Claim from a track day
Discussion
well there are 2 sides to this... I've seen some stupid driving on track and if someone causes major damage to your car by unreasonable driving I suspect you would be unhappy with a gentleman agreement and a huge cost to repair your own car...
Given the recent virus's of 'someones to blame lets sue them' outfits that have increased all insurance recently I dod wonder how long it would be till this hit track days.
Personally I insure my car for track for this very reason, to protect my investment in my car... I suspect what will happen is that it will become mandatory to have your car insured on track OR sign a very strong legal document signing away rights to even potentially have these non win no fee virus attack us if an accident occurs.
Given the recent virus's of 'someones to blame lets sue them' outfits that have increased all insurance recently I dod wonder how long it would be till this hit track days.
Personally I insure my car for track for this very reason, to protect my investment in my car... I suspect what will happen is that it will become mandatory to have your car insured on track OR sign a very strong legal document signing away rights to even potentially have these non win no fee virus attack us if an accident occurs.
But, the question would be to define the difference between;
An honest accident.
Negligence.
Deliberate Damage.
Even with a disclaimer, if someone sideswipes you 'deliberately' you'll want them to pay.
On a more realistic note.
When was the last time you saw one car trash another on a track day.
I know it happens all the time in racing - but on an open track day it's pretty rare.
An honest accident.
Negligence.
Deliberate Damage.
Even with a disclaimer, if someone sideswipes you 'deliberately' you'll want them to pay.
On a more realistic note.
When was the last time you saw one car trash another on a track day.
I know it happens all the time in racing - but on an open track day it's pretty rare.
andygtt said:
OR sign a very strong legal document signing away rights to even potentially have these non win no fee virus attack us if an accident occurs.
We all assumed we did that already - but apparently not! I can't see how the statements we sign ("I accept ....etc....regardless of fault") are anything other than clear. Apparently not!TonyHetherington said:
andygtt said:
OR sign a very strong legal document signing away rights to even potentially have these non win no fee virus attack us if an accident occurs.
We all assumed we did that already - but apparently not! I can't see how the statements we sign ("I accept ....etc....regardless of fault") are anything other than clear. Apparently not!Consider it from the other drivers perspective though.
He's come off.
He's on the grass, off the track.
Stationary or hardly moving.
Then someone crashes into him and wrecks the car.
This isn't an overtake gone wrong or a bit of debris in the front grill.
It's a full on wreck from someone who should have been carefully avoiding the off car.
I don't particularly like the precident that this might set, but I have a lot of sympathy from the injured party here.
I would have liked to see the footage myself, as I think it would be important when deciding the difference between accident vs blame.
(For want of other words.)
He's come off.
He's on the grass, off the track.
Stationary or hardly moving.
Then someone crashes into him and wrecks the car.
This isn't an overtake gone wrong or a bit of debris in the front grill.
It's a full on wreck from someone who should have been carefully avoiding the off car.
I don't particularly like the precident that this might set, but I have a lot of sympathy from the injured party here.
I would have liked to see the footage myself, as I think it would be important when deciding the difference between accident vs blame.
(For want of other words.)
Snowboy said:
Consider it from the other drivers perspective though.
He's come off.
He's on the grass, off the track.
Stationary or hardly moving.
Then someone crashes into him and wrecks the car.
This isn't an overtake gone wrong or a bit of debris in the front grill.
It's a full on wreck from someone who should have been carefully avoiding the off car.
I don't particularly like the precident that this might set, but I have a lot of sympathy from the injured party here.
I would have liked to see the footage myself, as I think it would be important when deciding the difference between accident vs blame.
(For want of other words.)
I disagree entirely, I do trackdays, entirely accepting that my car may be written off in someone else accident, through no fault of my own, but that is the risk I am prepared to take for the fun of a trackday.He's come off.
He's on the grass, off the track.
Stationary or hardly moving.
Then someone crashes into him and wrecks the car.
This isn't an overtake gone wrong or a bit of debris in the front grill.
It's a full on wreck from someone who should have been carefully avoiding the off car.
I don't particularly like the precident that this might set, but I have a lot of sympathy from the injured party here.
I would have liked to see the footage myself, as I think it would be important when deciding the difference between accident vs blame.
(For want of other words.)
This is extremely worrying and the first step to trackdays being a thing of the past.
Snowboy said:
Consider it from the other drivers perspective though.
He's come off.
He's on the grass, off the track.
Stationary or hardly moving.
Then someone crashes into him and wrecks the car.
So the first car spinning and ending up on the grass is a track day accident, but a second car doing *exactly* the same thing is negligence?He's come off.
He's on the grass, off the track.
Stationary or hardly moving.
Then someone crashes into him and wrecks the car.
agtlaw said:
LBduck said:
Suspect the waiver is not strong enough to hold in court and probably hasn't been tested. Very few are.
Surely we need to know who the track day insurer is and avoid them like the plague. This is not the conduct of a company looking out for our interests.
English law doesn't allow any party to disclaim negligence. The court found negligence proven. It really is that simple.Surely we need to know who the track day insurer is and avoid them like the plague. This is not the conduct of a company looking out for our interests.
edh said:
we don't know the details of the defence.. (maybe AGT does?)
negligence vs inept driving (or just bad luck)? - what level of driving ability should we "reasonably" expect track day participants to have?
I do know a bit about it but can't much as legal professional privilege applies. I wasn't instructed to defend the case.negligence vs inept driving (or just bad luck)? - what level of driving ability should we "reasonably" expect track day participants to have?
There was a previous thread, I think?
Mr E said:
Snowboy said:
Consider it from the other drivers perspective though.
He's come off.
He's on the grass, off the track.
Stationary or hardly moving.
Then someone crashes into him and wrecks the car.
So the first car spinning and ending up on the grass is a track day accident, but a second car doing *exactly* the same thing is negligence?He's come off.
He's on the grass, off the track.
Stationary or hardly moving.
Then someone crashes into him and wrecks the car.
But I would say tentatively Yes to your question.
If you can see someone has binned it on a corner it's sensible to slow down and pass safely.
The questions I would have would to do with how long the offed car had been sitting there and how visible it was to the second car.
Two cars binning it on a blind corner is an accident.
A second car crashing into a clearly visible offed car is negligence.
Gassing Station | Track Days | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff