|
Re: QUESTION ABOUT A ACCIDENT WHILE RACING
[Re: jake4cars]
#1318162
10/12/12 09:26 AM
10/12/12 09:26 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,387
Park Forest, IL
slantzilla
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,387
Park Forest, IL
|
Quote:
Thanks Slant, I wasn't sure if I had it right, either way, I agree with the ruling, dangerous game, you have to assume the risks.
Joey
In all honesty it is very hard to win a suit against a track for an on-track incident, UNLESS you can prove the track knowingly had an unsafe condition (and you didn't know about it) or you have a lawyer who just plain wears them down until they settle. 
"Everybody funny, now you funny too."
|
|
|
Re: QUESTION ABOUT A ACCIDENT WHILE RACING
[Re: 70Cuda383]
#1318163
10/13/12 03:16 AM
10/13/12 03:16 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 20,462
Puttin' on the foil in Charles...
not_a_charger
Mr. Big Shot Moparts Moderator
|
Mr. Big Shot Moparts Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 20,462
Puttin' on the foil in Charles...
|
Quote:
Quote:
i totally agree about on track..
but in the pits is a different story..
i had a tow rig swing and nail my car yrs ago.
One could argue that vehicle is insured and it was..and i finally got a check.
however..
i had a guy pitted next to me and his race car was backed into by the race car across the isle..
to me ..thats not a condition of...tough cookies.
thats a condition of negligence ...IMHO.
i agree..in the lanes...all bets are off...ill forfiet my claim..
but
not in the pits..I dont forfiet my claim...It may be an accident..but if you damage my property expect to pay for your mistakes..
and vice versa
This sounds fair to me. we all know the risk when in the lanes, but in the pits shouldn't be any different than being in a wal-mart parking lot or at a car show.
However, if you told me that the insurance companies tried to back out of coverage because it happened "at the track" and there's a "racing exemption" in the policy, I would not be in the least bit surprised.
I wonder what they would do/say if you drive your car to the track, as a spectator at a national level event and someone backs into your car?
The exclusion from coverage is very specific, because it has to be. Every policy I've ever read excludes coverage during the actual contest, i.e., on the track. In the pits is not "on the track," and therefore, your insurance would cover you, and would cover the damages you caused to someone else's person or property. Of course, you have to have insurance in the first place, so if you have no liability insurance on your car (such as an all-out race car) and you back into someone in the pits, be prepared to write a check.
I've handled claims like this several times in my career. Anything that ever happened on-track was not covered. Anything on the track grounds, but not actually on the track, was covered.
Earning every penny of that moderator paycheck.
DBAP
"They don't think it be like it is, but it do."
- Oscar Gamble
|
|
|
Re: QUESTION ABOUT A ACCIDENT WHILE RACING
[Re: 69CHARGERMD]
#1318165
10/13/12 12:26 PM
10/13/12 12:26 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,219
New York
polyspheric
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,219
New York
|
Yes, really.
not interested in suing anyone
How generous, and of course morally pristine.
In the 50 years or so that I've been participating and observing civil law, I've found a high correlation between people who don't want to sue and people who expect not to be sued (because it's fair). That's them lying on the ground with their mouths open.
I wonder if, after your death or terminal coma, your next of kin, children, and treating physicians all feel the same way? Or will they be forced to use what little remains of your estate to try to overturn your waiver or re-open the original event?
Civil law is one of those subjects where "common sense", what "I was told", and what's "fair" have very little value. It's a complicated subject that many attorneys get wrong - surprised?
Boffin Emeritus
|
|
|
Re: QUESTION ABOUT A ACCIDENT WHILE RACING
[Re: not_a_charger]
#1318168
10/14/12 12:39 PM
10/14/12 12:39 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,219
New York
polyspheric
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,219
New York
|
The missing factor here is the appropriate definition and description of what you give up when you race; it's called "reasonable assumption of risk".
You should expect the car will go fast.
You do not expect that the track owner has forgotten to fill in the 20 × 20 hole in the shut-down area he dug up to repair the drains.
You expect the other driver may lose control.
You do not expect the other driver to be 10 years old or drunk.
You expect some mechanical part may fail.
You do not expect a spectator to cross the track near the traps.
See any difference?
You did not waive or forfeit your claim to damages for any of those examples, no matter what you signed.
Boffin Emeritus
|
|
|
|
|
