Track Day Accident - Court awards costs

[XTR2Turbo]

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=18&t=1332239&nmt=Claim+from+a+track+day

 

 

There must be more to this but could set a very very difficult precedent.

[6carjon]

Gosh - food for thought...

[Norman Verona]

I think the relevant detail in this case is that the insurance company sought damages not the owner. With a full staff of lawyers and, no extra cost, the insurer can take it all the way. From what I've seen in courts the judges look favourably on insurers actions.

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

Nevertheless this sets a very worrying precedent. TDOs now will have to ask each participant to sign an indemnity or waiver that exempts other people taking part from responsibility, howsoever caused, for on-track incidents. A free-for-all, then...

[M444TTB]

I hope there is more to that as on the face of it the judgement is very disturbing. Is the Caterham driver not at least as 'negligent' for having lost control of their vehicle and parked it somewhere silly? This is, of course, utter b*****k* but then so is the case. I have long suspected the various disclaimers were worthless. You could probably win against a circuit / TDO for leaving oil on the track if negligence can't be disclaimed against (I thought you couldn't disclaim for this in general anyway).

[Rhett Turner - Black Country AO]

Could the issue be that the Caterham driver may have signed the disclaimer but his insurance company had not and that therefore left them to pursue the claim. 

 

If so then it will mean that it would be difficult to have insured and non insured drivers on the track at the same time.

 

the other side of the coin would be if the Caterham driver spun and ended in the middle of the track and had then unavoidably been collect would the insurance company have paid out to the Honda driver, I suspect not.

[alexander72]

Assuming the Caterham owner made a claim on his policy then his insurer assumes rights of subrogation against any party who is liable for that loss - follows the UK civil law of Tort established by Rylands Vs Fletcher when one person caused material damage to another (this was land based and involved flood water but established a "condition precedent" in UK Civil law that if a party causes nuisance, loss or damage to another party  then the other can claim for restitiution but not betterment of the loss.

 

one thing insurers are good at is using the law to recover losses.

 

We dont know the exact circumstances so no one can be sure but that might be the route of the action....

[Captain Colonial]

Also, it said the Caterham driver had spun - but didn't say whether or not he had hit anything, or only spun.  If he had spun but not damaged his car, and the Civic driver then ploughed into him mid-track, that's a little easier to see from a claims viewpoint.  Not going to get into it, merely saying there aren't enough facts and way too many resulting potential scenarios.

[SootySport]

Even if you insure your own car for trackday use, this does not cover you for Third Party claims against you.  Track ins. only covers YOUR OWN CAR.

[carbon-nv]

The point regarding signing of a waiver is only to cover the organiser's back in the event of an incident and, it appears, doesn't mean that a participant (or their insurer) is denied the right to pursue costs against another participant

 

As said, there's probably more to the story of the incident, but no doubt the insurance company's advocate managed to pursuade the judge that the Civic driver had not taken reasonable steps to avoid collision or followed the prescribed safety instructions.

 

I imagine it's much the same as trying to defend a claim if you've run into the back of someone on the road, even where their actions might have, in some way, contributed to the collision

[WestyNottm]

Scary!

[jeff oakley]

Well this is a nice thing to look at now. The track day organisers will have to watch this carefully as clearly their business could be at risk if everyone who feels agrieved start using the legal profession. You can see the no win merchants lining up to take people on.

 

Clearly we were not party to the incident or the court case but it would appera that the CAterham driver was insured and his claim was met. The insurance company went after the Civic driver with a vengance and have persuaded a judge that the case had merit and won.

 

Not a good day for our hobby but will there now be insurers who will offer full cover for trackdays at least for third party cover at reasonable prices.

[stephenh]

I think the relevant detail in this case is that the insurance company sought damages not the owner. With a full staff of lawyers and, no extra cost, the insurer can take it all the way. From what I've seen in courts the judges look favourably on insurers actions.

How would the judge know that it was an insurance company behind the claim, and not the driver/owner of the Caterham? Insurers always bring actions in that situation in the name of the insured. Every insurance policy gives them the right to do that.

Was a red flag being show, and ignored until too late by the Civic driver?

[Norman Verona]

Stephen, the judge will know the barrister and his team and will therefore know it's the insurer not the owner who is claiming. Another clue would have been the Caterham driver would not have been in court.

 

We do not know waht the evidence was and as far as the "mate's" posting on PH well, "he would say that, wouldn't he"

[Nick Algar - Competition Secretary]

I have been very concerned about this happening for a long time. 

 

Whilst in some ways this is really bad news, I do hope at the end of it we will all know far better where we stand. Personally I have always viewed it that if anything happened to me or my car it was "my problem", but equally anything that happened to anyone else was "their problem" !!! As usual the courts have got involved and messed that up