If only Charlie Brown had been there [sigh . . . ]
Was the area immediately outside the fence an area for which a person bought a specific ticket?
If they sold tickets for seats withing 10’ of the fence, I’d say they were negligent - a reasonable person with the track’s knowledge of crashes into fences could have foreseen injury to people there.
If, in order to get to the fence, the injured had to leave their seats and push their way through a crowd, then duck a security guard assigned to keep people out of the area, then they have very definitely assumed all risk - and the track may have cause of action *against them *.
As it is: what if it turns out the injured have left a string of emails/board postings/tweets clearly hoping to get to see a wreck up close? Does every normal person get compensation and the pervert take nothing?
Nitpick: Having been to a couple NASCAR races, I can tell you that for the most part, the higher rows cost more. This is because you can see more of the track. You can check ticket prices at any of the tracks to confirm this.
I did sit in row 4 going into turn 1 at PIR (Phoenix) one year for the experience. It was cool for a while getting hit by the marbles (small pieces of rubber from the tires) but you truly cannot see much of the race and it is LOUD AS HELL.
I cannot stress how loud it is! Even with earplugs/muffs.
Also, you cannot stand by the fence during the race. Cops or track workers are constantly shooing people back to their seats. This doesn’t always work during restarts or the last few laps of a tight race.
WRT the race at Daytona, while tragic, I think most fans are willing to live with the extremely low odds of getting hit by debris, and that NASCAR is pretty much doing all they can to prevent such accidents. But I am sure my friends and Iwill be thinking about this some when we are at the race this weekend.
You’re correct, I meant that to say less expensive. [bolding mine]
And as stated, the higher risk is just one of the reasons. The visibility and noise are also downsides to a lower cost ticket.
Racetracks just got a tax break for improvements to the premises. The drawings for the remodeled Daytona (released a month ago) appear to show ten or fifteen rows removed from up front and a larger upper deck. Most NASCAR tracks are owned by two companies. They’re well aware of the impact of an incident like this and have been seeking solutions for a few years now.
From what I can gather, only one spectator suffered injuries that will have long-lasting effects.
There are few areas of tort law where lack of liability is so certain that someone with assets who may be proximate to injury can afford to be without liability insurance.
Relative unlikelihood of being found liable is reflected in size of premium rather than in it being wise to have no insurance at all.
Even if you have little chance of being found liable, legal costs of successful defence are worth insuring against.
Nascar Race Hub on Speed has anounced that 3 of the persons injured on Saturday have retained legal counsels but no lawsuit have been filed yet.
It’s also usual that the future cost of insurance is based on the history of losses and their cost. So NASCAR has a significant incentive to keep accidents few and payouts low.
It is true to say that implied assumption of risk no longer exists separate from comparative negligence, at least in Florida.
The question here is whether the spectators expressly assumed risk. In Florida, the test for express assumption of risk is: (1) whether the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the risk; and (2), whether the plaintiff consented to the exposure. If the plaintiff did not have actual knowledge, but a reasonable person would appreciate the risk, his recovery will be apportioned under comparative negligence principles. See Kuehner v. Green, 436 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1983), though note that Florida was a contributory negligence state at that time.
At the very least, it will be a jury question. Even that assumes that the plaintiffs knew what was printed on the back of their tickets.
They don’t need to read the ticket - as soon as they crossed into an area that Security had been trying to keep them out of, they not only exposed themselves to risk, they violated the terms of the ticket - the stuff reading SEATING PLACE.
Of course, my blood pressure goes up when a burglar is awarded damages when falling through a skylight on the property he was trying to burgle.
What fans were in an area that security was trying to keep them out of? Also, what other urban legends make your blood pressure go up?
The difference in degree of risk is part of what has protected baseball, though. A baseball can sure as hell hurt you, but it’s a rare event. Fans killed and seriously injured at ballgames are usually hurt by falls or by other fans. Serious injuries from baseballs are a rarity.
If, however, there were a rash of people really badly hurt by baseballs there is no way in hell MLB wouldn’t have to do something or wouldn’t get sued. You may recall a few years ago a young girl died after being struck by a puck that went into the stands at a Columbus Blue Jackets game - an even rarer event than being hit by a baseball. Despite the fact that the NHL has similar disclaimers and such a thing had never happened before the NHL ended up having to pay her family over a million dollars and changed the setup of all its rinks, erecting safety netting around the end glass.
Simply put, there is no current alternative to the safety fence that maintains the spectators ability to see the race directly. Hockey rinks use Lexan shields but they would be impractical at the track because here is a lot of debris generated during a race. Bits of rubber and various fluids would quickly cloud any plastic overlaid on the fence. In particular, Daytona has a lot of sand blown onto the track.
There are major races and practices at Daytona during most of February which would necessitate that the plastic shields be removed and polished several times. There would probably be a need for at least one complete replacement. The track is two and a half miles in length and the cost of that additional protection would be staggering.
Part of the problem in Saturday’s incident was that the car hit a crossover gate; a portion of the fence that could be opened up. They put a ramp up in that location so that people can go over the concrete wall and cross the track. The major portions of the fence are under tension to absorb the impact any flying objects. The gateways are little different than what you might see on a playground basketball court, the strength comes from the metal uprights that define the doorway. It’s not inconceivable that when they remodel the track [post #24], they will put in a tunnel to the infield. Of course, there are many other tracks with the same setup, and each will have to be considered and dealt with.
The “burglars falling through skylight” IIRC, was a bunch of kids breaking into a school. The skylight had been painted black, so it looked like roof.
So yes, the kid should not have been there and was breaking the law, but:
(a) we give special consideration to kids; just as we don’t expect them to exercise the same caution as adults to “beware of dog”
(b) with less experience (and less common sense), they are less likely to recognize odd situations like painted skylights
© a skylight painted the same color as the surrounding roof (i.e. looks black like tar roofing or painted sheet metal roof, I assume)was an accident waiting to happen.
The other person’s criminality in being there does not diminish your stupidity in leaving open holes, stacking heavy items so high they will crush someone, or leaving a vicious dog free to roam. You takes your victims as you find them. It could be a firefighter, a cop chasing someone, or a wandering child because you left a door open, or a burglar. You must take precautions sufficient to minimize the risk to avoid negligence payment. What is sufficient precautions? Fence off the open hole or skylight,warig signs and tie up the dog, don’t stack items dangerously? Like the word “reasonable”, many lawyers’ golf holidays have been paid for with that question…
They might try, you know, seating people a bit further away.