But track day insurance would not cover you far that as it's only for damage to your own car, you would be personally liable & would have to pay out of your own pocket even if insured. This is the reason this thread was started in the first place & people don't seem to understand what the track day policy is for.

 

Um.. exactly.

 

What about liabilities towards a passenger that may be in your vehicle.
Say a roll over that ended up with a severe spinal injury?

 

Just to make it clear (upon reflection I've been a bit ambiguous) I'm aware of that, my line has been about taking out additional personal liability insurance.

 

Yes.
A slightly different angle but imo the passenger could be deemed to have accepted the risks simply by getting into the car.

However taking a risk against an 'Act of God' eg. a punctured tyre, roll and consequential injury (which my comment above refers to) doesn't mean that you've lost protection against negligence eg. the driver ignores warning flags, resulting in an accident and injury.

I think it all goes to show how complex things can become, and why lawyers make squillions.

 

With the "blame culture" we now live in, how long before something like personal liability insurance is made compulsory for day to day life...

 

Yep

It's probably what some politician is thinking now, the next way to make a buck for their buddies.

 

I see your point now, but is such cover available & at what cost?

 

Not so sure.
It may well be dependants of the person who are doing the suing.
The only way to be completely secure against the threat of litigation is to have no assets worth going for.
I recall that Graham Hill's (Damon's father) estate was cleaned out by the families of the guys who died in the plane crash that killed him. He had no insurance (due to some irregularity or another) - so this is not exactly a new concept.

 

Yes, I accept that it could be dependents.
I presume that it was accepted that Graham Hill had some responsibility for their deaths. (It was him piloting the plane and it clipped the top of trees).

Having no assets won't protect you from litigation, unless the other party/ies don't have the cashflow to go ahead (ie. would need any outlay back quickly via a Judgement and costs awarded).
The reason is that any amount due doesn't have to necessarily be paid immediately - it's up to the creditor to press for payment.

From time-to-time people come into money, and someone who can't pay £10,000 compensation now could well be in a position to do so at some point in the future. (The debtor could of course apply for bankruptcy, although that has more downsides than having £10k removed from your Lottery win or inheritance).

Back on track (no pun intended) I can't see why insurance underwriters can't or don't provide trackday covers as a sort of 'super car insurance' ie. along the lines of standard motor insurance, which includes public (personal) liability insurance.
OK, perhaps much more expensive due to the risks involved but surely it shouldn't be huge, given it's only a few hours/laps?

 

Well, it was fun while it lasted.

I'd say ban track day insurance. It's just the sort of claptrap that ruins it for everybody else.
Knowing you have to man up and pay for something should focus your brain.
If you can't afford to smack the car up, just stay away 'you pretentious prat'.

 

It should, but how many people realise that it's not simply the hardware that you need to insure, that it's also consequences?

 

I think a lot of people realise the consequences , and if you don't and are not prepared to accept them at your own risk you shouldn't be there

Out of interest if there was a disclaimer adopted that absolved any third party from any liability ( not just the organiser) would it stand in the event of being persued by insurance company's

If so it might be an idea to adopt them for participants as well as organisers

 

You can sign any disclaimer you like, but it will not take primacy over the law of the land.
If you suffer a loss due to someone else's negligence, you can claim against them in a civil court. The burden of proof here is based on the balance of probabilities.
Damages may presumably be based on a percentage of the blame (don't quote me on that) - in which case it is a real can of worms. This is what happens in Australia, where motor vehicle accidents are very rarely 100% one parties fault.
They may also be liable in a criminal court if their actions were shown to be reckless/intentional or whatever.

 

It certainly is a can of worms then , and without doubt is gonna have a negative impact on track events
There must be some way round it , to stop this sort of thing growing and getting out of hand , it wants nipping in the bud
Sounds extreme , but how about excluding insured drivers
Have insured days and uninsured
I know it still wouldn't stop some folk claiming , but if someone's got to fork out of there own pockets to Persue a claim it's gonna make it a lot less Likley

 

I'm only guessing (in fact even if I knew it was true this seems to be such a grey area/can of worms that some lawyer or other would come up with an opposite point) but if you had to sign a disclaimer in order to participate there is a train of thought that you had been forced into signing it, and you could possibly claim that the disclaimer was invalid for that reason.

In any case a disclaimer is an agreement between two or more parties, so I don't think a universal one would be possible.

Without being funny, it would be a case of you signing saying that you wouldn't sue anyone, no matter who the organisers and/or track let in, including in the most extreme (and absurd) case someone in a Sherman tank who reeked of alcohol and was still swigging a half-empty bottle of whisky.

The crux of this matter of course is again the blame culture, claim vultures and legal eagles. Track days give people the freedom to express themselves and their cars with only their possessions to worry about. In the future that might not be the case, you might also have to worry about someone using you for a cash pot.

 

Smash for cash on track claims?

I think i shall be fitting a video recording system in the scoob and record at all times!

 

Funnily enough that's actually not a bad idea, front & rear cameras always on when out on track.
All this kind of stuff puts me off taking passengers out now too!

 

When Senna was killed at Imola the Italians wanted to prosecute Williams. Thankfully, Bernie stepped in, telling them that there would be no more F1 in Italy if they did. Ferrari were having none of that, and that was the finish of it.
Belting around in cars on a track is risky. Get over it.

 

Yes but that's professional motorsport, where you are deemed to accept the risks.

And the bolitics, the risk to the local economy if 'Bernie says no'.

The expression 'little Hitler' springs to mind.

 

Been following this on Pistonheads, it now looks like (due to pressure from customers/forums?) that although the insurance company "won" the case, they're not going to pursue the Civic driver for the money.

Bit of justice I guess, but clearly was never their intention as why would they spend 3 years chasing something just to say "meh, we don't want the cash anyway"...?

 

Nobody makes anybody do track days. The risk for anybody coming up against this insurance nonsense is being forced to pay up for somebody else's bad day. Look at it this way. You turn up in a sensible track car, Peugeot 205 or something, just to have some fun. There's an accidental coming together with a rich kid in a Ferrari who has track insurance. Guess who's going to lose the court case?
Before going out there, you need to think "Can I afford to lose this car?" if the answer is no, for the good of everybody else, STAY AWAY.

 

But this case isn't actually like that is it?

People were sensible enough to pay a premium in order to protect their investment. It was the insurance company who went after the Civic driver.

I'm off down the bookies in a few hours.
If one of my horses suffers interference and fails to win as a result can I sue the other jockey, or the stewards for failing to disqualify the offender?

If mine falls, can I sue the racecourse for making the fence too high, or failing to keep the approach dry?

More to the point, would I?
NO !

I think that's where we agree.
The Ins company were happy to accept the risk and take the insured's money but when they lost they broke the spirit of the arrangement.

Personally I hope that they lose a lot of business over this, and perhaps, just perhaps, an element of personal liability/third party cover can be built into track day insurance for perhaps only a small increase in premiums.