New guy here

You realise that no matter what disclaimer or waiver you sign prior to participate in an event, if you wanna sue the organiser or the sanctioning body the shit you signed has very little to no importance in a court of law. With the help of proper attorney you can fuck with the parties you wanna fuck with and there is a good chance you would win. This is not too big of a secret, just not talked about much. Just because you signed a piece of paper doesn't mean that the organiser or the sanctioning party has taken any and all precautions. As a participant your right to take another entity or person to court CAN NOT BE revoked, limited or suspended.

---

Cheers
M.Samli
Phoenix AZ
Gaylant VR4
EVO III GSR (Stolen)


Rallies are no place for traitors

What if you promise to come back and haunt whoever is sueing on your behalf?

---

RichardM

Richard Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What if you promise to come back and haunt whoever
> is sueing on your behalf?
>
> RichardM


Huh ?

---

Cheers
M.Samli
Phoenix AZ
Gaylant VR4
EVO III GSR (Stolen)


Rallies are no place for traitors

That is a joke. If I die in a rally crash and someone else is suing on behalf of me or my estate, the only option I have as a dead person, is to come back and haunt them. I certainly can't testify that I really meant it when I signed the release or that the crash was my own fault.

---

RichardM

I agree with Mustafa that I've heard that often these waivers dont hold water, but in one interesting case, they did. Here's the text about the appeal in regards to the Ski Sawmill tragedy:

http://www.lycolaw.org/Cases/opinions/2006/kovacs012306a.pdf

"First, Plaintiff contends the Court erred in concluding that a release, found by a jury to have been signed by Mr. Kovacs with respect to the event in question, <1> was effective to relieve Defendant SCCA from liability. By way of background, Plaintiff’s decedent, Sean Kovacs, was killed in a vehicle accident that occurred during a Club Rally race sponsored by SCCA on May 6, 2000. As explained in an Opinion and Order dated May 19, 2005, inasmuch as the evidence indicates a pro rally is the highest (most dangerous) level of rally event and a road rally is the lowest (least dangerous) level, with rally crosses and club rallies falling in between, reference to pro rally and road rally is sufficient to apply the release to a rally cross or club rally. The release itself is quite specific and the Court found Plaintiff’s argument that the release should not apply simply because the words “club rally” do not appear thereon, specious*.

Upon further review, the Court does not believe this ruling to have been in error.

<1> By Order dated May 19, 2005, this Court denied SCCA’s motion for summary judgment, finding an issue of fact with respect to the release; that is, whether the particular release offered by Defendant SCCA had been signed by the decedent for the race in question (such was undated). A jury trial was therefore held on that limited issue, on October 20, 2005, and the jury concluded the release was indeed signed for that particular event. Accordingly, judgment in favor of SCCA was entered based on the Court’s previous determination that if the release were for the race in question, such was effective to relieve SCCA from liability."

(*I looked up specious because I didn't know precisely what it meant:
specious, adj, Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious.)

So...there does to be some legal precedence as to the weight of those silly signature sheets...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2008 05:07PM by Eddie Fiorelli.

>
>So...there does to be some legal precedence as to the weight of those silly signature sheets...

>

Not really, you are referring to a rather unusual case whene the court flip flopped a ittle too much. Rafal is a good friend of mine and what happened was a rally accident. The case was presented to a Civil Court with minimal experience in a case this technical.Just for shits and giggles check out the previous ruling of the same judge at http://www.lycolaw.org/cases/opinions/2005/kovacs051905a.pdf

I bet in that case SCCA spent a fortune in attorney fees.

---

Cheers
M.Samli
Phoenix AZ
Gaylant VR4
EVO III GSR (Stolen)


Rallies are no place for traitors

Since I asked what you would do I guess I should say what I would do; I would set up a company, likely a non profit and let it die if it go sued for more than the insurance. I would also have balls and write the best rules I could leaving most of the nannying out of the rules.

I would likely have a written test that showed my members understood the risks and hazards and I would have waivers that are very effective at preventing rewards but still take money to defend.

D

---

In the long run reality always wins.

Bravo Derek.

I suggest that attorneys who go after sanctioning bodies get tarred and feathered or worse.

---

JohnLane

Overkill is consistently more fun

sagsert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >So...there does to be some legal precedence as
> to the weight of those silly signature sheets...
>
> >
>
> Not really, you are referring to a rather unusual
> case whene the court flip flopped a ittle too
> much. Rafal is a good friend of mine and what
> happened was a rally accident. The case was
> presented to a Civil Court with minimal experience
> in a case this technical.Just for shits and
> giggles check out the previous ruling of the same
> judge at
>
> I bet in that case SCCA spent a fortune in
> attorney fees.
Threadjacking in progress?
I'm guessing that this is the lawsuit regarding the competitor death at Ski Sawmill. I have heard from a member of the SCCA BOD that the specator deaths at Ski Sawmill (2004?) were settled out-of-court expensively. I understood that the victims were signed in on the waiver. Could we imply that the waiver applies to competitors but not to spectators? As the case was setttled, I don't know if that was an arguement used or not. Or perhaps, because the victims were following all the rules set down in a spectator guide,SCCA becomes liable.
Perhaps, despite the waiver, faced with weaping widows and fatherless children,SCCA decided not to face a jury.
As to the HANS question, Bill Westrick says he felt the HANS grab during impact with the large solid object on Brockway Mountain last year. He said he'll never ride without one again. Bill is also a RA steward. Does he have a vested interest?
After all, we'll all either hit a large immovable object or fall over in our rally careers. I've done the former but not the latter. I did skip two rides with former driver and they rolled on that event. Good judgement on my part.

---

Bruce Beauvais
Too many SAABs to count

I heard at the time that part of the problem with the spectators at Sawmill is that they had not signed the waiver. But I do not know this for a fact as I am going memory.

---

RichardM

Richard Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I heard at the time that part of the problem with
> the spectators at Sawmill is that they had not
> signed the waiver. But I do not know this for a
> fact as I am going memory.
>
> RichardM
I had heard that they were crew members spectating. We may never hear the truth of the story. I'm sure that the settlement seals lots of lips.

---

Bruce Beauvais
Too many SAABs to count

With Sawmill 04 accident, are you referring to the accident involving a Polish driver and two Irish competitors who were spectating because their car was not ready for the event ?

---

Cheers
M.Samli
Phoenix AZ
Gaylant VR4
EVO III GSR (Stolen)


Rallies are no place for traitors

Settlements are usually decided by the insurance company, regardless of the what the insured party wants. The accounting department gets involved and runs the numbers, if it is found more cost effective to settle then fight then they settle, and typically seal the out come, in other words don't talk about it.

---

As always IMHO

SEAN TENNIS KF7JJR
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
SAAB 99, SAAB 850
SAAB V4, SAAB 99T

sagsert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With Sawmill 04 accident, are you referring to the
> accident involving a Polish driver and two Irish
> competitors who were spectating because their car
> was not ready for the event ?
>
>
> Cheers
> M.Samli
> Phoenix AZ
> Gaylant VR4
> EVO II GSR
> I never heard all of the story. I had heard that the victims were part of the Irish group from NY,that they were standing up a hillside and on the inside of the turn. A Subaru lost control,climbed the hill and hit them. Does that match?
That incident was one of three lawsuits filed against SCCA that year. The others did not involve rallies. If SCCA lost all three of them, there would have been almost no reserves left . A fourth lawsuit would have bankrupted the club. That is the reason performance rally was shopped to RA. It preserved the assets of the majority (club racers) from the actions of a minority (us). SCCA is self-insured for the most part and gets secondary insurance for the big hits.
>

---

Bruce Beauvais
Too many SAABs to count

I heard the story from 3 different parties, one of them being the driver. the concensus is that the victims did not listen to the warnings of the marshals to stay away from where the accident happened. When told not to walk to where they were going their response was rather harsh to the marshall, something in the way of "What do you know, we rally on these roads, we know where to stand and what to do, if our car was ready you'd be cheering for us so don't bother us" this is from someone (wish I could remember who) who witnessed the conversation/argument but was not a part of it. Driver involved never rallied again, his words to me were "Buy my fucking car, I know it was an accident but I don't even wanna see it anymore, everytime I look at the car I live the accident again" He swore never to get in a rally car again. He was a decent rallyist with a decent amount of international experience and talent.

---

Cheers
M.Samli
Phoenix AZ
Gaylant VR4
EVO III GSR (Stolen)


Rallies are no place for traitors