Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
I didn't say insurance companies, I said a civil suit. Just because both drivers knew the risks doesn't mean one wasn't careless/reckless/distracted and/or incompetent. What if they were driving with worn-down tires, knowing that they should change them, but thought "I can get one more lap"?
If it could be reasonably expected that the crash could have been avoided, the guy probably has a civil case. If not, like steering suddenly failed prior, some other car created a situation they had to react to, etc., then no. If someone like that has $$$, they most certainly have $$$ for a lawyer. Would it be worth it? Well, it's a multi-million dollar car...
I'm just reacting to the post above that says "I don't see how the porsche driver could be sued". I can see how they could be sued. Doesn't mean they would automatically win, but if they could prove with a preponderance of evidence the above, then they have a case.
|
Yeah, good luck with winning a civil suit against anyone for an on track incident. Even if they got the most successful lawyer out there, chances of winning are slim to nill. Winning a civil suit for a track event sets up the wrong precedence which would destroy track and sanctioned racing events. No one would push their vehicles for fear of being held monetarily liable for anything that happens.
I don't know if you've ever been to any track events. If you haven't, you will understand why many of us who have are taking this stance. You know the risks. If you don't want to put your car at risk, don't put it on the track.
And I only used my example of insurance companies to emphasize being on track isn't something that is deemed as a normally accepted risk.