Crash Settled at $4.5m

Patrice Bousquet · **Posted:** Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:26 am

See link.

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

Donnie Barnes · **Posted:** Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:59 am

I've been saying it since the CGT came out...this was inevitable. The money grubbing idiots have won their lawsuit all in the name of saving us track junkies from ourselves, and now we will all start to suffer. The first impact will be on the wallets in the form of insurance increases, but ultimately this whole concept of the cheap track day is likely to end...at least for anyone with more than a couple hundred horsepower and a full cage.

*sigh*

I'm sure the folks at Porsche are rethinking their decision to allow the electronics on the GT2 to be turned off on US cars, at least. But I look at that as the "fence around the pool with the locked gate" argument. Precedent has been set that as long as you put a reasonable fence with a locked gate around your pool, anyone who *climbs* that fence to get in your pool and subsequently drowns did it to themselves and you aren't liable. If you leave the gate open and they happen to walk in and fall in and drown (that'll be the story even if they came in uninvited to play), you're liable. That's oversimplified a bit, but pretty much how it works. Hopefully choosing to hit the button to turn it off will be considered the same as the fence and locked gate, but given how US manufacturers are implementing traction control, I fear it isn't being treated the same way (right, Aaron?).

Even *having* to put the electronics on is draconian, IMHO, but that's the world we live in...

--Donnie

BriceJohnson · **Joined:** Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:33 am **Posts:** 2230

imagine how badly TVR would get sued if they sold a new car in the US. . .

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

They'd have to manufacture one first.

BriceJohnson · **Joined:** Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:33 am **Posts:** 2230

Right, good (albeit sad) point. Just saying they were the ultimate anti-electronic gizmo car company.

And to say that "PSM could have prevented the accident, therefore it should have been installed" ignores the fact that PSM would have slowed the lap times of the car considerably, at least tuned how most stability control systems are.

I know the benefits of traction control as far as actually speeding a car up on a track, is there a stability control system that speeds a car up at all? Ferarri has stability control on their fanciest cars, are they quickest when defeated, or left on (when run on the most aggressive settings)?

Vincent Keene · **Posted:** Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:19 am

A wise man recently told me that if the student (driver) blames his/her off or accident on the car then you (the instructor) should beware of getting back in that car.

Racing is a different story, but very rarely can an accident be blamed on the car at an HPDE type event. If you need ESC to maintain control on a track then you shouldn't be on a track especially in a CGT.

MikeWhitney · **Joined:** Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:15 pm **Posts:** 4724

$2.2M = 49% estate of the driver
$1.8M = 41% track owners and the event organizers
$360k = 8% Porsche
$90k = 2% the driver of the Ferrari that triggered the crash

This is an interesting breakdown. I wonder what the split is between the track and the organizers. I'm assuming that the driver's estate was plentiful based on what he was driving, and $2.2M will still leave his family with enough. $360k from Porsche sounds like payoff money, cheaper than protracted legal fees. I wonder how they managed to extract $90k from the Ferrari driver. Probably payoff money too.

As current/past/future event organizers here in THSCC, we need to all make sure that we do everything we can for safety. Some day a jury of our peers could be scrutinizing the decisions we make at every event. Err on the side of caution and ALWAYS double-check other's decisions.

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

MikeWhitney wrote:

Some day a jury of our peers could be scrutinizing the decisions we make at every event.

That's the problem, you're not dealing with "our peers", you're dealing with people that are too dumb to get out of jury duty. :wink:

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:37 am

Donnie Barnes wrote:

(right, Aaron?).

--Donnie

Agreed. The only thing that seems to be able to turn of the ESC completely in the Crossfire is Bryan driving the car. Twice he was able to get mad sideways and spin the rear tires like mad. One of those times he spun the car (DC ProSolo) which I have tried like crazy to get it that loose and it always interferes.

I think the problem we face is that TC/ESC for people like us who autocross/HPDE/RR etc. is seen as a hinderance in some cases may cause an accident due to the unpredictable nature of the car. I know when it kicks in the Crossfire, albeit very rarely at an autocross, I know I could let go of the wheel and it sort of drives itself.... which means you're at the mercy of the sensors. :roll:

- AB

Keith Vail · **Posted:** Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:16 am

Aaron Buckley wrote:

Donnie Barnes wrote:

(right, Aaron?).

--Donnie

I think the problem we face is that TC/ESC for people like us who autocross/HPDE/RR etc. is seen as a hinderance in some cases may cause an accident due to the unpredictable nature of the car. I know when it kicks in the Crossfire, albeit very rarely at an autocross, I know I could let go of the wheel and it sort of drives itself.... which means you're at the mercy of the sensors. :roll:

- AB

I have to agree as well. The TC/ESC is a PITA. More than once it has caused the car to act unpredictably. Most of the time it is just a simple check up of the slide or tires spinning but I have had a few times where the car goes from a nice controlled slide into sudden understeer. That is the only time I get frustrated with the system.

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:19 am

I pretty much agree with what is said above. One additional chilling effect is that this probably continues to make effective "root cause analysis" (RCA) of event issues to be even more risk for an organizer to perform.

