41 replies to this topic

[Manson]

I heard on the radio today that the Moore family is launching a wrongful death suit against both CART and the California Motor Speedway.
Why do this more than a year after Greg's death? This looks to me to be an attempt to profit off a tragic incident.

[Ali_G]

I believe that it was a handeling error so why can they sue the track or CART for. He died because he didn't control the car right coming out of a corner. Anyway, Fontana is a very safe race track and has some of the best facilities in the World. Lokk s doubtful if this will get anywhere.

Niall

[JayWay]

"Why do this more than a year after Greg's death? This looks to me to be an attempt to profit off a tragic incident."

When ya lose a son, your not in the mood to go to court, let alone do anything.

"I believe that it was a handeling error so why can they sue the track or CART for. He died because he didn't control the car right coming out of a corner. Anyway, Fontana is a very safe race track and has some of the best facilities in the World. Lokk s doubtful if this will get anywhere."

Obviously you didn't see it then. Greg died because the run off was not paved, his tyres dug into the grass and flipped, it was CARTs fault for not assuring the maximum saftey available. When something like grass is there just for show, it is them to blame. And then this year they still did not pave the majority of the run off. Fontana is far from safe seeing has how 2 drivers were hospitalized this year.

[Jhope]

there were no handling proble, on Moores car. he was caught in a draft because of thet stupid handford device. he got out of the slipstream to quickly and just lost it. This is an extreme case that F1 drivers talk about when mentioning dirty air.

[JayWay]

Actaully theres more then a strong possibility that Moore hit the wall and deflated his tyre on the lap prior causing him to spin.

[Clatter]

it was CARTs fault for not assuring the maximum saftey available

Shouldnt the drivers accept some responsibility here?

You cant blame it all on the organisation. Motor sport is an inherently dangerous sport and if the drivers think a track is too dangerous then they shouldnt race.

It is impossible to build a 100% safe track and if you are going to take this sort of attitude then ovals would have to banned, or perhaps the walls should be made of rubber.

Somewhere along the line we all do dangerous things and if we do that freely then we have to live with the consequences.

Although I feel sorry for the Moore family this still smacks of sueing for the sake of it.

[Manson]

My point exactly Clatter. Well put.

[Shepski]

Fontana SAFE in 1999???

Did you see the accident?

Moore came off the track sliding sideways on the grass going downhill, then there was a nice level spot followed by an uphill and when Moore's car hit the upslope it launched him in the air rolling the car onto it's side before impacting the wall!

Moore would have been hurt bad if there was no dip but he would have impacted the wall on all 4 wheels with the sidepod first not head first like he did.

I can't believe more wasn't made of this in the media following his death because I noticed it in the first replay after the crash.

That area of the track was a deathtrap waiting to happen.

Cheers

[mtl'78]

Jayway, it wasn't the grass that flipped Moore, it was the kerbs on the infeild roads. He slid onto those sideways, and they flipped him at the worst possible moment, meters from impact. Remember, another driver had lost it there a few laps earlier, but he was 10 feet ahead, and slid to a safe stop.

CART has had a lot of problems with track safety. Laguna is another example of improper track layout. Gonzalo Rodriguez died because of it, and Carpentier cheated death in the almost exact same way a year later. Chilling. I didn't even watch the Fontana race this year, even though it was a WC clincher, because I've no interest in seeing that again.

Moore's death was partly due to negligence. I'm for superspeedways, but they need to be studied carefully to remove the most amount of danger from the track.

[RiverRunner]

I guess you are all forgetting that just a few laps earlier Richie Hearn had the IDENTICAL incident.
And walked away....

BTW,did Senna's or Ratzenberger's families sue?

[Reg]

The lawsuit is likely an idea of a bunch of greedy lawyers.

CART and the given facility does have some responsibility to put on a safe show, but the track was the same as it was in 98...seemd safe enuff then right?. Moore knew of the risks of racing and so did his father. Nobody had to race on that track that day. It was a fluke as stated above of the silly handford device, and possibly a bad tire from previous contact the lap before.

Sad as this is, I am afraid it takes someones life sometimes to make things safer.

Miss you Greg!

[Williams]

Why do this more than a year after Greg's death? This looks to me to be an attempt to profit off a tragic incident.

This is an unbelievable comment. When you lose a son like that, you have every right to sue whomever you feel is might be responsible. It's up to the courts to decide whether you are right.

My take on the motivation of Greg's parents is that they want to see some sort of action taken to enhance circuit safety. CART has let far too many casualties go by without taken significant action. They knew that the design of the curb edging at the California motor speedway was defective, and yet they chose to do nothing about it. CART officials and track owners are taking the idea that "the drivers know the risks" a little too far, and are using it as an excuse to maintain their profit margins, as opposed to spending a few dollars for circuit safety.

For a dead drivers' family to sue the motor racing establishment is a somewhat rare occurence. But in the new world of motor racing, where Formula One spends huge amounts of money every year on driver saftey, it's time CART did likewise, and if it takes a lawsuit by Greg Moore's parents to move them off the dime, then I say, good for them. They are clearly acting in the interests of the remaining drivers, whether or not you believe that is their base motivation.

[Manson]

Found a newspaper with the story, here's some quotes from Mario.

Andretti said he will always speak out on safety, but that he believes improvements made after an incident do not indicate earlier negligence.
"I think the track operators are doing their level best to give us the safest facilities to race on. That doesn't mean we can't do better. That has been my point since Day 1."
"(On the subject of paving,) the track operator has seen that the grass and the uneven surface can create a problem under a very unusual situation - which this really was - and they've done something about it. That's really all you can ask".

The article also says that Gonzalo Rodriguez family are also suing.

[Manson]

Williams, reread Clatters posting. That is my point. Do you think any driver would approve of a lawsuit after his/her death? I've been racing 20+ years and I know I wouldn't. The money won't bring me back. I know the risks and accept them. If I didn't, I'd golf more (not in a thunderstorm!);)

[MrAerodynamicist]

Now its in the US so I expect they're win some stupidly large payout but in the rest of the world I'd say that they'd lose. If CARt can show they have a process where they are continually looking at safety and implementing the ideas that would work plus get some of the drivers to stand up and say "We all except the risks and are confident that CART are doing there best to improve safety" then IM0 that would be enough.

[Piquet_1]

Greg Moore's daddy directed and managed his entire career, and found Fontana safe enough for his son to race at the circuit since 97. IMO, if he wants to sue CART, then he should be guilty of child abuse.

I have no sympathy for the Moore family. This is not about lawyers - the case must be filed on behalf of a plaintiff: the Moores.

[tifosi]

Some of you posting are Europeans and/or Asians so you may not understand. This is America, King of the Lawsuits. Hell even our next president is being decided by these frigging lawyers. As I said before, Shakespeare was 100% right, line the sum-bit** lawyers up and let lose on 'em. Remember this is a country where a woman actually WON!!!!!! a lawsuit against McDonalds because she spilled her coffee on herself while driving and it was .....now get this, HOT, yes the coffee was actually heated before they sold it to her.

Hell, Moore's family probably never even considered a lawsuit. It's just these damn lawyers, everywhere you turn in America.

[Piquet_1]

tifosi,

You're wrong. Please see the post above. No lawyer points a gun at the plaintiff's head and makes them file a suit.

[tifosi]

Piquet_1;

I agree with you on that point. Do you actually live in America though. It is phenomenal the amount of money and advertising that is poured into getting people to file lawsuits. Every 'how-to' article, advise column etc. is bleating the same message TAKE THEM TO COURT. The entire Congress and just about every elected representative in the U.S. is lawyer, and the laws are painstakingly written to ensure laywers are needed for everything in the world.

Look at the tobacco thing, and I am very anti-tobacco. Here is a product that not only is 100% legal in the U.S., but through very genourous tax subsidies is actually encouraged by the U.S. and state governments. Yet the lawyers are still allowed to sue for 100's of billions. Do you actually believe ANY plaintiff will get even a small whiff of this money. It is plain and simple a welfare program for lawyers who are not yet billionaires.
Pretty much a good summation of the entire tort system in the U.S.

[Piquet_1]

tifosi,

Yes, I live in America and have actually been a named plaintiff in a wrongful death lawsuit. There are times when it's warranted, but not when you're directly responsible for your relative's participation in the activity in which they were killed, which was the case in Moore's dad's case.

The tobacco issue is different; it's a class action suit on behalf of perhaps thousands or millions of plaintiffs, though there only need be one named plaintiff.

[tifosi]

Yes, I'm not saying all lawsuits are not warranted, just lawyers.

As for the tobacco case, it may be different my point is that the American tort system has become totally ridiculous and noone outside of the U.S. can understand it. Using you logic, did any of the tobacco companies hold a gun to these people's heads and force them to smoke?

Final point is none of these palintiffs will see a dime, its all about the lawyers.

[Piquet_1]

Using you logic, did any of the tobacco companies hold a gun to these people's heads and force them to smoke?

No. However tobacco was marketed by the corporations as literally "safe" and "healthy" while they systematically made it more and more difficult for the consumer to quit by increasing nicotine levels. Perhaps some plaintiffs in some cases don't see any money (though many do), suits such as this can eventually cause a change in the tobacco industry's business practices, which in turn helps all future smokers. I'm personally torn on the issue, however I can't blame the lawyers if they help extinguish tobacco; it's not going away by any other means and considering tobacco use is lower than most other nations, I applaud the effort. Their suits don't hurt me as a consumer that I'm aware of.

[tifosi]

Piquet_1..

Your missing my point, although perhaps using the tobacco lawsuit was the wrong example. My point is that America has become an extremely litiguous(sic) society and using the judicial system too in effect, make laws, is just plain wrong. No other countries do this. I live outside of Washington D.C. and a few years ago a child got an infection from a splinter at a playground. The lawyers then banded together on a multi 100's of million $$ lawsuit against the city, basically winning a ruling that all the playground equipment had to changed to plastics or a similiar substance that wouldn't cause splinters. Of course the city could not even begin to do this so all the playgrounds were closed. I bet the lawyers are real proud of themselves counting there $$'s up in their mansions in Potomac, while the poor kids in DC have no playgrounds. Parks around the country are being closed because of these types of lawsuits which are hugely profitable to the tort industry, but end up hurting the supposed plaintiffs. I've had several nice parks around me closed because the county could no longer afford the huge cost of insurance required to protect itself against these lawyers. Yeah, thanks for protecting me.

A couple of years ago a lawyer for the Chrysler corporation was defending Crhysler in a lawsuit because, in an accident, an airbag, had gone off as designed and mandated under federal regulations. Chrysler was being sued for not offering a car without airbags. When the days testimony went longer then expected the lawyer had to excuse himself. The judje aske why. The lawyer replied that he had to go to another courtroom to defend Chrysler for not putting airbags in cars. In other words, IN THE SAME COURTROOM, a company was being sued for:

1) Putting airbags in its vehicles, and
2) Not putting airbags in its vehicles.

Is this getting OT or what

[Piquet_1]

tifosi,

No argument. These are more along the lines of the Moore v. CART scenario, which I feel is unwarranted, as opposed to the tobacco suits. We're in agreement. My only concern is the direct blaming of lawyers for everything; they are a very important institution in our society and the only thing which protects us from those who would otherwise take advantage of individual citizens. Not all attorneys are ambulance chasers, adn it pains me when this is portrayed to be the case in the mojority of situations; it's just not reality. To me, the bottom line is the stupidity and lack of pride the plaintiffs have in making such claims, eg. the woman who spilled coffee, the spinter in the park, and the Moore and Rodriquez families. To my mind, the buck stops there.

