The 'no win no fee' lot will probably love this
Its being discussed on a few forums at the moment....
Going on a trackday soon? This makes interesting reading
Piston
heads thread
[Edited on 24/9/13 by snakebelly]
mmmm. Dont see how court can still do you if you sign a waiver.
Oh well another case of Courts are bast*rds lol
David
Believe the waiver just exonerates the Track owner themselves from a possible claim ?
The 'no win no fee' lot will probably love this
Its being discussed on a few forums at the moment....
Very interesting, read it the other night from a FB link
Hope it comes to nowt
I'd suggest trackday insurance that covers damage you do to other people seems like common sense anyway? Can't say I'd want to take my car to a track with a bunch of witless lunatics and place its safety in their hands, same as I wouldn't on the road.
quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
I'd suggest trackday insurance that covers damage you do to other people seems like common sense anyway? Can't say I'd want to take my car to a track with a bunch of witless lunatics and place its safety in their hands, same as I wouldn't on the road.
REIS do competition car insurance at good rates!
insured for travel and storage but not once on track. BUT ITS AMAZING HOW MANY CARS SUFFER DAMAGE ON THE WAY HOME FROM TRACKDAYS!
quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
I'd suggest trackday insurance that covers damage you do to other people seems like common sense anyway? Can't say I'd want to take my car to a track with a bunch of witless lunatics and place its safety in their hands, same as I wouldn't on the road.
It will be the end of track days! You take you car on their at your own risk, if it gets damaged by you or someone else then its tough tits, don't go trying the blame game!
I don't think people have read through the thread on Pistonheads correctly.
We really don't know the circumstances here. If the Civic driver was driving sensible, came round the corner to find the Caterham spun on the
grass, he then lifts off and spins into the Caterham then it is very harsh by the Insurance company. If, however, the Civic driver had spent all day
driving like a dick, drove through waved yellow flags at full speed and wrote off the Caterham then I completely understand why the insurers would go
after him in a court.
The information on the thread seems to indicate
1. He drove through yellow flags prior to the incident
2. He lost control of his car and hit a stationary Caterham
3. The insurer paid out the Caterham driver and then pursed the Civic driver through the courts to recover the money.
4. Civic owner represented himself
5. Judge found him to be negligent and found for the Insurance company.
There are two 'take away' points from that.
a. Don't miss yellow flags being waved
b. get a lawyer if you are being sued.
quote:
Originally posted by jeffw
I don't think people have read through the thread on Pistonheads correctly.
We really don't know the circumstances here. If the Civic driver was driving sensible, came round the corner to find the Caterham spun on the grass, he then lifts off and spins into the Caterham then it is very harsh by the Insurance company. If, however, the Civic driver had spent all day driving like a dick, drove through waved yellow flags at full speed and wrote off the Caterham then I completely understand why the insurers would go after him in a court.
The information on the thread seems to indicate
1. He drove through yellow flags prior to the incident
2. He lost control of his car and hit a stationary Caterham
3. The insurer paid out the Caterham driver and then pursed the Civic driver through the courts to recover the money.
4. Civic owner represented himself
5. Judge found him to be negligent and found for the Insurance company.
There are two 'take away' points from that.
a. Don't miss yellow flags being waved
b. get a lawyer if you are being sued.
) puts me and most of the other non "driving gods" who do track days to avoid
endangering he genearal public and being constrained by the normal rules of the road, at a new risk of negligence, for which we previously believed we
were safe from
quote:
Originally posted by ReMan
puts me and most of the other non "driving gods" who do track days to avoid endangering he genearal public and being constrained by the normal rules of the road, at a new risk of negligence, for which we previously believed we were safe from
quote:
Originally posted by gaz_gaz
Interesting thoughts. I'd be interested to know who insures there cars before taking them on track.
I for 1 havent in the past and don't think this ruling would change my mind.
You would think track day organisers would be interested in the guy with the Civic winning, and would have got their their lawyers involved, because
potentially their business will go down the pan if this sets a precedent.
I've never had insurance on my own car and always worked under the assumption that should the worst happen and I cause an accident then I would
only have to pay for my own car.
Having said that I've seen plenty of idiots who drive like dicks and can understand why somone might go after them if they casue a prang.
