• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

NASCAR Driver Tony Stewart Runs Over a Guy

No, I get it, but I don't see how it affects what I was asking. Like I said, if he didn't give an FU braap (i.e. it was because he needed to do it to make the thing turn, therefore it's *not* an FU braap), there's no controversy.
 
byke said:
I've said nothing along those lines. I've said that I think he gave a little FU braap. It looks like it. It sounds like it. People who saw it think that's what happened. I'm curious to know why you have no interest in knowing whether or not that happened and why it does not affect your perspective? If it's not what happened, there's no controversy. If it is what happened, is it that you still feel the fault overwhelmingly lies with the kid?
Click to expand...

+1 FU brapp that went bad. Kid on the rise didn't want to get pissed on by the old dog, and did something stupid, yellow flag or not. answer will be somewhere in the liability waivers. Was this a NASCAR sanctioned race?
civil suit sure to follow, charge to be involuntary vehicular manslaughter.
just a bad, sad deal, all the way around...
 
Without criminal charges, Tony will pay millions for this, probably in an out-of-court settlement to avoid a costly, embarassing, sponsor-risking trial.
 
channelcat said:
+1 FU brapp that went bad. Kid on the rise didn't want to get pissed on by the old dog, and did something stupid, yellow flag or not. answer will be somewhere in the liability waivers. Was this a NASCAR sanctioned race?
civil suit sure to follow, charge to be involuntary vehicular manslaughter.
just a bad, sad deal, all the way around...
Click to expand...

Maybe. Those racing waivers don't say:" You are entering a playground and must play be the rules or be sued."

They say: "You are participating in an extremely dangerous sport where you may be injured or killed. You agree to hold harmless and not sue everyfucking person and corporation involved." Those waivers have been tested in court time after time, and the few times they have been voided it's over technical shit like payment for an engine that blew up ( the cost of the motor). They are almost impossible to beat. The sport would not exist without them, the lawyers would have already gotten all the money. In order to sue in civil court "involuntary behavior" would not reach the criteria of "criminal negligence" which is the standard that has to be reached to breach a waiver. In other words, you can kill 22 people but unless your behavior is PROVEN to be negligent, it doesn't matter. Either the local DA has to charge criminal or you have to prove negligence civil. No inbetween ground. If there were, there'd be no racing or trackdays.

It's not a game. It's not a playground. Despite the amount of fun, it's fucking dangerous.
 
Last edited:
enki said:
Without criminal charges, Tony will pay millions for this, probably in an out-of-court settlement to avoid a costly, embarassing, sponsor-risking trial.
Click to expand...

See my post. Won't be a long civil trial unless the family is loaded or finds an idiot lawyer.

Every one of you who rides on the track better pray there's no civil suit that wins. Cuz if there is, Trackdays and races will be in the past tense. The second the lawyers find a way to beat those waivers, it's all over. Nobody is going to participate in or run an event that will leave them open to huge damages. That's why CRIMINAL charges are there, for criminal behavior. No negligence, no blame. I truly hope there is no lawsuit. I've seen twenty crashes on the track, easily, where I could say: "So and so was clearly at fault." Fortunately those don't result in civil suits. If they did.................
 
Last edited:
I believe the lawyer. And by the way, I'm suing the track operator for having insufficient lighting.

FlewbyU said:
.02 from a personal injury attorney perspective. If the family of the deceased came into my office and wanted to hire me to sue Tony Steward this is what I would tell them.

This was the decedent's fault. There was contribution by the Tony Steward and the track owner as he could have driven a lower line, and the track should have had more lights. However Steward was driving the same line and same speed as the car in front of him and likely never saw the driver. Moreover, there are rules against getting out of your car in a race (so you don't get run over by other cars) and the decedent broke that rule. In addition he was wearing black and the track was very dimly lit and he walked down into the middle of the race track.

I think there is a better suit against the track for failing to properly light the track. Had the lighting been better or the driver wearing something other than black this accident likely would have never happened.

