Responsibility for accidents - dangerous driving

[andy97]

Not really a historic subject matter, again, sorry but we are one of the more widely used forums here these days so thought it might be worth discussing.

I am not a horse racing fan in any way shape or form, but I did read this the other day and it does seem to me that there is a possibility of parallels being drawn in circuit racing in the event of a bad incident.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/horse-racing/59746231

Perhaps driving standards need to be taken more seriously in some series and the idea that “rubbin’ is racing” and “push to pass” are acceptable needs to be stamped out.

[Anyopenroad]

The judge did say that: "In making that finding, I stress that the threshold of liability for negligence is a high one and has been determined as made out in this case, on its own particular facts. The finding does not set a precedent either within horse racing or in sport generally."

Anyone who suffers injury or loss as a result of a racing accident has the option to sue. But the court will take into account the nature of the activity and the existence of remedies within the rules of the event, which will make the bar (as the judge puts it) very high. It's actually likely that a racing incident so bad as to reach that threshold might open the offending driver up to criminal investigation too.

This is a very long way from the sort of driving behaviour you describe, but deliberately driving into a competitor to cause a crash would come close.

[andy97]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

The judge did say that: "In making that finding, I stress that the threshold of liability for negligence is a high one and has been determined as made out in this case, on its own particular facts. The finding does not set a precedent either within horse racing or in sport generally."

Anyone who suffers injury or loss as a result of a racing accident has the option to sue. But the court will take into account the nature of the activity and the existence of remedies within the rules of the event, which will make the bar (as the judge puts it) very high. It's actually likely that a racing incident so bad as to reach that threshold might open the offending driver up to criminal investigation too.

This is a very long way from the sort of driving behaviour you describe, but deliberately driving into a competitor to cause a crash would come close.

Yes, I noted the caveats but slightly at odds with,

Judge Karen Walden-Smith has ruled that, on the balance of probabilities, Gibbons' actions during the race were "undertaken in reckless disregard for the safety of Mr Tylicki". And “ the actions of Mr Gibbons riding Madame Butterfly on 16 October 2016, colliding with Nellie Deen mounted by Mr Tylicki, were not mere lapses of concentration or inattentiveness.”

So, in our environment, accidental contact would be considered below the threshold but where there can be considered to be deliberate contact, or reckless driving that might lead to contact, then that might be described as being above the threshold. Remember, the Stewards in this case considered it to be a “racing accident”; the Judge disagreed.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by andy97

So, in our environment, accidental contact would be considered below the threshold but where there can be considered to be deliberate contact, or reckless driving that might lead to contact, then that might be described as being above the threshold.

Yes I agree with that distinction. We’ve all seen egregious examples of bad driving which might not have intent but do show the “reckless disregard for safety” that the judge describes.

[Lancsbreaker]

So does this mean, as I've always suspected, that the disclaimer that we all sign (or used to ) at signing on, is meaningless, and we don't "save harmless" anyone?


I don't disagree with the concept that reckless or dangerous driving should be penalised, of course, although I'm fortunate to have largely raced with CSCC who do have very strict standards

[Adam43]

And it is good that a really extreme situation of complete negligence or intent that causes harm can be dealt with in an actual court. And good it rarely is.

Seems like we have a decent pragmatic approach in effect.

[terence]

[QUOTE=Adam43;4092018]And it is good that a really extreme situation of complete negligence or intent that causes harm can be dealt with in an actual court. And good it rarely is.

Seems like we have a decent pragmatic approach in effect.[/QUOTE. There was an incedent during the 24hr Nordschleife race a couple of years back.A driver who thinks Rubbing is Racing was blocking the eventual winning car, forcing the driver onto the grass.Fortunately the lead driver was a highly skilled driver and just kept his foot in with not much room and got by. The blocking driver was eventually fined €4000 and lost his Nordschleife permit to race. Quite rightly so as that kind of behavior at 300kph should carry a high penalty.!

[coppice]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

So does this mean, as I've always suspected, that the disclaimer that we all sign (or used to ) at signing on, is meaningless, and we don't "save harmless" anyone?


I don't disagree with the concept that reckless or dangerous driving should be penalised, of course, although I'm fortunate to have largely raced with CSCC who do have very strict standards

Any disclaimers saying words to the effect 'You are spectating /competing/marshalling here at your own risk , we are not liable for any injury ' is legally ineffective . You cannot exclude liability for injury caused by your own negligence . That has been the case for decades , but many people in motor sport , including the track day scene , seem in denial of this and adhere to the delusion that 'what happens on track stays on track'. That doesn't mean automatic liability for any incident, as the sport has a degree of risk which is far higher than road driving.

[midgetman]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

So does this mean, as I've always suspected, that the disclaimer that we all sign (or used to ) at signing on, is meaningless, and we don't "save harmless" anyone?

Yes it does, has been for decades. Back in the 80s a motorcycle racer hit an ambulance which had been parked in the wrong place and his family successfully sued the club for his injuries (may even have been killed I can't remember). The decision was you can't indemnify against death or personal injury. That was about 1980/81, it may have been the first challenge and it stuck in my mind that the RAC indemnity was rubbish.



Sent from my AC2003 using Tapatalk

[coppice]

Indemnities and disclaimers are different animals but the key point is that since the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 any attempt to exclude liability for injury caused by your own negligence is ineffective and only effective where property is concerned if it is reasonable to do so in all the circumstances.

It is not unlawful to attempt to exclude liability for personal injury but it is of no effect .

[Lancsbreaker]

Some interesting comments from Casey Stonor, quoted on motorsport.com:



In a move to improve safety in motorsport, most circuits have had grass, gravel and astro-turf track edges replaced by asphalt run-off over the last decade or so.
In 2021 MotoGP deployed sensors in green painted run-off areas beyond circuit kerbs to police track limits, while riders in races are now only allowed to exceed track limits four times before being given a penalty.
Asked about how safety in the junior classes of motorcycle racing can be improved following three fatal accidents in 2021 and an increase in dangerous riding particularly in Moto3, Stoner says the application of rules has been an issue.
But he feels the biggest contributor the dip in riding standards is the fact riders “have no fear” anymore in combat because of the asphalt run-offs lining corners now.
“I think the support needs to come more from race direction,” Stoner began.
“I think there needs to be either a little bit more clarity or definitive decisions on riding and things like that, because there’s been no issues for so many years.
“And now there’s all this leeway, there’s no edge of the track anymore. It just keeps going and it’s limited by some green paint.
“I think it doesn’t help the situation, people have no fear anymore because there’s no edge of the track whereas before when it was green grass everyone was having to check themselves.
“Now it’s like ‘hey, I’ll bust him and it doesn’t matter if I run off the track because there’s plenty of track there’.
“So, I think everyone needs to learn to have a little more respect for each other.
Casey Stoner
Photo by: Dorna
“I don’t think it’s just the young guys causing it. I’ve seen a lot of more mature and more experienced racers still doing similar things.
“I think it all stems from the penalties and punishments maybe not being harsh enough and not being definitive and clear enough.
“So, if there’s a lot more of that then everybody is going to be a bit more reserved.
“But for me the worst thing that’s happened to motorcycle racing is all that extra run-off.
“There’s just no edge to the track now, there’s no limit and I think that’s very hard to contain everybody inside.”

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by midgetman

Yes it does, has been for decades. Back in the 80s a motorcycle racer hit an ambulance which had been parked in the wrong place and his family successfully sued the club for his injuries (may even have been killed I can't remember). The decision was you can't indemnify against death or personal injury. That was about 1980/81, it may have been the first challenge and it stuck in my mind that the RAC indemnity was rubbish.



Sent from my AC2003 using Tapatalk

I believe that this was also the case with Steve Mercer's IOM serious accident with the course car that was going the wrong way round the 'circuit' to an incident, and the ensuing case against the organisers.

You can put whatever disclaimer you like on a sign or back of a ticket, but in the unlikely event of say a car going through/over the barrier and causing spectator injury, if the circuit/promoter has been found to be negligent, they are still liable - I believe...

[andy97]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

You can put whatever disclaimer you like on a sign or back of a ticket, but in the unlikely event of say a car going through/over the barrier and causing spectator injury, if the circuit/promoter has been found to be negligent, they are still liable - I believe...

Not that unlikely an event.
At BH in August a GT3 car Vau,ted a barrier and ended up just short of a TV tower.
A few weeks earlier, sadly, a Marshal lost his life when a car vaulted a barrier, also at BH
And about 4/5 years ago a car vaulted a barrier and ended in spectator area (fortunately no injuries) at a WTCC or Seat SuperCup round, yet again, at BH.
There maybe other examples, and also in the motorbike world.

[Anyopenroad]

The original prompt for the thread was a jockey being held liable for his actions during a race. In that context an interesting question is the potential liability of the drivers in the incidents you describe. The immediate build-up to the awful crash at BH in July included some fairly hair-raising driving. I assume there will be (or has been?) an inquest into the marshal’s death so I wonder if driving standards will be considered there.

[andy97]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

The original prompt for the thread was a jockey being held liable for his actions during a race. In that context an interesting question is the potential liability of the drivers in the incidents you describe. The immediate build-up to the awful crash at BH in July included some fairly hair-raising driving. I assume there will be (or has been?) an inquest into the marshal’s death so I wonder if driving standards will be considered there.

I was thinking about that incident but did not want to get in to specifics. I suspect that the inquest has been opened and adjourned whilst the investigations take place. It’s an astonishingly long process that Mrs 97 is sometimes involved with through her work in an industrial context.