01Racing

And just so you know why I dont organize lapping days anymore....read below:



lawyer2b11-05-2007, 07:09 PM

A must read for Corvette clubs that hold "track days"..................
VERDICTS • Nov. 02, 2007
Speedway, Car Clubs Will Pay $4.5 Million for Racetrack Death

A Southern California racetrack, Porsche and a handful of defendants have settled for $4.5 million a lawsuit that hinged on the question of whether an individual can decide his or her own fate.

On a summer day two years ago, 34-year-old Internet entrepreneur Corey Rudl was enjoying a track day put on by the Ferrari Owners Club of San Diego at California Speedway in Fontana.

His Lamborghini began overheating during warm-up laps, and he said he was thinking of changing cars.

Ben Keaton, a fellow car enthusiast and owner of a 621 horsepower Porsche Carrera GT, offered Rudl a ride.

During their first lap, they rounded a corner and hit the straightaway at nearly 130 miles per hour, quickly coming up behind a Ferrari going much slower. Keaton swerved and lost control, sending the Carrera careening across the asphalt, onto a patch of grass and finally into a concrete wall devoid of tires or anything to dampen the blow.

Rudl was killed instantly. Keaton, 39, was airlifted to a hospital and also died.

Even though the two had signed waivers, Porsche, the estate of Benjamin Keaton, the Ferrari Club, the Ferrari's driver, California Speedway and the company that oversaw the track's management (Driving Ventures) opted to settle rather than to continue litigation in a claim brought by Rudl's family two years ago.

The settlement stems from a suit filed by attorneys for Rudl's wife and parents: Rudl v. Dr. Ing. hcF. Porsche AG et al, GIC858645 (Orange Super. Ct., filed Dec. 20, 2005). The suit alleged that Porsche was negligent because the car maker did not equip the Carrera with an electronic stabilization system. The action also claimed that the design of the track was a factor in the deaths of Keaton and Rudl. The claim also asserted that Driving Ventures and the Ferrari Club had not done enough to make the track safe.

"Defendants failed to disclose the known risks to Corey Rudl, who would have chosen not to encounter them had he known," the Rudls' lawyer, Craig McClellan of San Diego-based McClellan Law Firm, wrote in the claim.

In the suit, McClellan argued that the Ferrari Club had been warned by a track mechanic of problems with the Porsche.

But after announcement of the settlement, Ferrari Club attorney John Toohey of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara said the organization was not to blame.

"My client continues to deny each and every allegation by the Rudl estate," Toohey said.

He had no further comment.

Under terms of the settlement, the estate of Keaton will pay $2.25 million; Ferrari Owner's Club, California Speedway and Driving Ventures will pay a combined $1.75 million; Porsche will add $350,000 and the driver of the Ferrari that forced Keaton to swerve, Joe Sposato, will pay $125,000.

McClellan said that the case serves as a warning to car-event sponsors.

"Instead of sloppy course-and-driver supervision, and non-existent vehicle technical inspections, the sponsors of these events, like the Ferrari club here, will have to adhere to safe practices to avoid liability," he said.

In response to a Daily Journal inquiry about the claim, a Porsche representative said, "while we stand by the Carerra GT, a business decision was made to settle the frivolous matter rather than expend time and energy which would be better spent designing and developing Porsche automobiles."

But announcement of the settlement sparked a debate among readers on The Truth About Cars Web site.

"Just because motor sports are inherently dangerous does not excuse their [clubs] and participants from their responsibility to act responsibly to minimize that danger," wrote Robert Farago.

But another blogger, who went simply by phil, thought that anyone who gets in a car that is so light and so fast is responsible for his own fate.

"As soon as someone suffers the consequences of their own decisions/actions, they or their survivors look around for deep pockets to sue," phil wrote. "If you choose to drive at very high speeds on a race track, it's up to you to check out the course and decide if you wish to take the associated risks."

Since the lawsuit was filed, the track at California Speedway has been redesigned.