If anyone thinks that Stewart did this intentionally that is just stupid.

Negligence is failing to act as another person would in the same or similar circumstances. In this case TS was driving the same speed and line as the driver in front of him and no driver expects someone to be standing in the middle of the line.

As far as I know these races do not have spotters so given how dark it was TS never saw him. Given the track was dark and he was wearing black, it was just the wrong place wrong time accident.

No difference if you were driving down the highway and someone walks into the middle of traffic. Maybe you could have been looking further down the road and done something different but the fact is the fault is on the person being in the middle of the road.

As for people think this is crime. I would highly surprised if he is charged with anything, nor should he be.
Click to expand...
 
afm199 said:
Maybe. Those racing waivers don't say:" You are entering a playground and must play be the rules or be sued."

They say: "You are participating in an extremely dangerous sport where you may be injured or killed. You agree to hold harmless and not sue everyfucking person and corporation involved." Those waivers have been tested in court time after time, and the few times they have been voided it's over technical shit like payment for an engine that blew up ( the cost of the motor). They are almost impossible to beat. The sport would not exist without them, the lawyers would have already gotten all the money. In order to sue in civil court "involuntary behavior" would not reach the criteria of "criminal negligence" which is the standard that has to be reached to breach a waiver. In other words, you can kill 22 people but unless your behavior is PROVEN to be negligent, it doesn't matter. Either the local DA has to charge criminal or you have to prove negligence civil. No inbetween ground. If there were, there'd be no racing or trackdays.

It's not a game. It's not a playground. Despite the amount of fun, it's fucking dangerous.
Click to expand...

I see these at the track, but eeeeevery once in a while someone sues and occasionally wins. Sign whatever you want, but it really boils down to what a court finds to be "reasonable".

afm199 said:
See my post. Won't be a long civil trial unless the family is loaded or finds an idiot lawyer.

Every one of you who rides on the track better pray there's no civil suit that wins. Cuz if there is, Trackdays and races will be in the past tense. The second the lawyers find a way to beat those waivers, it's all over. Nobody is going to participate in or run an event that will leave them open to huge damages. That's why CRIMINAL charges are there, for criminal behavior. No negligence, no blame. I truly hope there is no lawsuit. I've seen twenty crashes on the track, easily, where I could say: "So and so was clearly at fault." Fortunately those don't result in civil suits. If they did.................
Click to expand...

I'm really curious about this part as well. It would open up a massive can of worms. With our accountability trend, you've got to think this is only a matter of time.
 
byke said:
I see these at the track, but eeeeevery once in a while someone sues and occasionally wins. Sign whatever you want, but it really boils down to what a court finds to be "reasonable".



I'm really curious about this part as well. It would open up a massive can of worms. With our accountability trend, you've got to think this is only a matter of time.
Click to expand...

You'll have to convince me someone wins. To my knowledge there's never been a successful civil complain upheld, except for minor shit. And the law for civil suits is REALLY specific. It's not reasonable. It's proven negligence, a standard so high as to be seldom proven.
 
asthmodeus said:
Murder, but he will get away with it and he knew that when he buzzed the guy, who shouldn't have been on the track.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, He was just driving along and thought: "I have a chance here to kill someone and further my career."

I've often zigged on the track trying to take out an errant or stunned participant, but my aim is poor.
 
afm199 said:
Absolutely, He was just driving along and thought: "I have a chance here to kill someone and further my career."

I've often zigged on the track trying to take out an errant or stunned participant, but my aim is poor.
Click to expand...

He didn't 'think' is the point- he acted.

He just watched the blue car in front of him slow and take a lower line to avoid the loon on the track and held his line and buzzed the guy. I dont think he meant to kill him, i think it was jock brinksmanship. Like chin music at the plate or running a goalie out of the crease.
 
FlewbyU said:
.02 from a personal injury attorney perspective. If the family of the deceased came into my office and wanted to hire me to sue Tony Steward this is what I would tell them.

