Claim from a track day
Discussion
This is a pretty scary judgement. It can only encourage a 'blame' and 'claim' culture.
It needs to be nipped in the bud by the association of track day organisers, with a clear understanding for everyone, otherwise many won't want to be exposed to the risks.
There should only ever be the possibility of a claim where there is proof beyond doubt of reckless negligence. Might encourage better drivers' briefings, and compliance with the rules though.
It needs to be nipped in the bud by the association of track day organisers, with a clear understanding for everyone, otherwise many won't want to be exposed to the risks.
There should only ever be the possibility of a claim where there is proof beyond doubt of reckless negligence. Might encourage better drivers' briefings, and compliance with the rules though.
radical78 said:
track days should be own risk watever happens.no liability no negligence nothing.if you dont like it dont go on track
The key word there is should. I, like many people, thought track days did operate on that basis but it appears from the face value of this judgement that it may no longer be the case and we have another area where nothing is allowed to be an accident and the 'where there is blame there is a claim' culture has reached track days. The interesting point is how blame can be apportioned. If, as some have suggested, the negligence was apportioned to the driver of the second car for entering the corner at a speed which allowed his car to spin surely the first driver was equally negligent having already spun there.
jonnyleroux said:
Suggest the mods lock this thread pending the statement from Chaucer.
Jonny
BaT
Thank you mods for ignoring this self serving suggestion which obviously goes against the interests of the people who are posting here. I suppose it would suit him even better if the mods just deleted this entirely. Jonny
BaT
Koln-RS said:
This is a pretty scary judgement. It can only encourage a 'blame' and 'claim' culture.
It needs to be nipped in the bud by the association of track day organisers, with a clear understanding for everyone, otherwise many won't want to be exposed to the risks.
Very true. It needs to be nipped in the bud by the association of track day organisers, with a clear understanding for everyone, otherwise many won't want to be exposed to the risks.
I am sure most of us wouldn't take a car on the road without the 3rd party insurance knowing that if an accident happens we might have to sale our house to cover costs.
If the same can happen on a track day and we cannot cover ourselves who wants to take the risk?
Eduardo.
Zoobeef said:
Another tracker here that doesn't use insurance. Worst case is someone hits me with no fault of my own. It would be bloody annoying but a risk I take as I bet most knocks I could fix for under the £1k excess anyway.
Surely the worst case is you hit someone else and they are injured and make a serious injury claim against you?Zoobeef said:
Another tracker here that doesn't use insurance. Worst case is someone hits me with no fault of my own. It would be bloody annoying but a risk I take as I bet most knocks I could fix for under the £1k excess anyway.
No, that's not the worst case. The worst case is that you spin off collecting a Mclaren en route being driven by a hedge fund manager and face a claim for millions that bankrupts you.It's worth considering what is required to prove a claim of negligence.
This is how I understand it but for the properly qualified legal eagles on here please forgive the basic view and correct as necessary!
1. There has to be a duty of care.
2. There has to be a breach of that duty.
3. There has to be resultant damage.
The duty of care for a driver on the road would (should?) be different to on a trackday and in turn the degree of duty might well be different again in a race situation, different things would be considered acceptable in each case and that is what determines the duty. Nonetheless, there are things that all of us would consider unacceptable on a trackday and that would be a factor in defining the duty of care, it would also most likely be based around the things covered in the drivers briefing.
Once the degree of duty is decided, the breach should be a matter of evidence, did he overtake on the wrong side, continue at full speed under red flags etc. A mistake isn't necessarily a breach of duty (though it may well be), was it the kind of error that would be commonly made by people in the same circumstances, was it the kind of mistake that is occasionally inevitable in the environment etc?
Was there actual damage and was it a result of the breach of duty? If damage was fully or partly caused by things other than the breach then there may not be a claim or it may be reduced; equally if the damage was partly caused by negligence on the part of the plaintiff then the damages may be reduced in proportion to their negligence.
How does this fit in to this case? Hard to know without full facts and evidence but if the deciding factor was that it was judged based on the level of duty owed by normal road users then it's hard to see how it would stand if appealed (and if it did stand then the entire motorsport industry might as well pack up and go home!).
This is how I understand it but for the properly qualified legal eagles on here please forgive the basic view and correct as necessary!
1. There has to be a duty of care.
2. There has to be a breach of that duty.
3. There has to be resultant damage.
The duty of care for a driver on the road would (should?) be different to on a trackday and in turn the degree of duty might well be different again in a race situation, different things would be considered acceptable in each case and that is what determines the duty. Nonetheless, there are things that all of us would consider unacceptable on a trackday and that would be a factor in defining the duty of care, it would also most likely be based around the things covered in the drivers briefing.
Once the degree of duty is decided, the breach should be a matter of evidence, did he overtake on the wrong side, continue at full speed under red flags etc. A mistake isn't necessarily a breach of duty (though it may well be), was it the kind of error that would be commonly made by people in the same circumstances, was it the kind of mistake that is occasionally inevitable in the environment etc?
Was there actual damage and was it a result of the breach of duty? If damage was fully or partly caused by things other than the breach then there may not be a claim or it may be reduced; equally if the damage was partly caused by negligence on the part of the plaintiff then the damages may be reduced in proportion to their negligence.
How does this fit in to this case? Hard to know without full facts and evidence but if the deciding factor was that it was judged based on the level of duty owed by normal road users then it's hard to see how it would stand if appealed (and if it did stand then the entire motorsport industry might as well pack up and go home!).
Edited by Steve H on Saturday 21st September 21:20
JQ said:
Zoobeef said:
Another tracker here that doesn't use insurance. Worst case is someone hits me with no fault of my own. It would be bloody annoying but a risk I take as I bet most knocks I could fix for under the £1k excess anyway.