Stu
Quoted from PH
the judge ruled that he was negligent due to approaching the corner at a speed that allowed him to lose control and collide with the other car.
If it is correct though that would mean that you would have to drive on circuit at a speed that didn't allow you to lose control and be able to
stop within the distance you can see to be clear - just like the road
[Edited on 25/9/13 by richardm6994]
I don't have track day insurance. I did look into it a few years back but the small print seemed to give the underwriters enough loop-holes to
slide through to get out of paing, that it wasn't worth it. If I see idiots out on the track that I consider to be a menace, I stay out of the
way as self preservation is easier and cheaper then standing the moral high ground. ie. It was OK to crash because he was overtaking in the wrong
place!
I can't afford to crash an expensive car so I don't take one on the track. If someone else wrecked my car by driving into it or knocking me
off the track, I wouldn't be chasing them for the £5.60 it would cost to replace the car but if I thought they were being stupid, I may have a
word or two. Likewise, I often let other folks take my car out (plenty did at Blyton) and if they blow it up or crash it, meh. I have another one or
two at home.
"If you can't afford to crash, you can't afford to race" is a phrase often bandied about the paddock. The same applies to track
days to a certain extent.
If the yellow flags were out and he was still going at a speed that meant when he lifted he spun then he was going way too fast!
Not seeing the flags is no excuse. Sounds like the correct ruling to me.
The way I understand it from the PH topic is that if you are on a track day and ;
1) loose it on a corner because you're going too fast
or
2) can't stop within the distance you can see ahead of you
in the courts eye's, you are driving in a negligent manner and if you hit anyone due to the above then you are liable and have to pay.
yellow flags or not, in this case this is the criteria that the courts have decided what constitutes negligent driving....and this will probably set a
precedent.
The problem is that there is a lot of speculation and no one has yet seen the case report. It maybe something different all together
[Edited on 25/9/13 by richardm6994]
[Edited on 25/9/13 by richardm6994]
We really don't have the full story here. The Civic drivers 'mate' wasn't there and all his info is 3rd hand at best. If there
are waved yellows and you continue at a speed that causes you to lose control then the least you can expect is to be thrown out to the event. If you
then hit a stationary Caterham hard enough to write it off, admit liability and then defend the action yourself there is only going to be one
outcome......
This doesn't change anything, if you drive negligently (regardless of insurance/waivers) you can still be held liable and this has always been
the case. Any Waiver you sign is between you and the organiser/owner of the circuit and not between you and any 3rd party taking part.
quote:
Any Waiver you sign is between you and the organiser/owner of the circuit and not between you and any 3rd party taking part.
quote:
Originally posted by whitestu
quote:
Any Waiver you sign is between you and the organiser/owner of the circuit and not between you and any 3rd party taking part.
Maybe it should be.
Stu
quote:
Originally posted by daniel mason
REIS do competition car insurance at good rates!
insured for travel and storage but not once on track. BUT ITS AMAZING HOW MANY CARS SUFFER DAMAGE ON THE WAY HOME FROM TRACKDAYS!
Really cant get my head round this at all, having lost a Sabre last year (total write off) I just cant see how you can apply courtroom law to cars
being driven at speed on track, there are just too many permutations of conditions and circumstances that can lead to and accident - whilst I dont
condone people driving like idiots surely we head to the track to avoid this very kind of red tape.
Our incident involved pushing too hard into a corner, spinning and coming to rest well off the track, the guy behind just seemed to follow our car in,
wether it unsighted him or broke his concentration, I don't know but the bottom line was he hit a static Sabre plumb midships and side on at a
good 60 mph. My take on it was quite simply, its the chance you take venturing onto a track, our car was destroyed, the mini was a real mess but the
biggest result was both drivers were ok.
Looking at it logically, you could argue that the mini driver was a plank for following us in, our driver was a plank for spinning in the first place
or I was a plank for choosing to test a lightweight grp car on a track where we could be potentially hit by stuff more solid....... or you could just
say "shit happens" and get on with it
If crap like this carries on life is going to become a very dull and expensive place very shortly where only the privileged and wealthy will be able
to do anything more exciting than trivial pursuit!
Lets say
The Sabre spins off the track and needs to be recovered. Yellow flags wave while the recovery people are on their way and all the track traffic slows
to pass the incident. The Mini comes charging round the corner at the same speed as he was not under yellows, spins and slams into the Sabre writting
it off.
