Quote:
|
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.