Track Day Legal Risks (UK)

[FlyingTrotter]

Looks like the Chaucer/REIS subrogated claim arising from the "car on car" incident at Snetterton will drive some changes to the way the TDOs structure things

Participants have always been liable for losses caused due to their own negligence - many have wrongly assumed that the "disclaimer" signed on the day released and waived all liability to both the TDO,circuit owner and other participants - this was wrong - the wording has been very much concerned with the liability of the TDO and the circuit owner and even if they were effective (most are entered into post contractually) they had no impact on the exposure of one participant to other participants (ie your passenger, other drivers and their passengers).

Of course what amounted to "negligence" when driving on track has been very uncertain - this is not assisted by the way relatively small claims are determined by the courts in England and Wales (not always involving lawyers for both parties, less time allocated, looser approach to the rules of evidence etc)

My sense is that after Chaucer elected to exercise their rights of subrogation to bring a claim in the name of their policyholder to recover the outlay they incurred in meeting the claim brought by their policyholder for the costs of repairing his car after damage from a car on car incident things are set to change

Quite a bit on this on PH (most emotional posts but some seem to be well informed)

My expectation is that the pre-contract paperwork is set to be amended so that there is an attempt to establish an effective release and waiver by each participant to all others for liability for all losses arising from negligence (save for liability for personal injury or death - which you cannot release)

Some insurance product will be introduced to cover that PI and Death exposure (which was always there but is now more front and centre) probably sold on a group basis by the TDO as a part of the cost of the TD

Should be some developments over the next few months - of course car on car incidents are very rare - those arising from what could be termed negligence even rarer  and thankfully those involving PI and death the rarest

[John Scherrer]

Anyone care to translate please   

[FlyingTrotter]

Just for you John

You try to out brake a new Mclaren OR Ferrari driven by a hedge fund manager into a corner on the right contrary to the rules explained in the briefing (in a manner that a Judge feels is way over the top - let's throw in the marshals are waving yellow flags and the lights have been on for 2 corners) and you take him out

Then you might be found liable for the cost of the damage to his shiny new car and if you injure him you could be in for a very serious sum indeed

Greater sensitivity to the exposure is causing TDOs to try and change the position through waivers and some new insurance product - there has been a lot of concern about claims at the Ring for years but due to threads on PH and other forums there is a greater awareness of the risks here in the UK - the actual risk of car on car contact is low and the risk of being found liable for negligence is very low if you don't drive like a plonker but it's there

The risk isn't new it's always been there - efforts to address it are new

[wattie]

Surely the point of insurance cover (including x number of track days) covers precisely the risk???.


Cheers Wattie

[FlyingTrotter]

No - existing cover is for you're own vehicle NOT third party claims

[wattie]

Fairly clear then...unless there's some sort of track 'damage' waiver signed by all you're liable for damage to others.

Cheers Wattie

[FlyingTrotter]

It's not automatic - you need negligence which isn't an easy concept to define in an activity like a track day - the case attracting the attention was at turn 1 at Snetterton  which is a fast blind right hander - seemingly from the reports yellows were being shown after car No 1 had spun  and car No 2 also spun and collected car No 1 - Judge finds driver of car No2 negligent

The game changer is the decision of the insurers of car No1 to seek to recover what they paid out for the repair to car No1 from the driver of car No2 - generally insurers involved in TrackDay cover (a small group after all) have not done that

[John Scherrer]

Thanks for the clarification Ian !

It's always baffling to me how some of the succinct and exacting explanations become unfathomable after the first sentence to us mortals ..

[Sir Nick]

I must be dense, I thought each took to the track at their own risk - end of.

[FlyingTrotter]

You were wrong but not alone in your view Nick - I think many track dayers have been under that mistaken belief

Many folk have insurance for damage to their own car - subject to excess if you have an off you claim on your own policy - insurer pays - job done - same story if another car is involved - claim on your own policy

BUT on this occasion the insurer paid out but then brought a claim to recover what it had paid out and the Judge found the other driver liable on the basis of negligence (so it's reported)

In the past insurers have tended not to seek to recover so things ended with the pay out

And obviously there are very very few car on car incidents in any given year and very few of those are ones that cause a party to feel it can bring a claim

There was another case a few years ago and on that occasion the judge found no negligence in a way that gave some people comfort that securing a finding of negligence on a track day would be very very difficult

The written disclaimers have also caused some people to wrongly believe they had effect as between participants - in fact if they have any effect it's just between you and the TDO and the circuit owner

[benyeats]

[quote="FlyingTrotter"]
BUT on this occasion the insurer paid out but then brought a claim to recover what it had paid out and the Judge found the other driver liable on the basis of negligence (so it's reported)
[/quote]

The insurer in question won the case but did not end up going for the costs, I suspect as a result of the negative publicity they were getting on many web fora.

[FlyingTrotter]

And its a small group of insurers in the market

My first post was a positive one Ben - I believe this will get sorted in a way that removes an exposure that I appreciate many did not know existed but which was there

[benyeats]

[quote="FlyingTrotter"]
And its a small group of insurers in the market

My first post was a positive one Ben - I believe this will get sorted in a way that removes an exposure that I appreciate many did not know existed but which was there
[/quote]

Agree, it looks like the issue is being sorted which is all to the good.

[Alex Brandon-Smith]

To be honest, it doesn't surprise me that the insurers tried to reclaim the costs associated with the negligence. Difficult on track I know but if it's clear it was an act of stupidity, and it's witnessed, then I would expect that reclaim to come. It happens all the time on the road. The track is rare and difficult of course but if it can be proven, it's a no-brainer surely...

[Trigger]

So if a driver spins, and wipes somebody out but there were no yellows, he was driving clearly within the trackday's rules etc, the third party liability we supposedly sign away is valid. Its just if there is a clear case of negligence that this crops up ?