[BuzzingHornet]

Here in England we are told that North Americans/Canadians sue at the drop of a hat over anything, but in this case I agree in part with what the Moore family are doing, as long as they are doing it for the right reasons.

Suing implies that somebody is to blame for something happening; sounds obvious, but to make it stick they are going to need concrete (really, no pun intended) evidence of negligence, and no extra factors to muddy the waters (like Moore supposedly hitting the wall on the previous lap)

If there are other circumstances, then suing just for the sake of suing is wrong IMHO. Even if they 'prove' it in court and win, it won't bring Greg back and will just drag his name through the gutter as the 2 sides fight it out... the defense will make him look bad to try and win.

[tifosi]

Piquet_1;

Well we're getting closer. I agree in reality not all lawyers are a**holes. The difference I have is that we, us, you and me should be able to protect ourselves from those who would otherwise take advantage of individual citizens. The legislature should pass laws that enables the average citizen to conduct his business himself, however since the legislatures are in fact lawyers........, the only way to do anything is to hire a lawyer. For example here in Virginia, when you buy a house, you have to pay $150.00 to have the deed filed. This consists of the laywers secretary or paralegal dropping it by the court one afternoon. That is all it entails, I checked. Why can't I do that myself? Because the lawyers in the legislature drafted the law to ensure you must pay a lawyer for this. See my point. If you feel you are wronged by someone then you THE CITIZEN, should be able to take whatever legal action is necessary wothout the techno mumbo-jumbo crap that the lawyers contribute. How many court cases, both criminal and civil, are decided on technicalities dreamed up and pounced on by lawyers. This has nothing to do with justice or protecting us ordinary citizens.

BTW are you by chance a Democrat. Only reason I ask is that Democrats seem to feel someone or something is needed to protect us and save us from our own refusal to except responsibility, while Republicans, of which I include myself, tend to believe the individual is responsible for his/her own actions. I don't mean this to sound like bash if it comes across that way.

[Piquet_1]

I'd have to say that my political affiliation is irrelevant in this case. However, on this issue, I'm blaming the individual (the plaintiff) rather than the entire industry of legal representation, so take from that what you will.

I believe that Moore's family is out of line; there's always going to be a lawyer who will take the case, regardless of how absurd, in which case I don't support the lawyer, the plaintiff, of the grounds of the suit (assuming I am correct in understanding the Moores' intent). On the other hand, I'll not dis all lawyers for being what they are, since if it were the case that a prick like Rick (I think that's his name, and btw, my opinion of him is nothing new) Moore wanted to sue me, I'd want the smartest, most evil, cunning lawyer I could find to defend me. It's a double edged sword.

Lastly, again we're getting into areas of different litigation when we talk about housing laws, etc, all of which aren't equal; it's really a matter of apples and oranges, though I agree that your fees are unwarranted and excessive. I won't damn an entire industry because of some bad legislature.

[Reg]

How will this lawsuit make things safer ???

It will drag on for a couple years as said above and not do a damnned bit of good to Greg Moore... but maybe, just maybe they will make some sort of "recommendations" as to what CART should do in the future to make things "safer".

They already are trying respectfully in safety. I'd say just as good as F1 is. Perhaps better. F1 has just been more lucky these past few years IMHO.

Accidents are bound to happen and I am still sick of the thought of seeing his horrible crash. This is motor racing people. A lawsuit isnt what CART needs, and isnt what CART deserves.

[Chris G.]

A lawsuit would have been needed had the falling sign hit Alesi in Brazil. THAT, is an example of negligence.

I see the Moore family side of things, I see the CART/Fontana side of things. It's all just so unfortunate.

I still think a year is a bit long to wait, there must be a reason for the delay (something other than family being too distraught).

Even the perfectly designed "safe" track can result in an accident or death. Perhaps drivers should sign waivers...

[Piquet_1]

The drivers signed waivers prior to the race.

