ls1curt

iTrader: (31)

just got back from the track. one of my good friends had her 2010 bmw 335i there. she was in thelane with the exit on her side and decided to go for the second exit. the civic that was next to her decided to take the first exit and cut across right in front. hit the front pass. side on the beamer and wrecked the civic too. all airs bags came out and the car is prob. close to being totalled. she def wont get anything from the civic owner and idek if her insurance will do anything. its a risk you take but at least everyone was okay

Wnts2Go10O

iTrader: (12)

ls1curt: they might as at the time of the accident she wasnt racing

i read through this whole thread and heres my $.02: no, another racer does not owe you anything. however, i some racing circles, like road racing, theres a bit of a gentlemens agreement on the aggressor helping you get your **** fixed if they punt you off the track.

Joshiedoom

iTrader: (4)

Its part of the risk, but what pisses me off is the the people who race knowing their crap could fall apart. I wont make a pass if something doesnt feel right, the ziptie crowd brings a lot of cash in with test and tunes so I can see why tracks dont mind it once you sign the waiver. I requested a quote for my trans am from that company. Value 12500 and my current ET. Ill post what they say...

Joshiedoom

iTrader: (4)

Joshua: The on track coverage for your car would be approximately $400
per year. To cover the car 24/7 i.e. on and off track would be
approximately $550. You can contact me if you want an exact quote and
details of the program. Thanks Dick Ferguson

Thats the email I got from that website earlier.. hell it might be worth it

Golf&GM

iTrader: (22)

Maybe I missed it but what company is that quote from?

Joshiedoom

iTrader: (4)

http://www.racecarinsurance.net/

Bobsmyuncle

iTrader: (32)

insurance is good on the STREET.

1320

iTrader: (6)

Sean, this is not true. It is infact ok to be negligent. They make no promise of rules to be followed, adhered to or that negligence wont prevail. You infact assume the risk of all dangers, known or not......NHRA actually goes out of their way to tell you that it is UNSAFE.....and that you assume the risk of the unsafe act.

You can with out a doubt, run someone over, drive directly into someones car in the pits, (dileberately killing them) and claim you lost control, the throttle stuck...etc etc....and you will get away scott free.

Their is even a case to cite.

Tireburnin

iTrader: (42)

LOL

Send me a PM with your case cite. I'd love to read the case. I'm curious what the facts were and what jurisdiction heard that case.

But you do see the irony and fallacy in your statement that it is, "infact ok to be negligent?"

ryarbrough

iTrader: (18)

When you sign the waiver, chances are, you sign away the right to ANY legal action against anyone. Even if you didn't, criminal negligence is hard to prove. It would be damn near impossible to prove in amatuer racing organizations where nobody is required to have training to participate. Any good defense lawyer would be able to win that suit at the motion to dismiss stage.

Tireburnin

iTrader: (42)

I don't believe there are any prosecutors in this thread, so I doubt criminal negligence is at issue here.

And despite my intent to avoid discussing this topic with people unprepared to discuss it at a relevant level, an NHRA track waiver 'likely' (because I don't have one in front of me) requires participants to agree to its rules (safety).

Additionally, my original post mentioned seeing the other racer in court...not the track. If a person signs a waiver that they have no intent to follow liability arises.

ryarbrough

iTrader: (18)

I'm just going to make light of your poor assumptions with regard others level of farmiliarity with the law. No way a judge will find civil or criminal liability due to neglegence in an inherently dangerous ametuer level sporting event unless one could prove malice towards the other driver. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

If the person responsible said I want to kill the guy in the other car so I'm going to hit him/loosen my lugs so my wheel hits him/etc. before or after the incident, the plaintiff would have a case. Othewise, however, he or she is wasting both his time and the courts resources (possibly even enough for the judge to award costs and/or sanctions).

Tireburnin

iTrader: (42)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. The joy of the law is that there are two sides to every story and opinions differ.

You feel that only malice would rise to the level necessary for liability, but I believe a driver on an NHRA track who seeks to run out of their time/speed limits would fall in that same category.

Ex. The driver who goes to the track with a car they know runs faster than 10.0 or 8.5 or whatever. If that driver were not licensed, did not have the required safety equipment etc. Then those actions result in an accident.