Mini driver gets out and says 'Sorry, I was driving like a dick' or words to that effect.
Your insurance pays out for the Sabre and then pursues the Mini driver to recover the cost via the courts and the Mini driver represents himself.
This is what appears to have happened.
Whilst I can see where you are coming from, I just dont see the race track as a place where insurance companies should start flexing their muscles -
On a full on race day there are drivers at all sorts of different levels of ability and experience, flags still get missed in the heat of the moment,
accidents still happen even to the most experienced of people and innocent parties get collected - two of my biggest wipeouts whilst sidecar racing
were other peoples accidents .
On a track day I think it is reasonable to assume that the level of expertise is, on average less than that of a race day, in fact some track days
even run novice sessions to acknowledge this. Drivers at these events are even more likely to make mistakes in the heat of the moment miss flags, lift
when they should have kept it planted , underestimate closing speeds etc and as such I really dont think you can legislate for all this.
Many moons ago in the Fire Service I used to attend road traffic accidents, later this terminology was changed to road traffic collision as we can, in
our modern blame culture, no longer call it an accident - someone must be culpable.
In the scenario you set out I agree totally that the incoming driver appears to be driving like a dick but he has just turned up, signed on, sat
through a quick briefing and then after 3 laps of trailing a pace car hes out there in the thick of it. He has had no high speed training, no hazard
recognition sessions, inclement driving input or anything resembling the kind of training that would equip him to control a vehicle safely at speed
that we know of, and this is my point - its a track day, stuff does go wrong, cars do get damaged and indeed written off and as soon as we go down the
ambulance chasing route - the games over
Andy
If you read the orignal thread i linked initially the actual event this took place at was indeed a novice day!
I thinks its best summed up as
Thats pretty much as I read it, Jeff, with the assumption there were waved yellows early enough to make a difference. It was a novis day and that
probably contributed to the accident; Sudden lift off causes unexpected snap oversteerfor inexperienced driver...
I agree with what you're saying Andy, re it should be an accepted risk, but it would have been up to the Civic driver to get across the point to
the Judge; Thats why he should have had representation. Also keep in mind this wasn't the Carerham driver seeking damages but his insurance
company.
Before this I had thought maybe you were better off doing days with the more expensive compaies where the clientel used more expensive cars and maybe
took more care as a result. However they'remore likely to have insurance who'll be the ones to come after you. Now I think you're
better of the cheaper the day and other cars are.
What you will end up with rules that everyone has to be insured, and blame can be made against those at fault. its not like these days are short of cars with cameras, should be alot easier to assertain blame than most road accidents.
It would be entirely feasible that the Civic owner would be covered for 3rd party liability and legal fees under his house contents insurance....would
have been worth checking.
Andy
The whole issue revolves around the point of negligence.....if the Civic driver was negligent then the insurance company has a case, which what the
court found. Just because we sign waivers doesn't mean we are absolved from negligent behaviour.
quote:
The whole issue revolves around the point of negligence.....if the Civic driver was negligent then the insurance company has a case, which what the court found. Just because we sign waivers doesn't mean we are absolved from negligent behaviour.
Surely a court is not going to award a case of negligence, unless there is overwhelming evidence. There must have been some witnesses (marshals?) that
agreed he didn't slow down, and was driving contrary to trackday requirements under a yellow flag. If this is the case, then it's quite
feasible that he is liable.
I'd never have thought that this sort of thing could get into court, let alone win. It will certainly make me think twice about testing the race
car on basic trackdays.
I've come accross some complete idiots on trackdays, that shouldn't be on the track, they totally miss the point of what a trackday is for.
Most of us still have to go to work the next day, and you don't win anything, so slow down when you see a yellow!!
Another one for the melting pot, what if your car dumps oil or water, because it's not well maintained, and this causes a crash, are you
negligent then????
Or take this as a for instance
at Bedford trackday some years ago a guy driving a DB9 was driving like a Dick (sideways round every corner, not oulling over and so on). He was
pulled in and talked to on 2 occasions. Eventually he lost control going into the hairpin after the pits and went over the hairping. He collected a
new 911 Turbo and ripped the engine and rear wheels off the 911.