[MacFan]

There is no justification for suing in the event of a motorsport fatality, whether on behalf of a driver, spectator or official. All people attending motorsport, from a club kart race to an F1 or CART event are made aware of the risks. It is impossible to calculate the outcome of every possible accident and ensure that no injuries or fatalities will result. Suing will benefit the lawyers and increase the cost of insurance for all the circuits and the organising body, but a battle fought out by legal experts in a courtroom is unlikely to result in any safety improvements on track.

Incidentally, the US has 4.6% of the world's population and around 50% of the world's lawyers. They have to make a living somehow.

[Piquet_1]

Don't look for personal injury attorneys to make up those numbers; corporate lawyers make up more than any other segment (and don't think they're all busy fending off lawsuits from us individuals, rather they're busy doctoring up contracts so another company doesn't sue them), and being a personal injury attorney isn't very lucrative at all anymore. I wouldn't want to trade my job and salary for that of a P.I. attorney with equal amount of time in the field at all. Generally, only partners in firms make a lot (near or above 6 figures) and here in LA, some of the biggest and oldest firms are losing money left and right, some even closing shop.

[Williams]

The points that I have seen raised in this discussion seem to be, in general:

1. People around motorsports don't have a right to sue because they all know the risks of driving in or attending the event.

2. Suing won't help because it'll just drag through the courts for years without making the sport any safer.

3. CART are already doing everything they can.

My take on the issue is that, CART is taking too much advantage of the "they knew the risks" principle and in fact are not doing anything they consider to be expensive to make the sport safer. Specifying a better roll bar or adding wheel tethers doesn't really cut it. They should be reacting much more to advice from the drivers on what needs to be done to various circuits to make them safer. For example at the oval where Greg was killed, the grass verge had already been pointed out as unsafe, but, typically, nothing was done, until it was too late.

If CART are not taking some fairly strenuous steps in order to fix some of the problems, I consider them negligent, in spite everybody knowing the risks. A construction worker is taking risks going onto the job site, and knows it, but that does not absolve the employer of providing a work site which is as safe as it is possible to make it. The same thing applies in motorsports.

Finally, on the issue of the effectiveness of sueing the motorsports establishment: in the long run, a few more of these suits, while hopefully never again being necessary, will in fact apply enough public and fincancial pressure to make the CART bosses think over the cost/benefits equation twice the next time a suggestion for making the sport safer is rejected on the basis of cost.

[MacFan]

Williams, while I broadly agree with the points you make, I don't feel legal action is an effective way to improve safety. The improvements in F1 safety since the 1960s have not been driven by legal action, but by people like Jackie Stewart crusading for it. The FIA and FOCA are in a stronger position to dictate circuit safety than CART is, as the F1 series is stronger and can decide which circuits it wants to include, to a greater degree than CART.

While I don't know all the ins and outs of the circumstances at Fontana surrounding Moore's death, I have to concur with the notice printed on any Snell-approved crash helmet - "Some resasonably forseeable impacts may exceed this helmet's capability to protect against severe injury or death". Moore was killed because his head hit the wall as his car rolled. IMO when you race open-wheeled cars at 230mph so close to concrete walls, this type of impact is more than just "reasonably forseeable", it becomes "likely to happen". Open wheeled cars have a tendency to flip if they interlock wheels with another car while under power. If a car rolls it is in the lap of the gods where it ends up, but in some percentage of rollover incidents it will result in the driver's head impacting on a wall, crash barrier or other solid object. Marcel Albers was killed in a similar accident in F3 in 1991, as was another driver in the last F3000 race before the single-chassis formula was introduced.

If Moore's family truly want to improve safety in motorsport, they will invest all the money they gain from a succesful lawsuit (after the lawyers have taken their cut) into crusading for improved safety.