The article talks about “negligence” vs. “gross negligence”. Hopefully as an organizer you should never see any gross negligence, but if it does happen, good RCA should be trying to find and correct this so that it doesn’t happen the next time. Imagine a significant event happening, but it does not result in a lawsuit. I can imagine quality RCA not happening for fear of the outcome triggering a lawsuit.

The article talks about “Was anything accomplished”. It sounds like having a car on track with an honor system for tech inspection was not good and that should be changed. The pit exit issues may be corrected and the issue with the wall being moved may be corrected. I think all of that could have transpired without the monetary settlement.

The issues with the CGT not having stability control, etc. is a total red herring. That was a DOT legal car that was on track. What about race prepared cars that may be just as fast or faster? That guy could have just as easily been going for a “ride along” in a race car that is not going to have stability control, etc with the same end results. I think that once a car is on track, it should no longer be considered a street car from a legal perspective.

Finally the quote from the wife just drives me crazy….

“My loving husband was an innocent passenger in an expensive sports car that inexplicably failed to incorporate a modern, life-saving safety feature. He was a passenger on a racetrack that was dangerously designed. While driving on racetracks always involves risks, the result of this case and the redesign of the track will help eliminate unnecessary risks and make the sport of high speed driving safer."

What I get from this is that…

• Someone put a gun to his head to put him in the car as he was an “innocent passenger”.
• She tries to acknowledge the inherent risk of this sport and at the same time imply there should be little or no risk.

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:51 am

I agree with Richard, once you get on track you're agreeing with everything that can come with it, up to and including death. I don't think there are too many people on this board that if given an opportunity for a ride along in a CGT would have turned it down. Just a lot of bad things coming together at a very bad time...

I feel a lot safer on track than I do on ANY public road anyway. At least on the track people are focusing on driving and not fumbling with their cellphone or ipod, radio, etc. :roll:

- AB

Vincent Keene · **Posted:** Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:26 pm

Richard Casto wrote:

It sounds like having a car on track with an honor system for tech inspection was not good and that should be changed.

If I'm reading it right there was nothing deemed to be wrong with the car mechanically. The driver was advised that the car had "oversteer issues", but lots of fast cars have that when not driven properly.

Not saying that using an honor system is the correct way to tech cars for track, just saying that in the instance the car itself was not flawed. As almost always the driver was the root cause as you say.

Edit: It seems in this case (as with LOTS of cases) that the driver had more money than skill.

Graham Jagger · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 12:53 am **Posts:** 1718

This always comes back to personal responsibility. And we have a nation of sue happy people who will try and twist anything and make a buck. The guys wife wanted a pay day, the lawyer of course wanted one. That wall may have been a safety issue. But that is not what this woman cares about. She is doing nothing to "save mankind". Just her bank account.

We've already debated that signing the waiver at an event means you just need more money for a better lawyer to sue. Apparently personal responsibility is only meaningful until something bad happens. Then all bets are off.

Forget the idea that this about high horsepower sports cars for a minute. If this happened to a guy in a 100hp Miata, Honda, Toyota. That guys wife would still sue for the same reasons. Ferrari, Porsche, etc. Just makes it sound better because they are sports/race cars. Makes for better press stories. And having a cage in that car would be all well and good unless they broke their neck on impact because they didn't also have a HANS or blah, blah blah, etc... This is a no win contest either. Safety devices are important but will never stop law suits like this.

As far as AH/TC/ABS and any other names you call a car that bails you out. I happen to like these systems as long as you have the ability to control their use. ABS you can't unless you pull the fuse. AH/TC is great on the street. You happen to hit a slick spot and the car helps you out. That isn't so horrible. On the track the system needs to be off. It gets confused about what your intentions are and fights you. Even the so-called Competition Mode in my car. It's more relaxed in what it will tolerate. But it engages if you drive hard. I turn it all off on track. The new C6 Z06 won't go all the way off and it is causing issues. These systems were not design for flat out driving on a race track or autocross course.

Tech inspections are based on the honor system for a simple reason. Did I mention that this is about personal responsibility... There is not enough time at an event to do a thorough inspection of 120 cars. That is why you are told to take it to a certified mechanic and get it inspected before the event.

At the end of the day it was a horrible accident. A number of things went wrong. There is a responsibility for the track, club, etc to review and make changes. If you are afraid you might get hurt, then don't do it.

In the meantime I'm going to enjoy whatever track time I can get before these idiots ruin it and I have to stop.

clinehall · **Posted:** Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:04 pm

It is well known in the insurance industry that all Jury awards, screwy rulings, etc. Start on the West Coast and then filter east. They are usually not accepted by the rest of the country to the same extent that Califorinia does. Lets hope this holds true with this case.

The Ferrari driver and Porsche contibutions were probably thought of as a cheap way to to get out of this. The first thing attorneys do is sue everybody available and see who will kick in due to the nusance factor.

Hey, Patrice. Don't worry, if you would have gotten me killed when you went off with me in the car I think my wife would have settled for $1.98, I've got enough life insurance to make her happy!

THSCC Forums

Crash Settled at $4.5m

Who is online