Track Day Accident - Court awards costs

[M444TTB]

Some further points coming out:

- MSV have changed their wording on their disclaimer prior to this

- The day was an MSV novice day (or session). Therefore what should expectations on the driver be?

Apparently the poster's friend is looking at bankruptcy.

[JustCallMeMac]

Of equal, or even greater concern, is could a personal injury claim be made under similar circumstances? If so, the sums involved in such a case don't bear thinking about.

 

Picked this up from the PH thread, which if accurate, (and I can't substantiate it), is of great concern.

 

"Neither MSV nor any other Relevant Person shall be liable for any loss, damage, claims, costs, expenses, injury or demands suffered directly or indirectly by
me as a consequence of my attendance at or participation in this Activity provided that nothing in this form shall exclude any Relevant Person’s liability for
personal injury or death caused by its negligence. I shall reimburse MSV and other Relevant Persons against any loss or liability suffered by them as a result
of my error, default, act or omission."


 

[FILFAN]

While this is a scary thought I agree with Nick in that we should be able to find out where we stand. Another positive is that this may put a stop to some track day organisers running their days like a free for all.

[stephenh]

I find it hard to believe how the judge found the defendant negligent if the claimant didn't give evidence. It just doesn't make sense. Are you sure the claimant didn't give evidence, Norman?

[Mark (smokey mow)]

I was very suprised when i read about it over on Pistonheads. Done a little digging and found a Caterham version of events on L7C

http://my.lotussevenclub.com/Words/tabid/480/EntryId/102/Club-MSV-Snetterton-Trackday.aspx

After Lunch, out we go again on a drying track. with wet patch's for the next to last session of the day, 10 minutes in, red flag's out and we file back in, but whose missing, A silence decends, Caterbram Snr still has not returned, then word comes down the line that Caterbram Snr's been in a tangle with a Honda Civic Type R, 15 minutes later a battered civic R is trucked back in, followed by a very sick looking "Caterbram 1 aka Brum".

Luckily nobody is injured, other than ache's & bruises,

Caterbram Snr spun out while having a session with one of the pro drivers, pushing harder than the track & car would take. All would have ended well after a trip onto the grass, but while staitionary waiting for others car's to clear the last one through also lost it and spun broadside into the side of Caterbram 1. luckily every thing worked as it should do, what the damage is to "Caterbram 1 aka Brum "only time will tell., but leaking oil & all four wheels pointing in different directions at the same time can't be good....

A long sobbering drive home with the trailer.

[FILFAN]

I need to use his insurance company

[alexander72]

I think Justcallmemac has hit the nail on the head - the Relevant Person is a defined term (as its in capitals) so in the small print of signing up for the day it woiuld seem that any participant is indemnifying the organisers/other participants from Loss....caused by error act or ommision.

 

Indemnities and Warranty's are commonly used in commercial deals where liability is predicted (like contaminated land remediation) and two parties want to agree who will assume liability in the event of a claim from a third party.  In this situation the "liability" for cleanup is "known" and reasonably foreseeable and therefore not insurable.

 

My head hurts as this is what I did for a job for a decade in the city before I took up tree climbing.

 

I think what is interesting is how this might have repurcussions on all of us who do trackdays when we share the track with novices, strangers and fellow petrol heads of unknown means.... Having not done a trackday until I went to blyton thios year I have to say it was very weird having having other cars on the track when i'm used to having a course to myself doing the speed series... Wont be doing any trackdays after this legal judgement as I couldnt afford to rebuild my car let alone someone elses who spun in front of me....

[Norman Verona]

 

 Are you sure the claimant didn't give evidence, Norman?

 

 

 

No, of course not. However on all the cases I've been on which have been brought by the insurer the insured was never there. In fact the barrister for my insurance company often told me I didn't need to be there as the case was based purely on legalities. 

[Wile E. Coyote]

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...

 

That wouldn't fly: an external party (e.g. the insurance company) wouldn't be party to that agreement.

 

I think Justcallmemac has hit the nail on the head - the Relevant Person is a defined term (as its in capitals) so in the small print of signing up for the day it woiuld seem that any participant is indemnifying the organisers/other participants from Loss....caused by error act or ommision.

 

Indemnities and Warranty's are commonly used in commercial deals where liability is predicted (like contaminated land remediation) and two parties want to agree who will assume liability in the event of a claim from a third party.  In this situation the "liability" for cleanup is "known" and reasonably foreseeable and therefore not insurable.

