Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barbara Nesbitt Suing NMCA, NHRA, Skinny Kid Race Cars, and Others In Conjunction Wit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Barbara Nesbitt Suing NMCA, NHRA, Skinny Kid Race Cars, and Others In Conjunction Wit

    (Photo by CompetitionPlus.com) – Former NMCA racer Barbara Nesbitt is suing a host of people in conjunction with injuries she sustained during a 2010 incident at zMax Raceway. In the incident, the driveshaft in her car broke, entered the cockpit and caused her severe trauma in the arm and upper body area. In her suit, [...]

    More...

  • #2
    While I feel bad for her injuries - what a terrible accident - it's not the promoters or the chassis builder or the tech inspector's responsibility to make sure your car is safe - it's up to the OWNER and DRIVER. All those other people do the best they can to help, but in the end it's your responsibility. It's a shame all those people will have to spend money to defend themselves.
    www.realtuners.com - catch the RealTuners Radio Podcast on Youtube, Facebook, iTunes, and anywhere else podcasts are distributed!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by dieselgeek View Post
      While I feel bad for her injuries - what a terrible accident - it's not the promoters or the chassis builder or the tech inspector's responsibility to make sure your car is safe - it's up to the OWNER and DRIVER. All those other people do the best they can to help, but in the end it's your responsibility. It's a shame all those people will have to spend money to defend themselves.
      While I made most of my comments about this on the main page, I will disagree slightly (in theory) as to your comments on the chassis builder, simply because a builder of an SFI-certified chassis for a sub 7-second car holds himself out an an expert in building a relatively safe, rules-compliant car. We don't know enough of the facts to opine on whether or not Skinny Kid "cut corners" which caused the accident. If the car was rules-legal and built propertly (no bad welds, etc.) when it left Skinny's shop, then Skinny should skate.

      On the other hand, as I wrote on the main page, Nesbitt did assume the risk, which ought to protect the track, the promotor, the tech inspector, and the sanctioning body.

      Comment


      • #4
        I respectfully disagree! This was a maintenance issue. How long after a chassis builder releases their car to its owner, are they responsible for it's operation??? If this lawsuit is successful, then it puts the onus of making sure the car is maintained and operated properly on the builder? no way.

        I'm sitting here with a fabricator who builds pro mods (waiting on a flight in DFW to Salt Lake City) and he just showed me the indemnity clause in the contract that must be signed before a car is released. It clearly covers this kind of situation. I hope Skinny Kid had the same thing, and that it's not penetrable by skanky attornies.
        www.realtuners.com - catch the RealTuners Radio Podcast on Youtube, Facebook, iTunes, and anywhere else podcasts are distributed!

        Comment


        • #5
          I do agree that this lawsuit will be a test of those blanket releases (pirate lawyers would call 'em "adhesion contacts"). But we don't really have enough facts to discuss whether or not anyone's potentially liable here.

          Hypothetical: What if a race car builder sells a $35,000 chassis, gets releases/indemnities, and makes representations to the buyer that the car will be SFI-certified and class legal. But then he uses cheap, substandard tubing in places where he knows from experience the inspectors are unlikely to check. He doesn't weld all of the tubing properly. He dummies up some of the paperwork and bribes the initial inspector to pass the car. Then the customer, wholly ignorant of all the chicanery, goes out and hurts himself when a poorly-welded, substandard tube breaks, causing an avoidable accident. Should the builder get to walk away scot free?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Speedzzter.blogspot View Post
            I do agree that this lawsuit will be a test of those blanket releases (pirate lawyers would call 'em "adhesion contacts"). But we don't really have enough facts to discuss whether or not anyone's potentially liable here.

            Hypothetical: What if a race car builder sells a $35,000 chassis, gets releases/indemnities, and makes representations to the buyer that the car will be SFI-certified and class legal. But then he uses cheap, substandard tubing in places where he knows from experience the inspectors are unlikely to check. He doesn't weld all of the tubing properly. He dummies up some of the paperwork and bribes the initial inspector to pass the car. Then the customer, wholly ignorant of all the chicanery, goes out and hurts himself when a poorly-welded, substandard tube breaks, causing an avoidable accident. Should the builder get to walk away scot free?
            Nope, he shold not. In your example, the builder is liable because he did not build the car to specs. Thats not the same as this case, however. Driveshaft broke and that is a wear/maintenance issue. Do you want people to be able to sue Ford for not maintaining their car?
            www.realtuners.com - catch the RealTuners Radio Podcast on Youtube, Facebook, iTunes, and anywhere else podcasts are distributed!

            Comment


            • #7
              Here's what the "pirates" are saying about the lawsuit . . . . http://www.gwclaw.com/blog/2012/07/g...ag-racer.shtml

              I will agree with Geek that if the facts show the driveshaft was rules-legal and failed due to wear and tear (as the Competition Plus photos suggest) it's arguably a "maintenance issue." A driveshaft failure in a 1,700 h.p. race car isn't exactly analogous with a mass-produced exploding Pinto.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by dieselgeek View Post
                Nope, he shold not. In your example, the builder is liable because he did not build the car to specs. Thats not the same as this case, however. Driveshaft broke and that is a wear/maintenance issue. Do you want people to be able to sue Ford for not maintaining their car?
                Ford's been sued a fair number of times over worn parts that failed. They spend millions on lawyers every year.

                We don't know if the driveshaft was up to spec. But it sounds like they're working, in part, on some sort of a "state of the art" theory: i.e. The builder and sanctioning body knew or should have known that the driveshaft and containment system weren't up to the task. (Similar to how products liability "pirates" go after OEMs on roof crush cases) They'll say that Nesbitt wasn't knowledgable enough to detect the defects or release liability. They'll show photos of her mangled arm at every turn (even when it's not relevant to the argument at hand) to stir up emotions.

                Welcome to the seamy world of legal piracy . . . .

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Speedzzter.blogspot View Post
                  Welcome to the seamy world of slimy lawyers . . . .
                  Fixed it for ya....
                  Whiskey for my men ... and beer for their horses!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Are the ones who defend the sanctioning body, the track, or other defendants "slimy?"

                    I'd generally draw a distinction between (a) the professional "shakedown artists" who are working to "pirate" a piece of the action (usually between 30 and 50 percent of the "recovery"[a/k/a "Jackpot"]) from anyone with "deep pockets" even tangentially related to the accident, and (b) the low-paid defense lawyers who work to protect against the "courtroom raiders."

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X