TMS in court after 2006 accident

As sad as this story is, I don't think TMS Speedway is at fault here.

The parents had to sign waviers saying that they understood the risks involved. Besides, this isn't something that TMS could have avoided. A driver lost control, and crashed into the boy and his family.
 
If TMS allowed inexperienced drivers to go through a area where people were exposed without barriers to protect them I'd say they bear the burden of fault.

Any parent who allows a child with some sort of mental problem behind the wheel of a 'race car' shares that burden.

Speaking from experience, I had a throttle hang in a sk modified. In that split, micro, nano second I had the biggest WTF moment of my life before I was in the wall. Expecting a child with no experience plus a mental condition to control a race car when something goes wrong is beyond belief.:(

Let me add with that those Na$car waivers you need a army of Philadelphia lawyers to interperet them.
 
From what I read

As sad as this story is, I don't think TMS Speedway is at fault here.

The parents had to sign waviers saying that they understood the risks involved. Besides, this isn't something that TMS could have avoided. A driver lost control, and crashed into the boy and his family.

I would think the play area shouldn't be available for a vehicle to enter. The play area should be adjacent too, but out of reach from any race car.
I don't know what happened.. but I'm thinking someone was at fault allowing the children to be where their lives could be in danger.
Betsy:rolleyes:
 
As sad as this story is, I don't think TMS Speedway is at fault here.

The parents had to sign waviers saying that they understood the risks involved. Besides, this isn't something that TMS could have avoided. A driver lost control, and crashed into the boy and his family.

Being a media-access member and participating in SCCA events at the speedway, I can agree that the lawyers will have a hard time with TMS's legal stuff. I've read it front to back, and they have some pretty far-out clauses in it. It can be pretty much shortened down to saying "Enter at your own risk, and don't come crying to us if you get hurt of your own or another person's negligence."
 
Well..yeah!

But if you look at the track during a race.. NONE of the contestants or pit crew can stand around in a dangerous place. The event of an injured person is rare indeed... mostly because of the rules that keep workers and others behind a wall of some type.

Nobody is allowed to become fodder for an errant race car.

SOMEBODY should have been responsible for ensuring the young people were safely behind some kind of barrier..

There is blame here.. Perhaps it is the Moms and Pops themselves.. Perhaps it is the track officials..

Betsy:rolleyes:
 
here is the track in question- Li'l Texas:

GetMap.ashx
 
FORT WORTH -- A Tarrant County jury has awarded more than $11 million to the family of a boy who was seriously injured after being struck by a car driven by another child in the parking lot at Texas Motor Speedway.

The parents of Ryan Davies, who was injured in 2006, sued the speedway after an accident left the boy with traumatic brain injuries that limit his mobility and mental capacity.

The other boy lost control of a miniature race car while driving across a parking lot to enter the Lil’ Texas Motor Speedway, a paved one-fifth mile track at the speedway. He narrowly missed a trailer and several parked cars before slamming into Davies, who was playing football with other boys in the parking lot.

The jury on Monday found the speedway 80 percent responsible and found that the boy’s parents, Angela and Richard Kenyon, were each 10 percent responsible.

They said the young driver was not at fault.
 
Being a media-access member and participating in SCCA events at the speedway, I can agree that the lawyers will have a hard time with TMS's legal stuff. I've read it front to back, and they have some pretty far-out clauses in it. It can be pretty much shortened down to saying "Enter at your own risk, and don't come crying to us if you get hurt of your own or another person's negligence."

Just because something is in writing, doesn't get you off scott free. There IS ALWAYS away around it.
 
I'm surprised at the verdict. I figured that the paperwork the parents had to sign would have let TMS off-the-hook. Still, it's a good thing that the parents will get the money they need to care for their injured son.

BTW, what's up with the TMS 80% responsible, parents each 10% responsible? I didn't know it was possible to be only partly responsible for something.

Does this mean that Drew Peterson is only 80% responsible for killing his 3rd and 4th wives, and his dead wives are each 10% responsible for their own deaths?

:confused:
 
These days, partial blame is big in insurance. Here in North Carolina if you are involved in an auto accident, if you are to blame for any percentage, the other insurance company doesn't have to pay a red cent. In other states, insurance companies only pay what percentage that was negligent for their patrons.

As an example, last year the wife was sideswiped by a young girl as the wife was merging into a left turn lane. The young girl had moved to the left before the double yellow line and was given a ticket. The wife was not given a ticket and was let go. The young girl's insurance company claimed that the wife was partially at fault, using the reason "failure to be on the lookout". I've never heard of that before, but evidently it would be a reason to put some blame on the wife. It went to arbitration and the young girl's insurance company lost so they had to pay 100%.
 
These days, partial blame is big in insurance. Here in North Carolina if you are involved in an auto accident, if you are to blame for any percentage, the other insurance company doesn't have to pay a red cent. In other states, insurance companies only pay what percentage that was negligent for their patrons.

As an example, last year the wife was sideswiped by a young girl as the wife was merging into a left turn lane. The young girl had moved to the left before the double yellow line and was given a ticket. The wife was not given a ticket and was let go. The young girl's insurance company claimed that the wife was partially at fault, using the reason "failure to be on the lookout". I've never heard of that before, but evidently it would be a reason to put some blame on the wife. It went to arbitration and the young girl's insurance company lost so they had to pay 100%.

The insurance company erred and used the wrong defense. They should have said your wife suffered from diminished mental capacity. I mean look who she married... :D
 
Back
Top Bottom