HPDE Carrera GT crash and lawsuit

[Nick Koan]

About a year ago, there was that horrific Carrera GT crash at California Speedway which killed the driver and passenger. Now, the passenger's wife is suing a lot of people.

A quick recap. Passenger (Ruhl) was having problems with his Lambo, and was complaining of overheating. The driver of the Carrera GT (Keaton) offered a ride in his Carrera GT, to try to convince him it was the car to buy. Keaton hit a wall at about 145mph on the front straight when a Ferrari pulled onto course late and too slowly causing it to enter around when Keaton was passing the hot-pit exit.


Full Article:
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/co...608_466074.htm

Those being sued:

• Keaton Estate - Failure to inform Rudl that he had been having handling problems with the Porsche, and that he had a recent incident where he lost control of the car.
• Racetrack owners and operators - Maintaining an unsafe racetrack as a result of inadequate maintenance, signage, and safety controls, and not moving back the concrete barriers after creating the children's play area.
• Ferrari Owners Club and the flagman - Negligently operating the track day by sending the Ferrari onto the track at the wrong time, violating their own rules by allowing passengers in the cars, failing to disclose Keaton's dangerous driving propensities, and allowing the track day to occur without moving the concrete barriers back to where they belonged.
• Ferrari driver - Not paying attention to the flagman, entering the track improperly, driving too slowly, and moving directly into the path of the Porsche.
• Porsche - Product liability for selling an unsafe car. This falls into three levels of defect.
1. There was some mechanical problem with this particular car that made it handle badly.
2. There are design defects with the Carrera GT that make it a poor-handling car, mainly tail-happy.
3. Third: The Carrera GT is too difficult a car to handle at high speeds for the average driver without instruction.

What really worries me is this quote from an event organizer on NASIOC.

Originally Posted by mh_WRX

Being a HPDE/TT event organizer and competition group we are following this one closely. If they do manage to win, it may spell the end of club level HPDE as we know it. Event Insurance may go the way of Malpractice and price all of us smaller organizations out of the Market, and price the remainders so that only the affluent can afford them. And they are the ones who keep making these types of mistakes and filing the lawsuits.

[MattR]

It figures as much, I've always wondered how this type of incident would really play out once lawyers and the court system got involved. You can sign all the waivers and warning you want, but the truth is, courts seem to ignore personal responsibility as a reason for a tragedy.

I have a feeling that this will not put an end to HPDE's. but it definatley wil lnot make things any easier.
If it is So long HPDE. Hopefully Autocross isn't affected, it's all that we'll have left.

[JonnydaJibba]

Damn. Some of those claims seem valid, some of them seem like Ruhls wife is just seeking compensation. And the previous 911 Turbo lawsuit doesn't seem right to me either... people with that kind of money know what they are buying. It's not Porsches fault somebody couldn't handle the power.

Also nice sig btw.

[Dean]

Fatalities at motorsports events, and lawsuits will not be the end of HPDEs IMHO.

That's why we have insurance companies?

The playground wall is the most likely one to get the track in trouble I think. Waiver isn't going to protect them if the allegation is true.

Porsche is not going to pay. I'd bet on that.

The others are a toss up depending on what the perceived truth is.

Anyway, if they lose, insurance will pay, and go right on insuring HPDE because they make money at it.

[Kevin M]

I like how the woman is suing FOC and the track for improper flagging... and the ferrari driver for not following their instructions.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

I like how the woman is suing FOC and the track for improper flagging... and the ferrari driver for not following their instructions.

The flagman could have sent the car out at the wrong time, *and* the driver could have ignored the flagman. They are not mutually exclusive, and they may have both contributed to the incident.

[dknv]

Wow. How many of us could be accused of the first point? How many of us could say we were having handling problems, and had a recent incident where we lost control of the car? I would suppose the lawsuit will put to the test, the degree to which they can prove there was a 'pre-existing' condition.

The other point about the track release, that "numerous pertinent facts were concealed from Rudl and he therefore did not give an informed consent" - I could swear there is verbiage in the scca waiver, that it is our responsibility to understand the risks at the site, and it is our responsibility to not <edit> not sign the waiver if we are not comfortable with any perceived risks. So, what could they be referencing with 'numerous pertinent facts concealed'?

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by sperry

The flagman could have sent the car out at the wrong time, *and* the driver could have ignored the flagman. They are not mutually exclusive, and they may have both contributed to the incident.

It is mutually exclusive. If the flagger is at fault for improperly sending the car out, how can the driver have ignored his instructions if he wound up on the track? If the flagger didn't send him, how can his instructions have been faulty if the driver ignored them? My point was that those 2 conditions cannot exist simultaneously, showing how frivolous the suit is. They're flinging turds at the wall to see how many stick.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by dknv

Wow. How many of us could be accused of the first point? How many of us could say we were having handling problems, and had a recent incident where we lost control of the car? I would suppose the lawsuit will put to the test, the degree to which they can prove there was a 'pre-existing' condition.

The other point about the track release, that "numerous pertinent facts were concealed from Rudl and he therefore did not give an informed consent" - I could swear there is verbiage in the scca waiver, that it is our responsibility to understand the risks at the site, and it is our responsibility to not <edit> not sign the waiver if we are not comfortable with any perceived risks. So, what could they be referencing with 'numerous pertinent facts concealed'?

He wasn't having "handling problems", he was a shitty driver. Well, maybe not shitty... but not skilled enough to be able to handle a car capable of those speeds.

[Pat R.]

Anyone can sue anybody for anything.

Street tires won't kill autocross-- Lawyers will.

[dknv]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

It is mutually exclusive. If the flagger is at fault for improperly sending the car out, how can the driver have ignored his instructions if he wound up on the track? If the flagger didn't send him, how can his instructions have been faulty if the driver ignored them? My point was that those 2 conditions cannot exist simultaneously, showing how frivolous the suit is. They're flinging turds at the wall to see how many stick.

The way I read it, the driver followed the flagger's first instructions, but then wasn't paying attention after being given the go-ahead & missed the flaggers cue to stop.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by dknv

The way I read it, the driver followed the flagger's first instructions, but then wasn't paying attention after being given the go-ahead & missed the flaggers cue to stop.

In my humble and completely non-legally binding opinion (IMHACNLBO?) the Ferrari driver should be absolved if that's the case, because he got the green flag, started moving, and would likely be ahead of the flagger rather quickly.

[rubberbiscuitt]

ha, after reading the origional post, the first thing i notice is mattR's avatar of the flying jag.

[sp00ln]

Originally Posted by MattR

You can sign all the waivers and warning you want, but the truth is, courts seem to ignore personal responsibility as a reason for a tragedy.

Best statement on this thread.

[sp00ln]

Originally Posted by rubberbiscuitt

ha, after reading the origional post, the first thing i notice is mattR's avatar of the flying jag.

Aston Martin?

[sperry]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

It is mutually exclusive. If the flagger is at fault for improperly sending the car out, how can the driver have ignored his instructions if he wound up on the track? If the flagger didn't send him, how can his instructions have been faulty if the driver ignored them? My point was that those 2 conditions cannot exist simultaneously, showing how frivolous the suit is. They're flinging turds at the wall to see how many stick.

Hypothetical situation showing non-mutual exclusivity:

Track will be safe in 4 minutes.
Flagger tells the car go in 2 minutes.
Driver decides that the flagger is being too cautious and leaves after 1 minute.

Both the driver and the flagger contributed to the wreck.