[RiverRunner]

Here's an interesting take on this subject by Brock Yates:

http://speedvision.c...ws/001121a.html


One quote that stands out in stark contrast to today's litigious world-and believe me,it's not only the US that has an overabundance of lawyers,ask Williams about Senna and Italy-is this:

"Ultimately the top five finishers and seven of the top ten finishers in that years Indianapolis 500 (1955) would die in racing crashes.....Yet not one lawsuit or legal action....resulted from these tragedies."[p][Edited by RiverRunner on 11-22-2000]

[MrAerodynamicist]

http://www.telegraph...22/cnemi22.html
"EMI spent £43m on advisers' fees in its failed attempt at merging with American rival Time Warner, it emerged yesterday, with around £20m of that going on lawyers."

[NYR2119935]

guys
you should really take the time out to read this thread on the very topic

http://www.seventhge...TML/009368.html

especially look for posts made by ParkerJ
he is a CART inside (Parker Johnstone)

and then came back here and post your thoughts

[kenny]

riverrunner:

Senna's family didnt not sue Williams...
they would have sued Williams if they found out it was done on purpose (unlikely)... so they will not sue Williams

[RedFever]

why sue????

Because if the inside grass part was flat and covered with asphaly, Moore would have lost more speed (he would have actually benefitted from braking) and the car would have hit the wall sideways insted of head (of Moore) first. I see nothing wrong with this, clearly it was an avoidable death

[Piquet_1]

Moore (and every otherdriver) drove past that area about 1000 times before he crashed. His daddy managed his career and was present to inspect the area for three years. Moore and his daddy assumed responsibility for the dangers prior to strapping on a Champcar while possessing a severly broken finger. Not only did they have the chance to raise the opinion that part of the circuit was dangerous, but I'd go as far to say that his finger was so problematic for him that day that he was negligent in getting into the car in the first place and Ric Moore should just be happy that his son didn't collect another driver.

CART gave this guy and his daddy everything they ever wanted. Without the series, the guy would be just another joe in Canada. What a slap in the face to the sport which, I'm sure, still allows Ric Moore to live comfortably. Sorry his cash cow hit the wall. He's as responsible as anyone. He should live with it. He'll have to anyway.

That's why not to sue.

[Spot]

On a purely personal note:

My son broke his arm falling off a railing when he should have been under the supervision of his teacher but wasn't.

My brother was killed when he crashed his glider when the tow-rope that was pulling him up snapped.

His daughter was killed last year in a head-on collission with a van on her motorcycle.

In each of these cases it would have been very easy to sue a third party for being culpable. This did not happen because, let's face it, **** HAPPENS.

Someone stopped me in a shopping arcade recently in England, and tried to ask me whether I had ever been in an accident so they could sue for me. I told him what to do with his pamphlets.

Mark Donahue's family failed in it's attempt to sue a tyre manufacturer for his death when it was caused by a tyre failure.

It's about time people stopped blaming everyone else for everything that happens, and just get on with living.

Greg's death was a dreadful thing to happen, but it would be more to the point to get the curcuit to do something that the sue them to death so that no more racing can take place there. CART can easily improve safety by simply not going to the circuits that they consider unsafe - this is what happened in F1.

[BADGER]

For anyone that says "it was an avoidable accident, the family has the right to sue" keep in mind that almost every racing accident is avoidable. Who else should the Moore family sue? The fan the ran into Greg the previous day and broke his wrist which possibly could have contributed to his crash? Or maybe the doctor that cleared him to race with the broken wrist? Lets throw in Hanford for the poor handling caused by the Hanford device or Mercedes for producing too much power. Unless a bridge crossing over the track falls down onto the driver, I cannot see a situation where the track should be held responsible. The bottom line is that the driver knows what he is getting into and if it is too risky, then he should decide not to race. Every single racetrack in operation has a corner or guardrail that in hindsight, someone can say is unsafe. I read people saying that Laguna Seca was unsafe. Hell, Gonzo was the first professional racing death the track ever experienced. How many tracks can say that.

I find it very annoying that people that call themselves racing fans can be simpathetic to these type of law suits, because if they continue, racing will cease to exist. I think it is time for the family's of Moore and Rodriquez to take out some photos and to look at the smiles that racing brought to their son's faces. Maybe then they would realize how wrong these pathetic lawsuits are.