IMG to Refund U.S. Grand Prix Tickets

June 22, 2005

  • June 22, 2005 at 2:14 am
    JSW says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I enjoy your terrific publication and look forward to receiving it each day.

    However, I must take issue with the editorial comment included with this article. As a defense lawyer and a race fan, I strongly disagree. First, the doctrine of assumption of the risk would apply to eliminate or severely curtail a claim by a driver for a race related injury. Second, this was a safety issue, pure and simple. Michilin’s tires were unable to stand up to the rigors of this race and there could be no guarantee that the race could be run safely. Third, it is my understanding that it was the teams that determined to pull out of the race rather than risk the safety of their drivers.

    The implication in your editorial comments is that but for lawyers trying to make a quick buck, the race would have been run to everyone’s satisfaction. But do you honestly think that the race teams would knowingly place their drivers in harms way, except for fear of lawsuits? I don’t think so.

    Formula One is a largely European endeavor. In my experience, Europeans are generally less litigious than we are over here, but they are equally safety conscious (see the Volvo). Although it may be hard for an American to understand, some people do make decisions based on the protection of human life and not on risk assessments driven by fear of lawsuits.

    Best regards,


  • June 22, 2005 at 2:27 am
    Joey says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Isn’t there some sort of drive-at-your-own-risk contract they can sign? Shirley these guys could have waived thier rights.

  • June 22, 2005 at 4:47 am
    JFranklin Rolando says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I just want to say that IMG did a very
    commendable thing in paying the claims.
    It didn’t have to do it. But it did it anyway. This attitude should soften the heart of any insurance pessimist IMG has earned my respect.

    Joe F. Rolando, agent
    Sandy, UT

  • June 23, 2005 at 10:16 am
    Charles says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Do you mean to tell me that you would have preferred that the race be run and that one (or more) of the drivers had been seriously injured just to satisfy your bloodlust of seeing a competitive event?

    Is your editor one of the people who boo when a boxer “throws in the towel” rather than submit to a pummelling?

    Personally, I value life and safety over competition and commercial interests.

  • June 23, 2005 at 2:34 am
    Florida Product Analyst says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Again, don’t blame the lawyers — if you have to blame someone, blame those who didn’t anticipate banked curves for the cars, or blame the race officials.

    One of my friends is one of the better monogrammers in Speedway, which means he stays on the “inside track” of a lot of what goes on at the races there. He says what people there are talking about is how the race officials wouldn’t allow the drivers to switch to the safer tires because they weren’t the ones they did the pre-qualifier laps in, unless they wanted to take a two-lap penalty. So this attempt at a solution didn’t just “fail”, it was nixed.

    The solution to have all drivers go at a safer speed around the banked curves was nixed by the Ferrari team and others who didn’t feel they should have to accomodate another team’s tires. For the safety of their cars and drivers, the Michelin-tired teams simply walked out rather than force themselves into slow-curving races they couldn’t win.

    I regret that the editor here felt the need to throw trial lawyers under the bus on this topic, as it was completely unecessary. On the other hand, I’m glad to see other readers here sharing a greater perspective.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *