Surely to cover their business the tracks will just make you sign a disclaimer to stop this happening again? Obviously this is a first but now that the tracks are aware of it its pretty easy for them to nip this in the bud

 

From reading the Pistonheads thread it'd appear the disclaimers mean nothing to a judge.

 

I read on MLR that its a county court judgement so that going to be appealed in a heartbeat

 

Yes he should be paid , but by the customers who pay the premiums not , by a third party who's been dragged through the courts

 

There was no 3rd party, he hit a wall (but I know what you mean, and completely agree)

 

Why should I pay for track day insurance if it doesnt protect me properly. If I were insured & had an accident with another insured driver but it was deemed to be my fault then I could be personally sued & in theory this could also apply to injuries loss of earnings etc. In the past Iv paid for the insurance but after reading the case on PistonHeads I don't think it's a fair way of doing things. Either the insurance should be fully comp & compulsary or should not be sold atall as it leaves the individual open to being screwed by a big insurance company. Is that fair?

 

Once insurers have to cover 3rd party vehicles they'll either hike the prices up, or refuse to issue cover.

Track insurance isn't compulsory, so if you don't want it fair enough, but think of your position if you binned it, or someone hit you.

I personally take track cover everytime I go on track, and will continue to do so.

 

This, You can always do sprints which mean there are no other cars on the track to hit but competitive levels are soo much higher so the need to do better means a higher chance of binning your car

 

Regardless of what cover you have you won't escape civil prosecution be it on the track or on the road. So cover your car and do all you can to mitigate your losses It does make a mockery of trackday disclaimers though.

 

Yes it sounds great that you protect your pride & joy that cost a fortune to build, but at the expense of a private individual who may have insurance too. Now answer my question, is that really fair?

 

Do you take your car on the track? from your position I would say not? I track my car and I always take insurance as the money I have invested in my car, id I were to crash it on a high speed bend I would be gutted to walk away with nothing for the sake of spending £60

 

There are 3 options available here:
a) insurers offer track cover with 3rd party cover, for several hundred pounds
b) this disclaimer issue gets sorted
c) don't do trackdays if you don't want to take the risk.

Is it fair that I insure my car against loss but are liable if I hit someone? Yes it's fair, as I took the cover knowing it was only my vehicle I'm insuring.

Is it fair that all drivers sign a disclaimer covering their backs, only for a judge to rule it's pointless? No, not fair in my opinion.

Is it fair what the Caterhams insurers are doing? Again, no, not in my opinion. Unless there is more to this story than were are being told.

 

Yes I do go on track & I buy insurance but I'm quite alarmed at the fact I can be sued even with insurance.

 

TBH so am I, but as a disclaimer issue rather than an insurance issue

 

This...
is the reason I wrote this...
In my view it's the disclaimer issue that is causing the problem. What's the point of any disclaimers if all and sundry can come to you cap in hand if you cause an accident because you failed to see a yellow flag simply because you were spotting your braking point in an effort to drive the track safely?

Of course I go on track (and have done for 20 years in one form or another) knowing it's my risk, but it will be with a slightly different outlook from now on.

 

Thanks for answering. I'm not against the insurance atall & buy it online at the same time as booking a track day, it is a good idea & if I wrecked my car I'd be grateful of it. My only issue is a private individual being sued like this is not on & it seems we both agree on this. The situation needs to be sorted out by track day organisers or as these cases increase people won't want to expose themselves to being sued. Iv never crashed on track I'm fairly cautious, but I still find this alarming as at speed anything can happen.

 

I'd be interested in reading the official response from the Caterham's insurers, as there must be more to this story.

If they are genuinely going to claim costs back from anyone who hits their insured then it's a big issue, as I've done MLR trackdays where 30-40 others there are insurer by that particular insurer. (assuming that Pistonheads thread is correct)

 

This could really open up a can of worms using the word negligent.....There are so many scenarios you could throw at a track day incident.

The car in front engines let go and dumped its oil over the track, you spin on the oil and bin your car in the tyre wall, how do you prove negligence? Is he negligent just being on the same track as you with a car that could go pop? Is it the fact his car is a road car and not designed for hard use of a track day?

A car spins in front of you, in trying to avoid him you spin and either collect him anyway or once again end up in the tyre wall.....who is to blame? The guy who spun, causing the situation or you for being on the same line, or lining him to over take and being to close?

This for me is what makes it so farcical......

 

Very much so Jay

If I'm on a cool down lap and someone is going too quick and misjudges how slow I'm driving, then spins and crashes, who is at fault?
Me going too slow or him going too quick?

 

Exactly Gary, there are so many scenarios.

Ive always entered a track knowing the risks, knowing that if someone hits me its a case of"$hit happens"......yes, id be pissed off but willingly putting myself in a risky situation im prepared to take it on the chin.

*Touch wood* it never happens...

 

It probably depends who has track day insurance, LOL.

 

Like driving on the roads then ?

 

"blow up or dropped oil" - in those scenarios no-one would be liable, since it's equipment failure (unless it can be proven that the failure was due to inadequate/negligent maintenance).

At the risk of getting into a ruck I have to say that the tone of some posts - references to "gayers" and "man up", and also the bike racing mentions - do make you sound like some sort of redneck.

Even if you were a professional racing driver you could make a mistake which would result in you being deemed liable for someone's loss, whatever that was.

This is perhaps emotive but I'm trying to put over the stark facts here.
If someone killed a relative of mine through negligence or foolhardiness and the courts found them liable, but as a result their family suffered financial hardship I would not be a happy bunny.

You say you didn't pursue a claim?
I say you are mad.

You wouldn't have someone glass you in a bar and accept it would you, just because it's a rough house but you decided to be 'man enough' to go in?

And let me be blunt.
I suspect that most track day accidents happen because people do as you have said - take it to the limit.

Or rather try to find the limits and exceed them, and driver error becomes the reason.

And in the eyes of the law that makes one liable.

 

I know what you mean by the way I come across , nah I'm not a redneck , just not one for the blame culture we are starting to adopt
Heath and safety mad
Blame and claim mad
It's all gone Pete tong

As for the bar scenario , if you asked folk on here " hey is that a nice bar "
And the reply was "no it's dog rough,don't go"but if you went and you got glassed , I definitely would say you do not deserve that , but you were also told don't go , so yes you could say it's partly your fault for going when you've distinctly been told not to

although from what some members on here have told me the blue oyster bar is quite safe , so you'll be fine

 

There are no exclusions or disclaimers against negligence, also we only sign disclaimers with the track and track day organisers, not 3rd partys. But as I said if the organisers were grossly negligent, then their disclaimer may not be worth much either. But I think as Moley said, that this ruling will be.overturned as previous Wolverhampton case prescident was there and the judges are not going to open a can of worms in the future and start allowing hundreds of unnecessary insurance claims to go through the courts. IMO. If that Civic driver had a proper lawyer maybe he would not have lost the county court case.

Though this does want to make me avoid MLR and MSV organised trackdays.

 

Glad I didn't cause too much grief because it wasn't meant as it would probably be taken.

If everyone plays to the same rules then there's never any unexpected turns eg. on trackdays all participants take precautions to protect themselves, their cars etc. and their dependents and no-one sues anyone else (or vice-versa - you're going into Saturday Fight Night and expect to face dangers and take them as they come).

I totally agree about 'blame and claim'.
The wife got hit from behind while stationary a few years back and within 40 minutes her insurers had put ambulance chasers on the phone to her.

Personally I'd never track (well my car anyway ) but I'd like to think I'm aware of all the possibilities, including accidents due to inexperience, equipment failure etc. and in that eventuality count it as bad luck.

Where's the Blue Oyster btw - Barry or Porthcawl ?

 

50k or so ive put into my ultimate track car i know the responsabilities and therefore drive at my risk !!!!

RAM your insurance!

 

The world has gone made at the hands of where there's a blame theirs a claim culture we are living in!!!!
I rallied for years and would never have considered a claim. My mate is being chased by one of these parasite company's after his dog bit a meter reader in an enclose garden. The cops said there was no offence now he's being chased and phoned up at all hours. He ignored it and the court fined him £700 for not turning up after they put a case in, he's been advised he may be better to settle. What's the world coming too

 

The Court wouldn't have "fined him", it would have found in the plaintiff's ( claimant's) favour because your mate didn't go to court to defend himself.

I know someone who had BT for £10K.
They took him to court for £5400 owed on a house he owned but which was rented out. Tenant used identity fraud to get a phone line.

BT never turned up in court, lost by default.

 

Until someone 'proves' that you ignored a yellow flag, resulting in writing off someone's car - or worse, their life.