Forum: HoseHeads Sprint Car General Forum (go)
Moderators: dirtonly  /  dmantx  /  hosehead

First off, I don't have a dog in the Westbrook/ Williams grove lawsuit.  All the driver's know the risks.  Almost every racer will run dog patches for 1k to win even without proper saftey staff/equipment.  Its just how they are wired.  In my opinion, the tracks need to do their due dilligence in providing a safe track, fully trained saftey crew.  Yes this comes with a cost, but Knoxville and Charlotte are the leaders in saftey in my opinion.  Lots of tracks are so far behind its ridiculous.  I also understand $20 a night volunteers aren't going to know everything, but you can train them.  Tracks need to understand that the men strapping in are what greases your wheels.  Without them, you get no front gate.  It shouldn't take deaths on tracks and lawsuits for this to happen.  At the end of the day, nobody wants to see guys get hurt. 

I thought about this for a couple of days prior to responding to make sure my opinion didn't change over time.

IMO, John Westbrooke has a case, and will more than likely win.  The reason being is that their is a reasonable amount of precaution to prevent injuries that the track did not take (if you know there is an embankment that has a road at the bottom and there is a "chance" that a race car could end up there and someone (spectator, worker, driver,etc.) could get hurt and there is something that you can do to prevent it, you have a DUTY and a RESPONSIBILITY to do so.

This is no different than a retail store and "wet floor" signs.  If the floor is wet, it is reasonable that there is a chance someone could slip and fall and get hurt.  Therefore, it is the owner/operators responsiblity to make sure the area is marked with signs, or in some cases, you block off the area to foot traffic until it dries completely.

It is bad for th sport when ANYONE gets hurt in or out of a racecar at a track (moreso than someone sueing a track IMO as the "press" only latches on to tragedy these days (see this past season and the "negative press" that sprint car racing endured even though there was plent to be positive about (how much $$$ was raised by our sport for pediatic cancer research the the Kick-It games across the country for example?). 

Track owners/operators and their insurance companies have a DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY to be proactive instead of re-active.  IMO, in this case, the track, and the insurance company failed miserably.

I do hope that this does not hurt the track to the point where they sell out and it becomes another shopping mall or housing development, but the owner needs to take responsibility for safety, and not just "pass the buck" to the racers themselves (which is what they seem to be doing and their lawyer said as much in the article).

On the off topic about Wolfgang, his lawsuit DID cause some changes that are good for the sport (whether or not those with blinders on want to see or not).  Parts and pieces are no longer made with plastic that can melt in a fire (which IMO, probably saved the lives of a few racers including Gary Wright (anyone remember the youtube video of his car burning to the ground 2 years ago), MANY, MANY tracks have upgraded their fire and safety crews (not enough, but some wouldn't have without the lawsuit), the Outlaws no longer race on pavement (I sincerely hope that the Extreme series that races on pavement doesn't have a catastrophe, but watching them on TV, it's just a matter of when, not if), and seatbelts, helmets, seats, etc. have all been improved as well. 

The Wolfgang lawsuit could have went away at any point, however the WoO REFUSED to even consider a safety team, therefore the lawsuit went forward.  (FYI - Wolfgang didn't win enough $$$$ in his lawsuit to pay for much except his lawyer fees (50% of the judgement in most cases) and his medical bills and future medical bills.  Back then medical insurace for racers was pretty much non-existent, everything came out of their own pockets. 

Now, if we could just get rid of tires lining the infield we could avoid some more "un-needed risk"

Hey, thanks for the correction! It's been about 4 years since I've read his book, I've lent it to a few friends and haven't even received it back yet lol.

"Assumption of Risk" is not a viable defense in a lawsuit.  Kenny Logan, an NHRA Top Fuel Driver, had a serious crash in Feb. of 1972 at Orange County International Raceway in CA.  After either a chasis failure or hitting oil on the track (depends on which report you read) his rear-engined Top Fuel went under the steel barriers up to the driver compartment. The steel barriers had a gap of about 24 inches between the botton of the first rail and the pavement. He brought a lawsuit  against OCIR and won.  The jury, judges, and appeals courts ruled that although the driver was aware of the dangers, the track had not taken proper measure to mitigate injury.  Kenny Logan is credited with forcing the NHRA and other tracks to go to solid concrete retaining walls and not the old steel barriers.  WIlliams Grove has observed many other tracks with retaining fences, the defense will use that knowledge.