Was the circuit negligent as well as the DB9 owner?
Or, again at Bedford
Evo was drifting every lap onto the start finish straight even though he was told in the brief not to. He was also brought in and words spoken.
Eventually he lost control of the car, span and crossed the entrance to the track and the entrance to the pits and ended up in the kart track (for
those who know Bedford that is a long way). If you had been driving into the pits and got collected would you sue? and who would you sue?
Oh this is getting good, will we see F1 drivers in court suing each other. Grosjean and Maldonado would be bankrupt 
Another example
Rally trackday at Castle combe - private owned rally car giving high speed laps on behalf of a rally school during normal public track session,
decides he wants to overtake a slower car BUT on the incorrect side and when slower car moves to the correct side to allow cars to over take, the
other car takes a big chunk out the side of both cars. Whose at fault then? No one? Driver/owner?, rally school?, or track organiser/owner?
Well maybe there would case somewhere in here as well....
Bloke in the red one should be banned from the track. hes clearly intentionally 'rubbing' the white car to unsettle it, which he does, then
you can see him use his mirrors and force the camera car off the track, no dount about the intention.
If that was me driving his face would not have been going home in the same shape it arrived.
[Edited on 25-9-13 by loggyboy]
Well CoC didn't think there was intent and didn't exclude him from the results or ban him. The driver of the red car was very surprised to
be called infront of the Clerk!
Apparently the white car had a rear puncture...
Perception is everything.
Did the CoC see this vid? They do not always get it right.
Bloke in the red car clearly looks in his mirror then pulls over forcing him off !
In my experience a lot of COC's will dodge making any descision that penalizes a competitor severly anyway so the fact that the COC did nowt is
no big surprise.
I would agree though that had that been me the red car drivers helmet would have resembled the front of my car come days end.
I'd be pretty pissed if that was my video, and I saw the blatent look in the mirror and swerve to take me off the track.
Luckely I've not come across that type of driving in RGB , in the 3 seasons I've been racing.
Sure people close the door, and you do need to be prepared for it, but you do expect them to respect that your there. It's not bumper cars!!
quote:
Originally posted by amalyos
Another one for the melting pot, what if your car dumps oil or water, because it's not well maintained, and this causes a crash, are you negligent then????
I've just read all this in disbelief, but then again, I'm cynical enough to see that this shite had to come. It's here now.
Mr Bates has entered his epistle, sorry to hear about the blunted Sabre, but clearly Mr Bates see's things as do most of us. Insurance Companies,
ever keen to get out of/recover obligations, are clearly the players here. The court's involvement seems obscene.
I recently had a very nasty 'off', involving ribs and much chest pain for many weeks, not entirely my fault. I took this as all part of the
fun, but looking back the injury (still hurting) would provide a very major claim aimed at someone.
You could even argue now (I guess) that if I have an issue with the car, from suspension failure to a tyre, or get brake fade or something equally
trivial, then the outcome may involve the loss of my house if someone else is in the way. I'm by definition, driving the car on a track at speeds
well excess of those policed on the roads.
Speed limits on the tracks...? Police...? Your DVLA licence endorsed..?
I was only commenting on the mx5 vid, if it starts going this way then I,m afraid this bit of fun is going to be finished
Bottom line only track what you can afford to lose, try not to get hurt in the process.
quote:
If crap like this carries on life is going to become a very dull and expensive place very shortly where only the privileged and wealthy will be able to do anything more exciting than trivial pursuit!
That mx5 crash vid makes me feel ill.
I hope he was ok. He could of died in that crash, many others have in a lot less of an impact.
Play safe kids. . . .
Things to remember
1. The law hasn't been changed by this judgement. Negligence, waivers, insurance etc are the same as they where before.
2. Don't admit anything after an accident
3. Get legal representation if you get sued
apart from that, play safe.
Like others , I think this is a worrying result. Regardless, if you think its right or not, the court has ruled in favor of the insurance company.
Surely the only answer to this other than taking out prohibitively expensive ( for most of us) third party insurance, would be for an additional
disclaimer to be signed by all waiving all rights to redress from anybody on the track, as we can see the current disclaimer would now appear to
basically covers the organisers of the event.
MF
I'm amazed there's been no formal statement from the track-day company.
Two problems with that; The insurance companies (that do trackday cover) don't offer third party cover (ironic as they're the ones chasing a third party claim here) and ANY waiver can be overturned in court where negligence is shown... That's why you need a lawyer and don't try to represent yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by daveb666
I'm amazed there's been no formal statement from the track-day company.
From Chaucer Insurance
REIS are a leading track day* (see definition below) insurance broker who arranges
motorsport and track day insurance policies through Chaucer Insurance. Chaucer
Insurance has been underwriting specialist motorsport insurance for 15 years.
REIS offer an accidental damage policy to cover participants for damage to their own
vehicles. The track day fraternity generally accepts that all participants pay for
damage sustained to their own vehicles, regardless of the circumstances and every
participant signs a disclaimer intended to put this principle into effect. However, we
have had our concerns regarding the validity of these disclaimers and their ability to
protect individual track day participants from suing each other in the event of damage
to their vehicles.
In agreement with our policyholder following significant damage to his vehicle
through no fault of his own, we pursued a recovery from a driver who had collided
with our insured’s stationary vehicle on the grass verge just off the track. At the court
hearing last week it was held by the judge that the disclaimer did not protect the track
day participant who caused damage to a vehicle that Chaucer Insurance covered
under a policy arranged through REIS. The participant was ordered to pay for the
damage he had caused to the other vehicle, as a result of his negligence which was
established by the court through CCTV evidence.
In this instance, Chaucer Insurance will not be pursuing the award issued to them by
the county court. Last weeks court case does not set a precedent for any future
actions as the claim was held in a court of 1st Instance.
Now that it has been established that current disclaimers are not protecting track day
participants sufficiently, we have taken legal advice which recommends that the
following clause to be inserted into track day disclaimers:
‘It is a condition of your participation of the activity, or activities, in which you
intend to take part that in the event of accident, loss or damage occurring
during such activity or activities you will not pursue any claim for damages
against any other participant (save in respect of injury or death)’
Under the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 it is not possible to
exclude potential liability for injury or death.
If this clause is inserted into all disclaimers and every participant signs the document
prior to commencing the activity then it is the view of our legal opinion that a court
would enforce the clause.
Please be assured that REIS and Chaucer remain committed to a vibrant and
exciting track day market. Implementation of the above clause should ensure that it
remains so.
A track day is a non-competitive event that allows an individual to drive their vehicle
outside of the Road Traffic Act requirements. There is no racing; lap timing; time,
speed or distance targets; or winners and losers.
[Edited on 27/9/13 by jeffw]
WOW!
That's refreshing!
Well done Chaucer & REIS!
Just hold your horses on that thought.....
a. Member of staff at Chaucer go after the negligent driver due to an issue with the waivers
b. Wins case and retires to the pub to celebrate
c. Lots of negative publicity arises on various forums
d. Other people at Chaucer suddenly realise that lawyers will be coming after all sorts of people and that the Trackday Market (and therefore a large
part of their business) will die in the UK
e. Senior Managers realise that Chaucer may have just had a 'Ratner' moment....and furiously back pedal issuing the press release above
f. Everything as it was....nothing to see here
the end
A few thoughts on this. I have been reading it with interest and also following the MX5 croft incident in other posts.
I am defiantly not a lawyer that can understand all the relevant sections of a waiver, nor as a lay person would I be able to say by looking at video
evidence, if I could determine for sure if an accident was down to negligence or an error in judgement due to not being a professional racing driver.
One learns by making mistakes.
I find it very hard to believe that the change in stance' is not down to peer pressure, after initially taking it to court getting awarded
damages and court costs for them to turn around and imply it was done for the benefit of all undertaking track days is unbelievable.
Owen Calloway will now have a County Court judgement against his name for negligent driving, a fact I would expect has to now be declared at all times
when obtaining any insurance over the next 5 years. This will cost him dearly irrespective of the insurance companies change of direction. What has
been done will be very hard to undo!
I have only ever done two track days, I found it slightly intimidating at times with the faster and more powerful cars, some drivers did take into
account my novice status leaving me space, some did not, I found I was more concerned with causing damage to others through my own ineptness then that
of damage to my own car. and as such I think the discussions in this thread, will have opened eyes and will continue to put off would be track goers
for a little while to come.
Adrian
[Edited on 27-9-13 by AdrianH]