Frivolous lawsuit against Keigwins trackday organization:gofundme link

Pfff....Pocono is fine, just don't go off road in the second turn (?) or in the second infield section unless you want to see how many pieces you can break your motorcycle into. lol

 

I believe it was on his second lap also from the article.

 

Ha! I knew I'd get you to chime in with that one. LoL! I've known/seen a few people get seriously messed up at that track.
.

 

So Mazda kicked in 3.5 mil for track improvements and it got used for "cash flow". That doesn't sound good.

 

http://www.montereycountyweekly.com...cle_54d8b0b2-43c6-11e6-9088-93e47939daea.html

This one says Laguna allegedly used $5m from Mazda for operations instead of capital improvements. Sounds like Laguna has a cash flow problem. I wonder how long it can survive? Using the capex budget for operations is usually a sign of an approaching death spiral.

 

Lol didn’t see your post, I zeroed in on that too.

 

Can I ask a dumb question - how would someone be prevented from arguing that this is like liquid or a slick spot on the floor resulting in a fall? Earlier in the thread, it was mentioned that they were ok with it until they ran off the track, but that's just like (at least in my head) counter-arguing that a person didn't have an issue with the slick spot on the sidewalk until they fell in it.

I mean, I don't agree with the lawsuit - you sort of take your own responsibility when you do track stuff, but... I could see someone making a similar argument, I guess.

 

Yes - exactly. People do that all the time - claim they didn't know it was there because it wasn't marked and wasn't promptly cleaned up.

I don't think its right, but it definitely happens.

 

theres a post or two on BARF suggesting that the GoFundMe is setup so that they don't have to settle and have their insurance raise their rates.

I think im going to go find this ditch and pipe next time i do a track walk there. I bet its pretty early in T3 and will be easy to avoid if u don't target fixate off track.

 

Something doesn’t add up with this.
The trackday org should have enough insurance to cover any litigation expense.
Their waiver should also provided a prettty solid level of indemnification. Assuming the rider signed it. ???
No mention of the track also getting sued which is interesting.
Any track day org that starts a go fund me campaign is suspect at best.

 

Every time I show up at the track I have spent hundreds and thousands on Beer and Liquor ....Then I spend more on Ice all weekend too..... I'm gonna sue WERA, AHRMA, N2 , STT Sue the World for my distilled mind..........










Shit its Beer :30.... Gotta go maybe next time....

 

I suspected that there was a different angle to this after seeing that the lawsuits against everyone but the provider were dismissed. While I have no idea what the actual angle is, a post on BARF indicates that perhaps the rider was a danger to himself and others and should have been removed from the track by the provider long before the accident happened.

Not saying I agree or disagree or if that is even the truth, but now the reasons for the insurance company not covering this makes a bit more sense.

 

You original view was that his 1.5 laps was enough. Now its up to a newbie to walk all over the course and assess whether there is inadequate runoff, hidden ditches, exposed pipes and who knows what else. How much time do you think it would take a new riders to walk the track to make sure its safe? How much time do you think the track org allowed new riders to do that? Do you think it was a reasonable amount of time? Hey, I'm on your side, I'm just saying that argument alone isn't likely to carry the day.

The track day rider is a business invitee (or, perhaps, a licensee), and different standards of care apply (depending on the state). Again, I don't know Cali law, but at the risk of being too general:

An owner or occupier of land is subject to liability to a licensee for injuries sustained from a natural or artificial condition if he (1) knows of the condition, (2) realizes it involves an unreasonable risk, (3) has reason to believe the licensee will not discover the condition or risk, and (4) permits the licensee to enter or remain on the premises without exercising reasonable care to make the condition reasonably safe or warn the licensee of the condition and the risk.

The possessor of land owes an invitee all the duties that he owes to a licensee and also: (1) the duty to inspect the premises and erect safeguards, if necessary, to render the premises reasonably safe and (2) he has liability for defects that would ordinarily be discoverable by a reasonable inspection and he has the duty to give a proper warning. But he is not liable to anyone for unknown latent defects, that could not be discovered by the exercise of reasonable care.

Again, I don't know Cali law, but waivers are where the protection comes from.Waivers may protect organizations from ordinary negligence, but the lines are a little blurrier when it comes to gross negligence, recklessness and/or intentional conduct. The likelihood of this defense working depends on the state and, in some cases, the judge who is presiding over the case.

Everything in degrees, right? We could make the hypothetical ditch and/or pipe one foot off the track, covered by grass, which the track and track org knew was there, but thought it would scare away riders so they let the grass grow tall so it wouldn't be seen (reckless?) ... or we could make the ditch and/or pipe one mile off the track with flashing neon sign. Degrees.

Nor does it mean there aren't safety issues either, just that tracks and trackday orgs that can and will do stupid things like failing to fix a safety hazard to save a buck (cause, heck, the riders are gonna hit something anyway, right?).

Just to be clear, I'm pro-track ... pro-track organization ... and pro-waivers.

I was just pointing out that the guy is likely trying to make out a case for gross negligence and/or recklessness.
.

Because that is simple negligence. The waiver would cover that. Now it the track day org owner went out on the track during a break with a can of oil an spread it in T3, then sent you out there for the a clean lap when no one is on the track ... the waiver wouldn't apply (intentional act).

When I read it, it seems like the insurance company wants to settle, but the owner of the org doesn't because it will set a "dangerous precedent," then everyone will sue. So it seems like he is pursuing the litigation on principles ... and insurance companies won't (nor should they) pay for a policy holders principles.
.

 

Possibly a limit on the payout maybe? I have no idea how those policies might be set up. But it would appear since everyone else got out of the lawsuit, that there may have been a procedural issue with the provider. I would absolutely defer to your experience though. You would you have any lessening of coverage if there was some sort of gross negligence on your part?