RobLupella wrote:
Waivers are barely any protection and none against negligence. Tracks are required to not be negligent in their operations and if some judge determines that the track was negligent in allowing woodwork to be unprotected by armco then the waiver is not much good other than to mitigate
Yeah, I think it's gross negligence when a wavier is done for. However, in front of the right jury, one would think you could easily make a case that allowing any potential path to a tree is grossly negligent, but it's more clear in a case where an employee of the track (or implied employee) does something grossly negligent that results in an ugly outcome (say something like a worker leaving fire extinguisher on the track by accident which is then hit by a car causing a crash/death/etc).
I would bet we are very close to the "next wave" of litigation with regard to track events -- suing instructors. The progression since track events started in the 70s is marching on. If anyone who instructs on track does not want to lose their entire net worth (and more, future claims against income), at the very least you should have a liability policy that will cover you. Also don't assume that an umbrella policy automatically applies -- just look what happened when the insurance laws in NC were recently changed limiting your liability coverage on a track to a very small amount. Insurance companies aren't stupid, so no umbrella policy will ever apply (since your underlying policy doesn't reach it's limit due to the law change).
Very few instructors understand the potential underlying financial liability they are exposing themselves (or their family) to, but at least most respect the safety liability by now. All the "track insurance" companies only offer property damage coverage to one's own car. In the worst case outcomes, that amount of money will be trivial compared to the liability exposure.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