No, that's not the worst case. The worst case is that you spin off collecting a Mclaren en route being driven by a hedge fund manager and face a claim for millions that bankrupts you.Like has been stated many times in this thread though, negligence is the part that sways the court decision. If I'm negligent then I deserve it. And again in you example, insurance would make no difference.
It's no exaggeration to say that Track Days (and the like) have, over the last 15 years, been the saviour of many circuits and much of British motorsport.
This judgement could be a serious spoke in the wheels of that good work. Let's hope common sense prevails, and we don't end up descending into US style litigation claims.
This judgement could be a serious spoke in the wheels of that good work. Let's hope common sense prevails, and we don't end up descending into US style litigation claims.
Zoobeef said:
You miss read my worst case meaning. Doing what you say would be my fault. Someone hitting me is not my fault, so is 'worst case'
Like has been stated many times in this thread though, negligence is the part that sways the court decision. If I'm negligent then I deserve it. And again in you example, insurance would make no difference.
To deserve it is a big price to pay if you cannot protect yourself. I don't think anyone here is on track to cause an accident. We are here because we want to enjoy racing lines and the speed our cars can carry on a safe surounding. But is it legaly safe enought now. We will have to wait and see.Like has been stated many times in this thread though, negligence is the part that sways the court decision. If I'm negligent then I deserve it. And again in you example, insurance would make no difference.
Eduardo.
Edited by GT4EDS on Saturday 21st September 22:12
I hope that there's more to this than is apparent here.
If a simple mistake could put me in a position where I might lose everything I own that would be the end of trackdays for me. I am a careful driver on track but I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I couldn't make a mistake at an inopportune time.
If it became apparent that the car that hit the spun Caterham was being driven in contravention of the rules of the trackday though then that would be entirely different. If (and I'm not suggesting this is what happened here) a car ignored waved yellows, continued on at speed and hit a car that was stopped, was deemed at fault that would be fine by me.
I haven't been at a trackday yet where there wasn't someone driving like a prat and see no reason why people who ignore the rules of the day shouldn't have to pay for the damage they cause.
I'm not sure that I am willing to trust my financial wellbeing on the fair outcome of that decision however. I suppose that means that I can't really risk trackdays any more
If a simple mistake could put me in a position where I might lose everything I own that would be the end of trackdays for me. I am a careful driver on track but I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I couldn't make a mistake at an inopportune time.
If it became apparent that the car that hit the spun Caterham was being driven in contravention of the rules of the trackday though then that would be entirely different. If (and I'm not suggesting this is what happened here) a car ignored waved yellows, continued on at speed and hit a car that was stopped, was deemed at fault that would be fine by me.
I haven't been at a trackday yet where there wasn't someone driving like a prat and see no reason why people who ignore the rules of the day shouldn't have to pay for the damage they cause.
I'm not sure that I am willing to trust my financial wellbeing on the fair outcome of that decision however. I suppose that means that I can't really risk trackdays any more
Garybee said:
I hope that there's more to this than is apparent here.
If a simple mistake could put me in a position where I might lose everything I own that would be the end of trackdays for me. I am a careful driver on track but I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I couldn't make a mistake at an inopportune time.
If it became apparent that the car that hit the spun Caterham was being driven in contravention of the rules of the trackday though then that would be entirely different. If (and I'm not suggesting this is what happened here) a car ignored waved yellows, continued on at speed and hit a car that was stopped, was deemed at fault that would be fine by me.
I haven't been at a trackday yet where there wasn't someone driving like a prat and see no reason why people who ignore the rules of the day shouldn't have to pay for the damage they cause.
I'm not sure that I am willing to trust my financial wellbeing on the fair outcome of that decision however. I suppose that means that I can't really risk trackdays any more
I'm beginning to think along these lines. It is a worrying development. If a simple mistake could put me in a position where I might lose everything I own that would be the end of trackdays for me. I am a careful driver on track but I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I couldn't make a mistake at an inopportune time.
If it became apparent that the car that hit the spun Caterham was being driven in contravention of the rules of the trackday though then that would be entirely different. If (and I'm not suggesting this is what happened here) a car ignored waved yellows, continued on at speed and hit a car that was stopped, was deemed at fault that would be fine by me.
I haven't been at a trackday yet where there wasn't someone driving like a prat and see no reason why people who ignore the rules of the day shouldn't have to pay for the damage they cause.
I'm not sure that I am willing to trust my financial wellbeing on the fair outcome of that decision however. I suppose that means that I can't really risk trackdays any more
rovermorris999 said:
I'm beginning to think along these lines. It is a worrying development.
I totally agree - can anybody (even the really well off) continue to consider trackdays given the potentially huge levels of liability you are now exposed to after this ruling.I love my cars and driving them on track - but would I put my families security and home on the line just to drive on a circuit for a few hours. No
No more trackdays until the nice insurance companies relieve us of more money by selling 3rd party trackday insurance cover - don't you just love them
I think that people may be over reacting to this case. This is one decision that turned on its own facts(full details of which we do not have). There has been no change in the law, and people have been potentially liable for on track negligence for years, but there has not been a flood of claims.
Breadvan72 said:
I think that people may be over reacting to this case. This is one decision that turned on its own facts(full details of which we do not have). There has been no change in the law, and people have been potentially liable for on track negligence for years, but there has not been a flood of claims.
The worry for me is that the disclaimers appear to carry little weight. If one is potentially liable for a negligence claim then that should be made clear by the trackday operators and by clear I don't mean hidden away in the small print in some obtuse legal language. I presume to define negligence in an individual case would require m'learned friends discussing it at great expense in a court of law. Not an appealing prospect.Gassing Station | Track Days | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff