Track Day Legal Risks (UK)

[Bruce Fielding]

I think this opens up a whole can of worms.

The 'no claims' rule is much simpler, and allows for anyone not to need to use 'racing driver' style excuses...

Insurance companies have always been sore losers. so it's not surprising that this happened, but the amount of money paid in for insurance vs that paid out for claims must be negligible...

Or at least it was until this case... I think they've shot themselves in the foot (but then they'd claim for that too)

[FlyingTrotter]

Not quite

Yes probably to it being unlikely to amount to negligence BUT the doc you sign is about releasing the TDO from liability to you if you injure yourself or damage your car - it's not seeking to change the relationship as between the participants BUT the TDOs may start to introduce new release and waiver docs to establish the position that many thought already existed in which claims for property damage (ie damage to your car) are waived

Will insurers be prepared to cover you if you have given away their ability to recovery what they pay out to you to repair a damaged car from a negligent driver ?

The insurers are the ones who need to buy into all of this - £10k or £20k for a smashed up Caterfield is one think - a written off 458 or fancy historic Aston may be a bit different - £35k or £55k for an Atom who knows

[Trigger]

Well, its does because it says you drive at your own risk and have no right to claim.

The MSV indemnity form says:

'The use of my vehicle is entirely at my risk and I accept responsibility for any damage caused to my vehicle (whether controlled by me or any other person).'

To me the issue all comes down to a Negligence claim.

T

[FlyingTrotter]

That doesn't work the way you understand it to work Trigger - it might make a few folk believe they have waived but it's not effective in law

Sounds like there will be a statement from the ATDO ( the group of TDOs that includes Goldtrack, BoT and a few others) pretty soon - Jonny posted something on what is now a very long thread on PH

[Trigger]

Yeah I saw the PH thread and the Statement by Chaucer saying they will not be taking the money but that all indemnities should include a sentence saying you waive all rights to claim against other participants. I just can't see it's needed - to me the cause here is a strange legal decision, which Chaucer also state causes no precedent.

"Damage caused by any person" surely means just that ? Anyway, the case seems to revolve around negligence anyway rather than a clause stating you waive your rights to sue.

As much as anything the case isn't clear as Chaucer say negligence was proven by way of CCTV yet the defendant claimed cctv wasn't allowed - so who really knows !!!

T

[wattie]

So,
"the laws an ass"
As they say.

unless it bites you in the arse and you've gotta pay!

Cheers Wattie

[Trigger]

It is indeed.

[Yorkshire]

Did a trackday yesterday at Cadwell Park with Javelin Trackdays.

When signing on everyone who had already done there forms prior to arrival had to re-do "the new form"

The driver form has now been amended and has a new condition added.

I'm sure Ian (Flying Trotter) should be able to advise if this clause offers any protection for track drivers

Clause F states:

F) It is a condition of my participation of the activity, or activities, in which I intend to take part that in the event of accident, loss or damage occurring during such activity or activities I will not pursue any claim for damages against any other participant (save in respect of injury or death).

Stuart 

[FlyingTrotter]

Looks like the Chaucer clause

Signing on the day without any consideration makes it post contractual as the contract came into existence when you paid - not a very bright move to do it like that

Some disclaimers work in the sense that people read them and think they work so they don't bring claims to test their validity - if you think it's valid and you abide by it then it's effectively valid at least in relation to the person obeying

If they can make it work - and I have made suggestions to one leading TDO - then you still have Personal injury and death exposure resulting from negligence (whatever that is found to amount to in a track day context)

[Trigger]

Clearly, legally you know your stuff and I dont, but it still seems weird that a contract cannot be amended after the event ? We do that in shipping all the time - we just have an addendum. Why is it different in this environment ? To a pure layman if an amended contract is agreed prior to the event starting then all is agreed ?

Anyway - either way, this all seems to me to be a storm in a teacup. I just hope the industry doesnt feel obliged to react in any considerable or onerous way. Jonny at Book a Track has publicly said that too much change with regard to insurance needs may make them leave the mkt.

T

[FlyingTrotter]

Looks like there was a very bad incident on a bike No Limits TrackDay at Oulton over the weekend which comes on the back of 2 on race days at Snetterton and Brands  - thread on PH and BBC website - all very sad and potentially will have wider impact

[Trigger]

One rider has died and couple others still critical. Very sad news.

But I don't really think a bike day incident will have any relevance to Car days. I remember the days of doing a combined bike and car day with each session alternating. It was pouring with rain and bikes went off all over the place with one hurt and lost that couldnt ride home. Cars were fine although there were a couple of spins.

Bikes are a very different ball game on track and from reading the posts it does seem a lot of riders bring some pretty serious track kit. They are sessioned according to ability/speed too. The lack of protection and chance of injury is pretty high in comparison to cars.

We will see anyway.

T

[Steve]

If you ride/drive like a nob, then expect some sort of liability - seems fair to me.

Follow instruction given at briefing, don't be a nob, should be fine.