In my oppinion, that is the kind of wanton and wilful behavior that rises above mere negligence. A person acting in that manner is intentionally creating a dangerous situation by breaking rules that are clear to them and outlined in their waiver and at tech.

Think of it as the late intentional hit in football. You are trying to break rules that are in place for driver safety in this instance.

Tireburnin

iTrader: (42)

Because I got bored and thought it might enlighten some discussion among us:

Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc.
63 Ohio St.3d 84, 585 N.E.2d 384

Willful and wanton conduct is not protected by release of liability. That case is from stock car racing and is pretty damn on point to what I have been discussing all along. It pertains to release and wilful or wanton conduct by the track/organizer. This concept would easily extend to a driver who caused an accident by knowingly disregarding safety requirements.

Additionally;

"The Sixth Circuit has held that, under Kentucky law, an agreement releasing a race track owner from liability only bars claims for ordinary or gross negligence, and not for wanton or willful negligence. Donegan v. Beech Bend Raceway Park, Inc., 894 F.2d 205, 208 (6th Cir.1990)"

Another;

Beaver v. Grand Prix Karting ***'n, Inc. - 246 F.3d 905

This is Indiana law stemming from a go karting accident where the court held the wilful and wanton conduct is not bared by a release.


I could really go on and on, but I think it is pretty clear that as racers we need to act reasonably and safely. If a car is dangerous/unsafe, or doesn't fit the rules, liability arises for all the parties involved because participants consent to the rules of the race and not a wanton disregard for safety.

This is all for discusion purposes and is not meant as advice.

ryarbrough

iTrader: (18)

You seem to be attempting to collude neglegent activity with wanton and willful behavior. There is a HUGE difference there, which I attempted to post an example of earlier.

Tireburnin

iTrader: (42)

You seem to have the inability to admit you are wrong and/or some sort of reading comprehension issue. I quoted the relevant statements I made in this thread below. I even bolded the relevant portions.

It is pretty clear what I was talking about. No one is free to act as they desire on the race track. A mere accident (negligence) is one thing, but much of the behavior that leads to crashes on the race track can easily be traced to far more culpable conduct.

But this is all getting very tangent and unnecessary for this forum/thread. I think I will leave it be at this point because it is doubtful further discussion on the issue would be of any benefit.


***Yes I used the term negligence above, in its basic form, but that is the first post where I didn't think it was appropriate to describe conduct as wilful or wanton. Yet it still refers to a disregard of the rules which is a reference to wilful and wanton conduct.***

ryarbrough

iTrader: (18)

I'm glad we're settled that someone has a problem here.

Having an accident due to something which may be deemed negligent (such as a failure to comply with a safety rule, zip tie holding a fuel line/overflow/brake line, etc) does not automatically make it negligence classifiable as "wanton and willful." There is a presumed level of probability or injurt/loss that must be met before liability can be assumed. My post states that we disagree on the level of probability needed for that limit to be reached, not that you can do whatever the hell you want.

Tireburnin

iTrader: (42)

I must be in an argumentative mood today because this post was able to draw me back in.

We disagree as to a material issue of fact that may or may not give rise to a cause of action. Your exact statements on the issue are below...and they are wrong.



As you can see from the quoted text above, you claim (wrongly) that NO cause of action can stem from conduct on the track once a waiver is signed. This is incorrect and I posted case law that clearly supports my statements.

Whether or not a person could prevail on a claim of negligence stemming from wilful or wanton conduct is a matter of fact for a jury to determine. If you read my first post it says that you could wind up in court. It would depend on the facts who would prevail, but it is indisputable that a claim could be brought.

A disregard of the safety rules would not be hard to prove and such conduct could rise to wilful and wanton disregard depending on the facts. If this conduct results in an accident there could be liability. It is wholly inappropriate to claim that ANY conduct or risks are assumed simply because a waiver is signed. Signing that waiver does not entitle participants nor the track to act as they see fit. Thus, as racers it is important for us to take care and race safely.

Joshiedoom

iTrader: (4)

Speaking of that could someone send me the info and full story of the Beech Bend case?

tee-boy

iTrader: (8)

down here, our state actually has a law on the books supporting the waiver. It is relevant to all outdoor moto sports - even Yugo mud racing as shown in my avatar (that's my old 86' with the big block and 4 brl Rochester).

one other thing not mentioned is whether the event is covered or not.