 

My head hurts as this is what I did for a job for a decade in the city before I took up tree climbing.

 

I think what is interesting is how this might have repurcussions on all of us who do trackdays when we share the track with novices, strangers and fellow petrol heads of unknown means.... Having not done a trackday until I went to blyton thios year I have to say it was very weird having having other cars on the track when i'm used to having a course to myself doing the speed series... Wont be doing any trackdays after this legal judgement as I couldnt afford to rebuild my car let alone someone elses who spun in front of me....

 

 

I'm not entirely sure I agree it's not an insurable risk... in fact I'm pretty sure it could be insured but at a price.  After all, the majority of trackday drivers experience no issues on a normal day.

 

I do agree that it increases the risk associated with TDs though.  It's one thing risking say £5-10k of your own car, but quite another potentially being on the hook for repairing the other bloke's Lambo.

 

I'd suggest that, for those prepared to take the risk, it pretty much makes front and rear cameras essential if you're to have any real chance of refuting any allegation made - any witnesses will otherwise almost certainly have a variety of accounts of what happened.  Of course, the downside it that you might end up hanging yourself with the same evidence...

[Norman Verona]

We don't know what the evidence is. However, reading the little said so far, the Caterham spun off and was on the grass by the side of the track. The Honda came round and also spun off and hit the Caterham in the side. I would guess the fact that the Honda spun off was evidence that he was driving negligently. The fact the Caterham spun off is irrelevant as he didn't hit anyone.  

 

Apply those facts to the road and the Honda would be liable.

[Stuart]

I haven't been on a track day since I saw a stunning Lotus 11 smashed into segments by a complete pillock in a Z4 at Castle Combe several years ago.  11 had a problem and was parked on the grass well off the circuit just over the rise at the end of the start/finish straight.  Z4 driver took the rise way too fast, completely lost it and took the 11 out on the grass.  Fortunately the 11 driver was out of his car otherwise he would probably have been killed.  The state of the 11 almost made me weep.  I couldn't see how on earth the Z4 driver wasn't completely responsible for that.  I'd also spent a fair bit of time that day being tailgated by an old M5 and didn't really enjoy a couple of tonnes of metal being 10ft from my head at 100mph.  Those two together along with the increasing lairiness of the max power brigade made me give up on track days. They even allow drifting at Combe now goodness me. 

[Stuart]

I like what the swear filter did there to my last couple of words

[alexander72]

coyote, My text wasnt clear... You cant insure anything that is known, or reasonably foreseeable, insurance can only be for fortuitous events.... If the likely premium approaches the probable maximum loss then you looking at risk funding rather than risk transfer (insurance)

 

I echo what Norm said above....

[jeff oakley]

Again, several points here. MSV terms and conditions seem to me unreasonable as they have waived there responsibility and made sure that they have passed this on to participents. How many fully read terms and conditions and if you did without some knowledge the legal wording makes it difficult to understand just what was being agreed to.

 

Again, the comment on blatchat seemed to indicate that the prodriver, instructing the caterham driver, was negligant in pushing the driver and the car further than the conditions allowed. But it appears that the Civic driver who did the same, without a clear area to run off is somehow worse, but MSV have absolved themselves in the t&Cs. Had the Caterham not gone off the Civic would have nothing to hit.

 

As for Stuarts comments on the Lotus 11, as I recall it the 11 went off as the was oil or water on the track, possibly from his car. The Z4 did the same but collected the 11 unfortunately, this was at the entry to quarry I don't think it was suggested that the Z4 driver was doing anything that others had not.

 

At Combe, drifting on a session is not allowed but they do have two or three on an action day which are specifically for that purpose.

 

Should it put us off, hard question to answer. I think the track day organisers will be hurriedly looking at this development as clearly the driving force has been the insurance company in this one, not the car owner and there business is now not what it was.

 

But on a wider point for me when is there going to be an investigation into the actions of the insurance industry? There appears to be wide spread price alignments within the industry where you might find a small saving between companies. This may be due to using the same underwriters I do not know.

Also the widespread practice of increasing your premiums when you have been the innocent victim of someone running into you? How does that make you at a great risk of it happening again?

How come they can lobby for increased cameras and enforcement so they can load the premiums?

The banks made some shocking errors but the insurance industry seems to be much worse and have a more widespread financial effect on more people.

[Mark (smokey mow)]

Further reading

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=981218&r=17385880&hm=78229&mid=78229#17385880