"Flynorcal: pilot, offshore sailor, car racer and panty thief" (flynorcal)
04/03/2018 at 16:03 • Filed to: None
2
3|
"Flynorcal: pilot, offshore sailor, car racer and panty thief" (flynorcal)
04/03/2018 at 16:03 • Filed to: None | 2
| 3 |
If you haven’t seen it, Stef wrote a good article.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Laguna Seca is named after what it used to be — a lake. It rains a ton this time of year and the erosion is pretty spectacular in scale. They put sandbags out to divert water to prevent ditches from forming. That gentleman hit a sandbag meant to prevent a ditch. Personally I would think hitting the ditch would be a far worse thing to hit than a sandbag so that track is doing good preventative work to actively make things safer. It’s also why they used a sandbag instead of a concrete block, or a log, which would work a whole lot better. It’s also why at every turn where you’re likely to go off is a gravel pit to catch the rider — it didn’t used to be that way. It’s been redone specifically for motorcycles.
It seems to me that maintaining the track is the exact opposite of negligence. What realistically could be done to handle the erosion that would have been safer than a sandbag?
With that info in mind does it change the case any? I’m no lawyer and know we have several Oppos with law degrees and I’m genuinely interested in a professional opinion.
I’ve always wanted to go to law school just to know answers to these things.
ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)
> Flynorcal: pilot, offshore sailor, car racer and panty thief
04/03/2018 at 16:47 |
|
The burners and trolls astroturfing for him made me start twitching.
Guy overcooked the corner, out-paced his riding talent, and is being a whiny expletive about it looking for a payout and trying to market his product in the process. He had 9 previous laps to see that sandbag. He also had plenty of room to get around that other rider, and this wasn’t even a race, so why was he trying to overtake anyone to begin with?
Track should counter sue for libel or something and ask for discovery of his start-up’s financials. I’d bet he’s desperate for cash flow and thinks this is an easy means for more ‘investment’.
nermal
> Flynorcal: pilot, offshore sailor, car racer and panty thief
04/03/2018 at 16:47 |
|
Not a lawyer, but do have extensive experience riding a motorcycle on a racetrack at high speeds. Never been to Laguna Seca because I’m on the other coast.
Based on what I’ve read about the guy suing, I’d hope that he gets thrown out of any track day that I attend and not refunded his $$$. He skipped the rider’s meeting, wrecked himself in an entirely preventable self-inflicted incident, and then blamed others for it.
As far as the sandbags, it would be better if they weren’t there but I don’t think that being there is that bad. I’ve ridden a few places with sketchy run-off, and it’s something that you accept going into it. Some places have walls or trees dangerously close to the track, or ditches and other less than ideal conditions in the grass.
Selfishly, I hope the lawsuit gets thrown out and the trackday provider counter-sues to recover their legal costs. If there is a settlement, the only thing it will accomplish is raising insurance rates (and thus track fees) for other organizations and participants.
His Stigness
> Flynorcal: pilot, offshore sailor, car racer and panty thief
04/03/2018 at 17:55 |
|
I’m genuinely curious what RPM and Immoral think about it.
But I’ll use this as a study session since I have my final torts this month.
The case will come down to a jury or judge deciding whether or not LEAVING the sandbags in place was negligence.
Using the but-for test, I’d argue that having the sand bags there is negligence, and therefore the track day sponsor is liable. You can clearly see in the video he was fine until he hit the sandbags, at which point they bucked him off the bike.
And about missing the safety meeting: that’s actually negligence on the part of the sponsor, NOT the plaintiff. Yes, he should have gone, but the sponsor should have kept him off the track since he missed it. However, if the meeting had included an obvious warning about the sandbags, then there wouldn’t be negligence. The business has a DUTY to warn of foreseeable dangers, and unseen ones. If they didn’t walk the track before and forsee this hazard, they’re negligent.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the plaintiff in the case wins, regardless of a waiver signed.