Claim from a track day

[edh]

Snowboy said:

Two cars binning it on a blind corner is an accident.
A second car crashing into a clearly visible offed car is negligence.

Ah well that's cleared it all up then...

Lets's wait & see the details.

[JQ]

Definitely a worrying turn of events. I'm not sure I'd be wanting to share the track with some of the expensive machinery I do at present if this sets a precedent. After all even with trackday insurance you'd still be personally liable for the damage to the 3rd party.


As for the comments that the risk of 2 cars coming together is quite low - the fact that such an event could personally bankrupt me (personal injury) would be enough to put me off. I've always accepted that my car could be written off by someone else through no fault of my own, but the thought that I may have to pay for someone else is worrying.

I'm hoping Snowboy's theory is right and there's more to this than a simple accident.

[agtlaw]

JQ said:

i'm not sure I'd be wanting to share the track with some of the expensive machinery I do at present if this sets a precedent.

A county court case does not set a precedent.

Don't drive negligently.

[Olivera]

agtlaw said:

JQ said:

i'm not sure I'd be wanting to share the track with some of the expensive machinery I do at present if this sets a precedent.

A county court case does not set a precedent.

Don't drive negligently.

Spinning or losing control of the car on a track day does not display negligence, if that were the case TDO's would explicitly prohibit it in both writing and via marshaling. I'd argue it's simply an accepted risk by all parties and an integral part of driving quickly at the limits of adhesion.

[Mrs Muttleysnoop]

So we have Owen's name maybe we need the Caterham driver's name to even things up,after all he ran out of talent first.

Elliott hopefully there will be a report in the local paper.

[agtlaw]

Olivera said:

Spinning or losing control of the car on a track day does not display negligence, if that were the case TDO's would explicitly prohibit it in both writing and via marshaling. I'd argue it's simply an accepted risk by all parties and an integral part of driving quickly at the limits of adhesion.

It depends.

A judge ruled, in this case, that C was negligent. You haven't seen the footage or heard the evidence so I wouldn't expect you to be In any position to make an informed judgment on this particular case simply having read OP's fact light version of events.

[Olivera]

anoother said:

Steve57 said:

The use of my vehicle is entirely at my risk and I accept responsibility for any damage caused to my vehicle (whether controlled by me or any other person).

Surely this is pretty clear. Does the court not deem it to be legally binding?

That states "I accept responsibility for any damage caused to my vehicle", not "...by my vehicle".

[CDP]

[quote=JQ]As for the comments that the risk of 2 cars coming together is quite low - the fact that such an event could personally bankrupt me (personal injury) would be enough to put me off. I've always accepted that my car could be written off by someone else through no fault of my own, but the thought that I may have to pay for someone else is worrying./quote]

It was more a consideration that if 3rd party trackday insurance became normal it might not be as expensive as we are thinking...

[Ian_C]

Mr E said:

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?

Yep, if I appealed and lost, I'd then counter sue the Caterham owner for being 'negligent' and parking their car in the gravel in the first place!

[Elderly]

Elliott_3R said:

......... and apologised to the other driver .......

Thoughts?

Maybe that was interpreted as Owen's admission of liability?

[Olivera]

CDP said:

It was more a consideration that if 3rd party trackday insurance became normal it might not be as expensive as we are thinking...

As far as I am aware all available track-day insurance only covers damage to the policy holder's vehicle. Is there even a single insurer in the UK that also covers third-party track day liabilities? Even if there were I'd expect to pay thousands to insure a £500 mk2 Golf in case of a tangle with some exotica.

[CDP]

Olivera said:

CDP said:

It was more a consideration that if 3rd party trackday insurance became normal it might not be as expensive as we are thinking...

As far as I am aware all available track-day insurance only covers damage to the policy holder's vehicle. Is there even a single insurer in the UK that also covers third-party track day liabilities? Even if there were I'd expect to pay thousands to insure a £500 mk2 Golf in case of a tangle with some exotica.

But a tangle with a bus queue is potentially far more expensive from an insurer's point of view.

[anoother]

Olivera said:

That states "I accept responsibility for any damage caused to my vehicle", not "...by my vehicle".

In case you're not joking, you might want to think this through a little more...

[thegreenhell]

CDP said:

But a tangle with a bus queue is potentially far more expensive from an insurer's point of view.

And an accident on a trackday is no doubt statistically more likely than someone crashing into a bus stop. Any kind of risk management always takes into account probability of occurrence as well as the possible outcome of the occurrence.

[Antj]

Am i missing something here. are we saying A) caterham fuddy took Civic Yoof to court and argued the toss and won. Or are we looking more the lines of situation B) where the Caterham owner was paid out by his trackday insurer who then pursued Civic Yoof as they are entitled to do so as Yoof has admitted liability. In this case they put a claim for X mount , no defence due to admission ( which would need to be witnessed i assume) therefore pay the man his money.

I'm thinking its situation B and maybe somebody has been ignoring threats of action and it has been awarded in their abscence, but i am just summising based on lack of detail.

But like everyone tells you folks, never ever admit anything even if they catch you with the smoking gun in your hand.

[Wh00sher]

Tang Soo Tim said:

most of us carry trackday insurance but only for our own cars

Do we ? I suspect there is a large number of people with dedicated track cars who don`t.

[JQ]

Antj said:

Am i missing something here. are we saying A) caterham fuddy took Civic Yoof to court and argued the toss and won. Or are we looking more the lines of situation B) where the Caterham owner was paid out by his trackday insurer who then pursued Civic Yoof as they are entitled to do so as Yoof has admitted liability. In this case they put a claim for X mount , no defence due to admission ( which would need to be witnessed i assume) therefore pay the man his money.

I'm thinking its situation B and maybe somebody has been ignoring threats of action and it has been awarded in their abscence, but i am just summising based on lack of detail.

But like everyone tells you folks, never ever admit anything even if they catch you with the smoking gun in your hand.

or C), which has been hinted at on the thread - said Civic driver was deemed to be negligent.

[Elliott_3R]

Another interesting point is that it was an MSV Novice Only event.

I'll try and get as much information together as possible, so everyone can see the facts.

Owen needs help in this as it's likely to bankrupt him.

Any advice is appreciated.

[Antj]

JQ said:

or C), which has been hinted at on the thread - said Civic driver was deemed to be negligent.

yeah but do you need C when Yoof has already admitted liability. Surely you are only negligent when deemed negligent, as he has admitted liability ( which i assuem may be recorded by a witness statement to the insurer) then thats it case closed.

Also if he has admitted liability then does that also mean he cannot sue the caterham owner for being off limits.

[MaxFromage]

Snowboy said:

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?

I don't know the exact details of either accident.
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.

No disagreement with what you've said, but I've seen plenty of track day incidents where B follows A. If B is close to the edge, A's accident could easily take B past it. How many times do you see it in high-level racing, let alone amateurs...