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

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/content/carrera

I think that I may reconsider allowing student passengers in my vehicle.

No Shit!

The highlight I took from that was this: While the release covers the event organizers and officials from claims against negligence, it does not protect against claims of gross negligence. How does the read for those of us who organize or are event officials of track events? If you are performing your duties to the best of your ability, and within the scope of the rules laid out by your organization and insurance carrier, you will be held harmless. If, on the other hand, you are acting contrary to your own rules and regulations (ignoring a thumbs-down from tech for one), and something bad happens, you're hung out to dry.

The rules are there for more than just a reason to annoy the competitors... They're there to protect both drivers and officials. Not only from potential physical harm, but from litigation as well.

I still think the whole incident was a tragedy. The loss of life, and the lawsuit that followed. Sad...

Precedent has been set though folks, so watch that you do what your rules say you should do.

-Josh2

interesting deal in the end. I don't agree with all of it of course.

I find it interesting when they say a mechanic said it had a handling issue, but then it turned out he felt the car liked to oversteer. If that was his complaint, I can see why Ferrari Club would still let the car go - it isn't a mechanical issue that might fail, but just how the car drives. A good driver (key wording here) could race the car just fine.

In terms of gross negligence, I agree moving and leaving a barrier closer to the track was gross negligence. So the track was at fault.

But Porsche isn't grossly negligent, sorry. If it is legal to sell that car in the states and legal to license it for the street, then they are playing by the rules. The whole argument of "race car for the streets sold to any idiot with enough money" though true, is not grounds IMO. Courts are subjective no matter who wants to argue about that one - that is why they have an "opinion".

And my point to Josh is this: it isn't up to you how "gross" gets defined, but becomes an opinion of the court. Here is what I mean:

There was a gross negligence not seen in the case of Rudl himself. The case noted the car had spun out 3 or 4 times that day. And then he got in it with the driver. That is just plain Darwin at its best. I would NEVER get in a car with a guy that spins out more than once, let alone 3-4 times in one day. C'mon. People that choose to do stupid sh!t are grossly negligent with their own life... period.

And there is where I find gross negligence in FOC as well. After the second spin, CGT should have been asked to sit out and recommended to take more DEs or only allowed out with an instructor in the driver seat. Everyone gets one spin (for the record I have only spun ONCE in all of my time behind the wheel on the track) but two in one day in a car that is known to oversteer (only a good driver can handle that, clearly not that guy!)... allowing 2 more was insane and death becomes eminent.

So at best I can see getting money from the track for the wall, and FOC for letting the driver continue to race and carry passengers in a car he clearly displayed an inability to drive. At minimum he should not have been allowed any passenger other than a willing instructor.

But just the fact that Rudl got in that car with the driver's clear display of incapability, that should negate the whole thing for his wife. If anything, the wife of the CGT owner should get money from the track and FOC but not Rudl's.

Why I quit law studies - I don't have the lack of conscience to overlook common sense and go for the $$. If you have any integrity at all, you will be broke as an attorney, so I saw more money and better sleep in engineering I don't need to know "all the facts" as some would argue - all I need to know is he got in a monster car with a clearly incompetent driver and went for a ride. Unfortunately it was the ride of his life, but I (in essence) don't need a sign (or court or FOC) to tell me not to swim in the waters when I can see alligators floating in it. And to be able to sue due to lack of signage and be successful is what kills me.

I don't believe Porsche should have had any liability in this suit. They were brought in because of their deep pockets. The wifes statement that she's protecting people from buying unsafe cars sounds very hollow to me. Maybe she will donate her share to a group that consels rich guys on which super car to buy. Fat chance.

I agree with Tim.

Porsche had nothing to do with it; they did not put a gun to the CGT driver and force him to buy the car. It not their fault if he was over his head.

I also think that Rudl's move was very Damwinian. WTF would you ever get into a supercar with someone who has spun out 4 times in one morning. That is just plain stupidity. I don't see why the driver's estate has anything to do with this?

BTW: did any of you guys notice that the lawyer in charge of the whole thing has sued Porsche before claiming the 930 was too hard to handle. He won that case too

Some parts of the legal system in this country truly amaze me.

This is exactly what is wrong with America and it's legal system. Everyone is the victim and nobody can man up and realize they were wrong. JD74914 is right, would you ever get in the car of an instructor who has spun 4 times at one event? In the Northeast PCA DE events and BMW events if you get 4 wheels off the track more than twice or if you spin more than once you are asked to pack up and leave. Rudl himself is at fault for even getting in that car, as well as the event coordinators for not asking the CGT driver to leave or even worse allowing the car with issues on the track. Either way a sad event.

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

Porsche didnt even get their hand slapped financially. They'd pay that much just to make it go away.

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!

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.



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.



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.



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

I wonder how many people at the track that faithful day thought to themselves "this isn't safe" and maybe mumbled it to their friends but never got the attention of the FOC officials???

I've only attended AX events, and this muttering happens a lot. Very relevant safety observations are made, but people don't feel like actually talking to someone that matters and can make an immediate change. EVERY time someone has said "Hey Bill (insert local guy's name) that course worker is in an unsafe position" he has run out and made a change for the better. MOST organizers are not so full of themselves that they will ignore such observations.

I go to these car racing events and people are secretive, loners, full of themselves, crossing their arms, unapproachable and stuff....I'm not that type and will/have told organizers what I think. As a participant, I want a safe event and I think all others do too, and they need to help out and let organizers KNOW when something needs to be corrected.

Here's to another year of safe driving

At the DEs I have attended, everyone accepts that there is risk. However if they see someone get out of their depth, it gets reported. If someone passes without a point-by, they get a lecture (and usually not just from the event organizers). I've seen people who were told to pack up because of "three spins and you are out". I personally have failed a car at Saturday morning tech inspection for having filthy brake fluid. The driver argued that the fluid was less than six months old, but our rules state 'less than six months old AND must pass visual inspection' (in this case the fluid looked like stale Guinness - I said flush that crap out and you'll be allowed to drive).

We all tolerate the acceptable risks to indulge in our passion(s). Someone in a CGT who has demonstrated their inability to control their car presents an unacceptable risk to me. I would have logged a complaint with the event organizers (and I have done this too with result that driver was moved back to a novice group and assigned an instructor). I accept that sometimes shit happens, but if I can mitigate possibilities, I take the opportunity. Just about everyone else I know would do the same.


I'll drink to that

And this is the important thing to remember. At a club event, regardless of the club, safety is EVERYONE'S responsibility.Just because you aren't wearing the hat/vest/radio that says you're the go-to guy for safety matters, doesn't meanyou ignore a safety issue. At club events, there are never enough people to see everything that goes on. If someone sees something they feel is unsafe, and they do nothing... What if that causes harm to them or someone else? Bring it to the attention of the event officials, and 99.9% of the time thank you for the observation and either make an effort to correct it, or at least explain to you why it isn't a hazard. Very rarely will a safety concern be brushed off by even officials. Doesn't matter if it's at an autox, DE, TT, or Club Race. Safety is everyone's job. It just so happens that the guy/gall wearing the hat/vest/radio is tasked with making that their ONLY job while they're wearing said hat/vest/radio. You on the other hand have other things to be preoccupied with. Like changing wheels, torquing lug nuts, adjusting harnesses, memorizing the course/track, and countless other things...



Wow. What events are these? I have yet to attend a club event (SCCA, PCS, BMWCCA, NASA) where the officials were so stand-off-ish. If I were to go to an event today and find officials like that, I'd pack up and go home. And make sure to tell whomever was interested exactly why I was leaving...



Agreed. Everyone wants to leave the event with cars in the same condition they arrived in (minus some gas and tire rubber). And bodies as well. A little exhaustion is fine, but damaged limbs is NOT an acceptable risk for an event.

There is always an accepted level of risk to all car events. Autox has an accepted level of risk, DE's and TT's do to, although they're not the same level. You operate within that acceptable level of risk, and you don't have to hold your breath when the course is hot. If you, as an official, have to hold your breath and cross your fingers, then stop the event ASAP. Fix the problem and continue, or call it all off. Some clubs find that they are willing to operate with a higher level of acceptable risk than others do. It is up to the entrant to decide what they're comfortable with. There is one track club that I will no longer run with because of their attitude towards safety.



Absolutely!!

-Josh2

True, that was pocket change for Porsche, but it establishes precedence (and a lucrative career future for the lawyer who won the case), and THAT is the biggie...

-Josh2

If you look at the google maps of the speedway, that bump out is in the satellite shot. Not sure when this NASCAR event was that they said they moved the barrier for, but it must have been a while ago and not that recent.

Unless Google updates their satellite images more often than I suspect.

