HPDE Carrera GT crash and lawsuit
 

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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'?

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.

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.

Anyone can sue anybody for anything.

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

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.

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

Best statement on this thread.

Aston Martin?

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.