23Racer

Wow, all I can say is wow. I had forgotten about this decision and the dampening effect that it had on drivers lapping days for a while.

Just shows that waivers aren't enough to protect participants. Just think what would have happened if that JDM Nissan had climbed the wall at Cayuga instead of flipping over. All kinds of **** would have hit the fan for sure.

Still shaking my head,

Eric

CS13B

iTrader: (11)

^ it was a Subaru that flipped over, just to correct that.
^^ That case up there is complete BS. What's the point of signing a waiver if the waiver can be waived in the event of a death?

And thirdly, I think I remember reading or seeing something that said full race-prepped cages are illegalt because they take away from the energy-absorption properties of the car in an impact. You might be safer in the caged car but the other people involved, most likely in regularly equipped vehicles, won't benefit from YOU having a more rigid vehicle. Manufacturers have standards set by (insert proper gov't organization here) that they must meet for the car to be legal in Canada (anyone remember the story of importing skylines in the early 90's when reinforcements had to be welded inside the doors for North American safety standards?) , and putting a full cage in would probably suggest you've completely altered those regulations. Also, putting the cage in means that you're going to be forcefully stopped much quicker in an impact since the cage is more rigid than the stock reinforcements, and without a proper harness I would imagine the stock seatbelts may not be designed to handle that force should the accident be really bad.
I'm not sure at all of those things and could be spewing BS from my fingers but it makes sense doesn't it? It's probably something along the lines of the regulations that Canada puts out for stock vehicles.

Also one more thing - doesn't a cage drastically improve body rigidity and therefore handling? If you wanna go 'faster' around the track isn't it a good call to put a cage in for that reason as well?

01Racing

1. Waivers:
When you sign a waiver the legal system says it must clearly explained what you are signing. Most (if not all) racetracks I have been to simply say sign the waiver, and dont explain what you are signing, in which case the precedent has been set to award the plaintiff. If the organizer/track infront of witnesses state that you are "signing a waiver acknowledging that what you are doing could result in injury or death and you are waiving the right to sue all parties involved" the judges would probably rule that the waiver stands and that the deceased understood what they were doing was risky.

2. Cages:
Yes a cage greatly increases the ridgidity of the chassis of the vehicle and will improve the handling dramatically. If you are simply adding the cage to the vehicle I dont think there is an issue, however if you are removing factory mounts and bracing, relocating seat belt mounts etc then I believe you have issues. Lots of the showroom stock race cars had boltin cages added to them and these cars were street legal and driven from race to race, like the Honda Michelin, Nissan Sentra and PLayer Camaro's back in the day.

djphonics

iTrader: (1)

There's always something that blows me away when it comes the legal system and sports in all regards. I'm astonished that the Ferrari in front of the porsche had to payout simply because they were a) there, or b) not fast enough.

On the more original note, I am always happy to have these types of threads as it reminds me of the one thing that I don't generally associate with speed.

PS 23Racer, how tall are you?

porkchop91

iTrader: (3)

That is absolutely mind blowing. How people can sue for such obvious to occur circumstances.

I'm at the DAC Shannonville event, and stayed last night to finish working on a car and ended up watching The wealthy bone heads in their street cars racing around with no helmets on, pulling lap times probably similar to most of the Gt cars. Even a guy drifting turn 1 with no helmet, and heard that someone stuffed it over the fence?!

rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

I don't believe a cage is illegal in Alberta on the street, so likely isn't in Ontario. On the other hand, insurers may, and usually do legally refuse to insure a caged car here - or indeed any car that is also used for even autocross or other timed competition of any sort - hence why trackdays typically won't allow any sort of timing. It's partly an issue with how the insurance act is worded here in Alberta, but the gist of it is, insurers here at least won't insure vehicles that are tracked, or equipped for track use - ie., a cage.

CS13B

iTrader: (11)

A cage isn't illegal here according to a friend with a caged M3 who was pulled over... the cop simply gave him a hard time about driving his 'race-car' on the roads but he couldn't actually ticket him for having it.