Carrera GT crash at California speedway: Verdict, Best to check out the facility Options

[drgchapman]

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]

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]

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!

[jhadler]

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.

Here's where I have to disagree (slightly). Tech is vested with the authority to deny cars access to the track for technical safety reasons. Granted, this decision was less mechanical, and more design. But it was not a personal bias. The design of the car (and if I recall it was referenced that this tech inspector had prior knowledge of THIS car, and found it to exhibit excessive oversteer) made it (in the eyes of the tech inspector) an unsafe car for the event. That should have been the end of it.

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.

It's possible as well that the FOC rules should have required his being black flagged for his spins, but I have no idea about that. If there was a rule in place to bring in unsafe drivers, then THAT would be the flashing light that would draw the "gross negligence". Either way, it was operating in contradiction with the established rules that will draw attention from the legal vultures.

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.

I don't disagree, but tech has to have the autonomous authority to make the decision. The chair should not be able to override without a very good reason that's backed up by other qualified event officials.

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!

Absolutely. When our events are running, I'm in the tower, listening to all of the corner worker radio traffic. The corners are told to call in any wheels off, and any spins. We will bring in drivers for "career counseling" if there are more than one or two calls in on them during a given session. If they don't chill, they go home. If it's an experienced driver, they get a black stick for their first warning. But after that, it's open black.

I know we're all armchair quarterbacking here, none of us really know -all- the details of the case, and the article does paint with rather broad strokes.

If it was gross negligence solely due to the tech decision, it was wrong minded, but technically still in the WRONG. And a jury can easily find that to exhibit gross negligence. That's why you pick your tech inspectors carefully. You want them to have not only a thorough knowledge of what to look for, but a broad knowledge of the cars that will be entering said event. You need to be able to trust their opinion when they say "no", and support them in that decision, for whatever reason. After the event (over beer preferably), the chair and tech can argue and spit and curse about who's right and who's wrong. But on the day of the event, you do what the rules say you do, and you adhere to the decisions made by your event officials.

Countermanding the decision of tech will most likely loose that person as a tech inspector (unless they're very well paid). And getting into a beef about it will never be good. Trust me, day-of-the-event fights between event officials NEVER solves anything. The officials will harbor resentment, the entrants will loose confidence, and if everyone is VERY lucky, that's all that will be the result by days end. BTDT.

-Josh2