your own life into your own hands.
Look at this key facts to this situation.
Were the barricades in the proper position? Maybe, maybe not. However, as a counter point I offer that if the driver didn't feel safe with the course configuration or how things were being run he could have pulled off on the first warm up lap. I'm pretty sure the event organizers didn't wake up in the morning and push them where they were with snickers and an evil grin.
Naming Porsche for not having a stability system on a Carrera GT to correct a natural over-steer tendency? Give me a break!! That's just a load of crap and we all know it!
Investigating HPDE tech inspection sign off sheets? This is the type of thing that left unabated, will one day put an end to track days as we know them. Clubs are having a very difficult time with insurance as-is without now having to be put into a liability corner. Volunteer non-paid tech inspectors have to check 80 cars in an hour from 8-9 am and are there for the drivers benefit as an extra set of eyes. I don't think it is lax, and asking them to be held accountable to an impossible standard of bringing out lifts to do a complete tear-down technical inspection is ridiculous. I missed a crack in your rotor and you killed yourself? Sorry. Most cars pass because clubs and communities generally do a great job having people come prepared. Someone wants to sneak something by... that's fine let them pay for it. Once again, it's your car man up and take responsibility for its condition before bringing it on to a race track.
And as to getting on to the track, hey when I am at point I trust the track god's judgement. He or a corner worker makes a mistake and gets me killed? Looks human error is also a reality and we assume that risk too.
The bottom line here. Contrary to popular trial lawyer myth and what that guy wrote.... it doesn't take multi-million dollar settlements to promote change or to better society or to make tracks safer. It only takes them to realize situational interest by a career trial attorney without having to otherwise put up a huge retainer. You want a safer track? Those millions could have easily gone to improve it instead of into the families pocket. Want them in a different position? I'm sure they would be happy to move them at this point for free.
It sounds to me more akin to jumping out an airplane, then having the family sue Cessna, the airplane pilot, the parachute manufacturer, the person that packed it, the home owner whose roof he landed on, etc... when he goes (cue up the sound effects) waaa...waa.... wa.... splat.
The bottom line is that accidents can and do happen. Yes, probably more so in high risk extreme activities like say motor-sports than the Topeka Friday Night knitting club, but that is expected. They are unfortunate but that doesn't mean that anyone is entitled to anything more than to grieve for their loved one and move on.
There is a huge difference between an innocent or unavoidable accident and total wanton negligence. It is a very grey line. Yet, our legal climate has been closing that gap to the point whereas surgeons are expected to preform perfect operations every time or get sued, which raises premiums, which really is one reason why health care costs are out of control. Expecting perfection from the world is just not reality. Look... Sh!t Happens. It's not a perfect world. People die. Be a man and take your own life into your own hands.
Look at this key facts to this situation.
Were the barricades in the proper position? Maybe, maybe not. However, as a counter point I offer that if the driver didn't feel safe with the course configuration or how things were being run he could have pulled off on the first warm up lap. I'm pretty sure the event organizers didn't wake up in the morning and push them where they were with snickers and an evil grin.
Naming Porsche for not having a stability system on a Carrera GT to correct a natural over-steer tendency? Give me a break!! That's just a load of crap and we all know it!
Investigating HPDE tech inspection sign off sheets? This is the type of thing that left unabated, will one day put an end to track days as we know them. Clubs are having a very difficult time with insurance as-is without now having to be put into a liability corner. Volunteer non-paid tech inspectors have to check 80 cars in an hour from 8-9 am and are there for the drivers benefit as an extra set of eyes. I don't think it is lax, and asking them to be held accountable to an impossible standard of bringing out lifts to do a complete tear-down technical inspection is ridiculous. I missed a crack in your rotor and you killed yourself? Sorry. Most cars pass because clubs and communities generally do a great job having people come prepared. Someone wants to sneak something by... that's fine let them pay for it. Once again, it's your car man up and take responsibility for its condition before bringing it on to a race track.
And as to getting on to the track, hey when I am at point I trust the track god's judgement. He or a corner worker makes a mistake and gets me killed? Looks human error is also a reality and we assume that risk too.
The bottom line here. Contrary to popular trial lawyer myth and what that guy wrote.... it doesn't take multi-million dollar settlements to promote change or to better society or to make tracks safer. It only takes them to realize situational interest by a career trial attorney without having to otherwise put up a huge retainer. You want a safer track? Those millions could have easily gone to improve it instead of into the families pocket. Want them in a different position? I'm sure they would be happy to move them at this point for free.
Similar threads
- Sticky
