lapping days?

[finboy]

things that make you go hummm

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

[thgear]

time to read over our waivers fine print...

[TFB]

time to read over our waivers fine print...

Yes, there could be some lucrative financial opportunity in there.

[MazdaMatt]

When I worked at a paintball field the field's owner basically made it clear that the waivers that everybody signs are solely to make them think they can't sue us if something goes wrong. They apparently had no real legal protection from them.

From what I read, that case placed blame of gross negligence on some rather non-negligent people. The mechanic's "expert testimony" that the car had "handling problems" as well as porsche's charge of gross negligence due to car design were both simply because the car oversteers. It wasn't broken like the mechanic suggested, and who says porche HAS to make an understeering car? They made a "race car for the streets". That doesn't imply to me that any joe should be able to drive it, it implies that should a race-trained professional like to have one on the streets that he may.

As for the wall being moved in and the pit exit being in a dumb spot... the driver knew that when he showed up. The DDT has a 90* turn with a cement wall, if i smash into it did Mosport conduct an act of gross negligence? No, I just goofed.

Either way, if i lost my legs, i'd sue all you bastards for all you're worth, so you'd better shape up the waivers. :D

[Marsh]

There was a court case a couple of years ago here in Canada in which case a judge ruled that a person cannot sign away their rights. This precident as made all waivers in Canada not worth the paper they're printed on. The lawyers are succeeding in moving Canada towards a general liabillity system in which anybody and can sue anybody and win. Of course lawyers are the only demographic on the planet served by this, but politicians don't seem to mind. After all most of them are lawyers.

I personally think the country would be best served with a new law that required any person sueing another person to have a finger amputated. If your cause was just then the loss of a finger should be worth it. There is no favouratism for the rich either.

[Doug P]

Besides the rest of this mess did anyone notice this part.

"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 children’s play area during an earlier NASCAR race."

Is that a kids climber right behind the wrecked car in the picture? :eek:

[dubya_rx]

As I posted in another forum... so if we can sue Porsche for making an unsafe car, can we now start suing all the gun manufacturers as well? I'm sure their product have resulted in more deaths than Porsche's products have.

</thread hijack>

[MazdaMatt]

If you look at the overhead photo, the playground is far away from the wall. Besides, if this was moved for a nascar event, would they be driving the outter oval that doesn't use this piece of track?

...Yeah, at least porche made that car with no intention of killing anyone.

[George]

Besides the rest of this mess did anyone notice this part.

"The wall had been placed closer to the track than its original position....


Obviously no where near the oval but moving it from its original position is what stood out when I read it.

Waivers are usually considered w/in a particular fact scenario. They can not be relied upon to provide a complete defence in all situations particularly if the defendant has created and perpetuated some risk or hazard over and above what is normally associated with the activity in question. So, if you can establish negligence it will give rise to the applicability of the waiver.

The standard of care for negligence can be dependent on the context. In this case modifying the wall in that manner at the end of the straight is quite obviously a careless thing to do and a marked departure from normal standards. After all, if you build a wall at the end of the straight what is likely to happen when a car goes off the track? Moreover, if the wall had previously ran parallel to the straight (which it likely did) and you modify it in a way which makes it more dangerous than it was before then you’ve really stepped in the schit..lol

[sjd]

A lot of people are focusing on mainly Porsche who only had to pay a minimal amount in the overall scheme of things. The track did make some major design mistakes and the Carerra GT failed tech elsewhere and the Ferrari driver screwed up too. Safety should be priority at our events and while I don't think everyone should be able to sue everyone else for everything I think this case did have some merit.

[Marsh]

A lot of people are focusing on mainly Porsche who only had to pay a minimal amount in the overall scheme of things. The track did make some major design mistakes and the Carerra GT failed tech elsewhere and the Ferrari driver screwed up too. Safety should be priority at our events and while I don't think everyone should be able to sue everyone else for everything I think this case did have some merit.

The car didn't fail tech. There was nothing wrong with it. The mechanic said that he didn't like the way it handled. If that meant failing tech then miatas would be illegal for competition use.

[Doug P]

Obviously no where near the oval but moving it from its original position is what stood out when I read it.

Waivers are usually considered w/in a particular fact scenario. They can not be relied upon to provide a complete defence in all situations particularly if the defendant has created and perpetuated some risk or hazard over and above what is normally associated with the activity in question. So, if you can establish negligence it will give rise to the applicability of the waiver.

The standard of care for negligence can be dependent on the context. In this case modifying the wall in that manner at the end of the straight is quite obviously a careless thing to do and a marked departure from normal standards. After all, if you build a wall at the end of the straight what is likely to happen when a car goes off the track? Moreover, if the wall had previously ran parallel to the straight (which it likely did) and you modify it in a way which makes it more dangerous than it was before then you’ve really stepped in the schit..lol

Freakin lawyers! :D

[malcolm]

California Speedway was highly negligent, and it is my opinion that they should be 90% liable, with 10% or so going to the Ferrari club for not being careful about allowing cars out of the poorly designed pit-exit. Both guys stepped in that car with the understanding that there was an acceptable amount of risk, given that modern racing circuits usually have excellent safety features and appreciable run-off room. The Ferrari should not have been let out of the pits at that point in time, however that was a mistake.

Moving the wall to that position was a highly negligent move. I found an aerial shot, and as you can see, the wall runs about 75 degrees to the track, which would provide a nearly head-on collision for almost any conceivable crash. Also, there were no tires, foam blocks, or anything in front of the wall. The way it was reconstructed ensured that any crash would be a head-on crash into a bare concrete wall. This is unacceptable, and the track should be punished for that.

[Burnsey]

California Speedway was highly negligent, and it is my opinion that they should be 90% liable, with 10% or so going to the Ferrari club for not being careful about allowing cars out of the poorly designed pit-exit. Both guys stepped in that car with the understanding that there was an acceptable amount of risk, given that modern racing circuits usually have excellent safety features and appreciable run-off room. The Ferrari should not have been let out of the pits at that point in time, however that was a mistake.

Moving the wall to that position was a highly negligent move. I found an aerial shot, and as you can see, the wall runs about 75 degrees to the track, which would provide a nearly head-on collision for almost any conceivable crash. Also, there were no tires, foam blocks, or anything in front of the wall. The way it was reconstructed ensured that any crash would be a head-on crash into a bare concrete wall. This is unacceptable, and the track should be punished for that.

I'll second that notion. Track 90% and FOC 10%...maybe 95/5...I'm not an expert, but that wall design is terrible. Likely conceived without any consideration for the use of the road course.

And honestly, faulting Porsche for the absence of Stability Control? Sheesh...It would be very difficult to prove that PSM would have prevented that crash.

Better fault Toshiba for the Carpal-Tunnel Syndrome this keyboard is giving me :D

EDIT - after a brief second look, could they have been running the road course in the opposite direction to it's intended design? That would put the pit-out on driver's right, and the next turn would be a quick right-left chicane....???

[malcolm]

I am pretty sure they run it that way all the time... from what I remember of Grand Am cup races and so on. Perhaps the wall was designed by people that thought the track went the other way, or weren't thinking about the road-course as you said. Either way, they are still highly negligent.

Sad story, more so due to it being and avoidable incident.