This was the decedent's fault. There was contribution by the Tony Steward and the track owner as he could have driven a lower line, and the track should have had more lights. However Steward was driving the same line and same speed as the car in front of him and likely never saw the driver. Moreover, there are rules against getting out of your car in a race (so you don't get run over by other cars) and the decedent broke that rule. In addition he was wearing black and the track was very dimly lit and he walked down into the middle of the race track.

I think there is a better suit against the track for failing to properly light the track. Had the lighting been better or the driver wearing something other than black this accident likely would have never happened.

If anyone thinks that Stewart did this intentionally that is just stupid.

Negligence is failing to act as another person would in the same or similar circumstances. In this case TS was driving the same speed and line as the driver in front of him and no driver expects someone to be standing in the middle of the line.

As far as I know these races do not have spotters so given how dark it was TS never saw him. Given the track was dark and he was wearing black, it was just the wrong place wrong time accident.

No difference if you were driving down the highway and someone walks into the middle of traffic. Maybe you could have been looking further down the road and done something different but the fact is the fault is on the person being in the middle of the road.

As for people think this is crime. I would highly surprised if he is charged with anything, nor should he be.
Click to expand...
Sound reasoning, but stewie meant to scare the kid or roost on him and messed up. I don't think you can prove that but that's for a jury to decide. ID take that case in a sec, worth the risk with the potential huge upside.
 
afm199 said:
You'll have to convince me someone wins. To my knowledge there's never been a successful civil complain upheld, except for minor shit. And the law for civil suits is REALLY specific. It's not reasonable. It's proven negligence, a standard so high as to be seldom proven.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've heard it from the local mx track owners who have been around since the 60's, but I don't remember the specifics. You're right that it must not have been huge, or else they wouldn't be in business. These guys aren't exactly making a killing. With rider turnout going to shit since 2008, the local tracks have anywhere from 0-2 flaggers at any given time. You can imagine, someone falls and is hurt/out, nobody there to flag, rider lands on another rider. The clock is ticking on this scenario. I don't like sue happy people and that doesn't even tickle my bs meter.

afm199 said:
Absolutely, He was just driving along and thought: "I have a chance here to kill someone and further my career."

I've often zigged on the track trying to take out an errant or stunned participant, but my aim is poor.
Click to expand...

I knew it!!! :laughing I'm guessing it was just misuse of the word "murder".
 
byke said:
With rider turnout going to shit since 2008, the local tracks have anywhere from 0-2 flaggers at any given time. You can imagine, someone falls and is hurt/out, nobody there to flag, rider lands on another rider. The clock is ticking on this scenario. I don't like sue happy people and that doesn't even tickle my bs meter.
Click to expand...

happens in MX all the time

:2cents
 
Sharky said:
Sound reasoning, but stewie meant to scare the kid or roost on him and messed up. I don't think you can prove that but that's for a jury to decide. ID take that case in a sec, worth the risk with the e.
Click to expand...

I would take the case against the track, I think you have real uphill battle proving neg for TS.

I also find it amusing how may "expert" on BARF think the value of this case is based on who hit him. The decedent was a 20-year old kid, who was likely making 20k or 30k a year with no kids. As Sharky knows the value of any case is not how much money the defendant has it is based on the economic loss of the plaintiff. In this case the kid has limited medical bills and burial costs. If the kid had no real income his economic damages are limited and if no kids there is no one he provided support to, so no real economic damages.

Then it just comes down to the value of someone's life. Also in CA the law allows for proportional verdicts based on the percentage of fault attributed to the decedent. Therefore if there was a million dollar verdict and the kid was 80% at fault his estate would only received $200,000 of the million. CA has the most favorable law about contributory negligence most other state say if you are 51% at fault for the accident you receive nothing.

I don't see any jury giving the decedent any thing less than 75% at fault so any verdict he would receive would be no more than 25% of the total verdict.

Really not a good case to take on a pure finical basis, likely taken by an attorney to boost their profile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top