Click to view attachmentSeems like Craig McClellan, esq. has become the attorney to the "Inheritors of the Porsche vs. obstacles" set.
The 930 litigation was 2 decades ago
Here's a partial clipping of the story.
Marty

"because they (FOC) let the moron keep endangering himself and others"
"FOC allowed others to be endangered by the CGT driver"
"I don't see why the driver's estate has anything to do with this?"
"I also think that Rudl's move was very Damwinian. WTF would you ever get into a supercar with someone who has spun out 4 times in one morning. That is just plain stupidity."


I find some of these comments to be head-scratchers.

While I had never met the CGT driver, Ben Keaton was his name, I was looking forward to meeting him at an event a month or two after his fatal wreck.
And while I was Not there at the track that day, I do know that Ben had owned his CGT for sometime and 'words' presented elsewhere online indicated that he drove the CGT just fine.

- The passenger, Mr Rudl ASKED to go for a ride with Ben because he was considering buying a CGT.
- This wreck happened when a track marshall, probably a FOC member, allowed a Ferrari out of the pits and onto the track - while Mr Keaton and his passenger were traveling at approximately 150mph.
- The actions of the Ferrari driver caused Ben to swerve to AVOID hitting this Ferrari.
- I don't care what car you were driving OR Who you drove for, IF you were going that fast and someone all of a sudden was in your way and you HAD to swerve to avoid a collision, there is very little chance anyone could avoid suddenly being
"out of control".

My guess of why the estate of the CGT driver was brought into the mix was because Ben was quite a successful financial advisor.

I read that piece on the 'verdict', and I know it's about Who was to Blame and Who got Blamed and who Paid what.
But in the end, 2 men lost their lives that day and that's Sad & Unfortunate.

In another article that I read on this tragedy, is that Mr. Rudl's lambo had become overheated and then parked in order to cool down. He then jumped in the CGT for his fateful ride.
Marty

Doesn't that mean that Lamborghini should be held liable for producing a defective car? I mean, they indirectly caused his loss of life.

I don't mean to sound so callous, but the ridiculousness of some parts of this situation confuse me. The human loss is terrible under any circumstances

...and the defective overheating Lambo is powered by an Audi V10. This is a very interesting case indeed
Marty

50 years ago it would have been considered a tragic "accident" and everyone would have to go on with there lives. After all, there was no criminal charges here.

Gross negligence is a catch all where in CA you can dole out % blame to anyone remotely involved. In other states you have to show 51% or greater negligence or nothing. GN thus includes course workers, event organizers, members, manufacturers, etc..., but usually the deepest pockets are targets. Anyone can be sued.

My view is that the biggest victim is the wife and family of the driver, because not only do they go through the same loss, but now the passenger's family is going after them.

Then there's the freedom loving attorney who rides off into the sunset with silver teeth and money bags on each hip.

IMO - this just shows the demise of racing, the misuse of GN, and ultimately the declining character of our people.

FTA: Hopefully that would have been the case. As I see it anyone participating in these events knows, or should know, that they are walking into a deadly environment where anything and everything can go wrong. Taking such into account, EVERYONE should be safety minded and be in consideration of their lives and the lives of people around them. Although, when an organizing event takes the rap for a mistake they are unfortunately fatal it seems. I agree with the comments above about safety, safety, SAFETY. Who made the mistake... Many people. I feel that overriding the tech declining the CGT owner to race should not have been. Even in instances where a car may have a safety-effecting issue of oversteer, understeer or another quality which may result in an incorrectable error, it shouldnt be allowed -- especially if an inexperienced driver is behind the wheel (and that issue is questionable in itself it seems).

This is an issue with all vehicles on the road - not one specific to sports cars. A vehicle with a measely 50hp still has the capability to cause insurmountable damage. I do not take kindly to the tone of McClellan painting manufacturers of the vehicle for operators' flaws. IIRC Porsche highly discourages driving in such events at the dealership, and warn that if you damage your car in one you void your warranty. Ultimately what you do with your vehicle is your own responsibility, with limiting degrees.

Agin with the blaming of manufacturers - and announcing his intent to gain $$$ from them. Despite his belief - no safety feature in the world on today's vehicles can fully correct an operator error - unless the vehicle is not controlled by the operator at any instance can the above be said. If I lock the wheel at 150mph, can the car prevent a flat spin, rolling and quite possibly colliding with objects, people and other vehicles? How can the PSM prevent such a thing? Stability management can't. Similar to arguing how ABS systems work... Can they prevent your car from spinning out of control? No, they can only stop the wheels from locking under extreme braking.

So what is the end result? Stricter rules on ride-alongs (hopefully), increased cost to participate in events, increased costs in insurance to hold events, increased cost in track fees, lower spectators, lower participation.