Carrera GT crash at California speedway: Verdict, Best to check out the facility |
|
Porsche, and the Porsche crest are registered trademarks of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.
This site is not affiliated with Porsche in any way. Its only purpose is to provide an online forum for car enthusiasts. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners. |
|
Carrera GT crash at California speedway: Verdict, Best to check out the facility |
drgchapman |
Oct 23 2007, 12:10 PM
Post
#1
|
Current Stable Group: NoClassifiedAccess Posts: 922 Joined: 20-September 04 From: Portland, OR Member No.: 2,789 Region Association: Pacific Northwest |
This is an article regarding the Carrera GT crash that killed the two guys in the car.
Big award......releases are suspect. Track had some fault due to barrier placement, driver had fault, everyone had some fault as in most things in life. Be carefull out there (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) http://www.sportscarmarket.com/content/carrera |
jhadler |
Oct 23 2007, 10:18 PM
Post
#2
|
Long term tinkerer... Group: Members Posts: 1,879 Joined: 7-April 03 From: Lyons, CO Member No.: 529 |
I think everyone here is pretty much in agreement.
To Tim, the issue at hand is how the event official(s) are protected by the insurance carrier of the event. If the event officials were acting in accordance and in good faith with the rules established by the sanctioning body and insurance carrier, the insurance company can and should protect them from litigation. However, it seems that the the event officials were acting outside the scope of the rules, and there is where one can easily establish "gross negligence". Tech said "no go". And the event chair(s) seemingly overrode the decision of tech. It doesn't matter -why- tech said no, so long as it wasn't a personally biased decision (I don't like you, so I'm gonna fail your car), then tech has done their job to the best of their ability. For the event official to override tech, they circumvented their own rules, and a horrible tragedy resulted (be it directly or indirectly). This is where a jury can easily be convinced of "gross negligence". So my point again is this, to all event officials and organizers. Do what your rules say you do. Don't circumvent those rules without DAMN good reason. And know that circumventing those rules can expose both the club and yourself to legal action should something bad happen. As for the track getting sued? Well yeah, they should have moved that wall back into place before allowing another club to use the site. As for Porsche? Puhlease. If Porsche is really culpable in the deaths of those people, than Kawasaki and Suzuki are gonna get sued out of business. A little responsibility here people! If you buy a car that has the performance envelope of a CGT, and drive it like it's a Civic. You're gonna get fuched up. And the driver? Come on... He shouldn't have even been on the track at that point, the event officials should have pulled him off the track. I know I would have. -Josh2 |
byndbad914 |
Oct 23 2007, 11:07 PM
Post
#3
|
shoehorn and some butter - it fits Group: Members Posts: 1,547 Joined: 23-January 06 From: Broomfield, CO Member No.: 5,463 Region Association: None |
Tech said "no go". And the event chair(s) seemingly overrode the decision of tech. It doesn't matter -why- tech said no, so long as it wasn't a personally biased decision (I don't like you, so I'm gonna fail your car), then tech has done their job to the best of their ability. For the event official to override tech, they circumvented their own rules, and a horrible tragedy resulted (be it directly or indirectly). This is where a jury can easily be convinced of "gross negligence". Actually this is where I think the tech decision was actually based on bias and not a mechanical issue. The tech said not to run the car, but the article states it was later determined that it wasn't due to a mechanical issue with the car, but the car's tendency to oversteer. So I can see FOC overruling the tech, and IMO rightly so. If tech were to exclude cars due to tendencies to oversteer I would never get to race my car for instance. had the tech said "there are some suspension sticking problems that will cause the car to snap into oversteer and therefore is unsafe" or something to that effect, then yeah, don't override tech. But opinions are car handling characterstics are not tech, just opinion. In the end FOC was liable regardless because they let the moron keep endangering himself and others, but if the court found gross negligence based on the FOC overriding an opinion v. hard mechanical fact, I would be bummed, though not surprised by any means. That is where I wonder what the court determined gross negligence on the part of FOC to be. If it is based on the tech opinion, I see that as incorrect blame. If based on (as we agree) the fact they let the guy keep driving like a madman, then blame was well placed. The biggest thing I take from all of this is not how the case turned out, but just another reminder to watch how everyone is driving during events and keeping tab if the event organizers are monitoring crazy and removing it. FOC allowed others to be endangered by the CGT driver and in a typical event, I tend to be so preoccupied with my personal stuff, I wouldn't have necessarily realized that guy spun a bunch of times and find myself on the track next to him later in the day! |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 10th June 2024 - 01:30 AM |
All rights reserved 914World.com © since 2002 |
914World.com is the fastest growing online 914 community! We have it all, classifieds, events, forums, vendors, parts, autocross, racing, technical articles, events calendar, newsletter, restoration, gallery, archives, history and more for your Porsche 914 ... |