The Bottom line hear is this.

  If Mr Westbrook really wanted to help make a difference in the sport!!  if he really wanted to make Williams Grove safer for the drivers!! He could have choosen to take a different course.

  Filling a law suit against Williams Grove is not going to help!!! All I see a law suit doing is costing the Fans, and Racers more money to watch/race!!

  I see this as a all out money grabbing effort for Mr Westbrook to continue to field a spring car team!!

I pretty much agree with everything you said.  Tracks DO need to take more responsibility for the safety of everyone.  A catch fence all the way around, a safety crew and NO infield tires should be high priority for any track.  We'll never eliminate 100% of injuries and torn up cars but if every track just had these 3 things the chances of those would go down a bunch. 

I feel horrible for John and hate what happened to him.... But having said that, EVEYRONE that has EVER raced at Williams Grove is very aware of the drop off on the outside of turns 1 and 2.  Just like the bridge on the backstretch.... It has been that way for 75 freaking years!  John knew this and he chose to race at Williams Grove anyway.  No one held a gun to his head and forced him to do so.  He, and he alone, assumed the risk to his health and safety.

What boggles the mind here is if he felt the place was so unsafe why did he, as a car owner, continue to field a car there?  Why would he knowingly put another person’s health and safety at risk in his car if he felt Williams Grove was so unsafe?  It makes no sense at all, NONE.

Yes, all tracks have many improvements that can and should be made to improve driver safety.  Nevertheless, to try to hold the track and the track alone responsible is ludicrous.  You have a responsibility to yourself to NOT participate in any event or race at a track that you feel is not safe.

I don't know John but let me be "devil's advocate" here.

What if he did go straight to the track and stated that they need to upgrade safety to prevent another injury like his and it fell on deaf ears?  Maybe the only way to get their attention was to sue (and get it in the public so they can weigh in).

Assumed liability and neglegence are the two main points to this.  If you race at a track - assumed liabiltity is the law of the land - so to speak.  Assumed liability means you know exactly what you are getting your self into (example - you you to an ice rink and go skating and fall and break your hip, you assumed that liablity.  However, if you are skating and the light fixture falls from the ceiling, that is not assumed liability; that is neglegence).  Assumed liabilty does vary from state to state so the example of California will not be the same in Pennsylvania.

Lets say when he crashed, he went over the wall and a set of freak and uncontrolled circumstances caused the injury, the track cannot (but still can be) held responsible.  At which case I agree with everyone that says this is not the best option for John.  Adding a catch fench can you other injuries by throwing cars back onto the track and lets face it, the grove is a big fast track - not what you want.  However, there were rumors - and let me be very clear there are always RUMORS in these situations and this is not facts.  The rumor mill said that there was a trash bin that was behind that turn.  Hypothetically if that is true and that caused part or all of his injuries, that would probably be negligence.  I am not an attorney, I do know some of the laws but am in no way qualified to say for certain. 

I do not know the circumstances and I am pretty sure no one on this board know the complete circumstances.  If he is sueing because there is no catch fence, I think that is very wrong.  If he is sueing because there was no catch fence and there were dangerous items behind the embankment, I would agree with what he is doing.

Yes, not all lawsuits are just simply money grabs.  Sometimes it's the only way to make something happen.  And it seems some improvements at WG wouldn't be a bad thing.  I'm not a fan of the old take or leave it attitude.  If someone is gonna run a business they should at least take some responsibility.  Racing is far too dangerous as it is without adding un-necessary dangers that could be eliminated without too much trouble.  It seems everything is being put on the drivers.  Well  most ARE using better safety equipment than in the past.  But we also need more tracks to step up and make safety improvements at their facilities.  It needs to be a two way street.

What happened on the other side of the guardrail that caused his injury that didnt take place prior to going over?

Westbrook knows sprint car racing enough to know the odds of going over a 3 foot guardrail are very high. It happens quite frequently. Whose to say he wouldnt have been struck by another car had there been a catchfence that threw him back onto the racing surface?

What if they had a guardrail like Knoxville that was 12 feet tall? He could of hit the guardrail upside down causing very similiar injuries if not worse injuries.

Safety in auto racing is constantly evolving. There is no way to predict what time of accidents are possible until they actually happen. 25 years ago who would of ever thought of having SAFER Barriers or full containment seats?

-Austin Rankin

For thsoe defending WGrove, just curious why they never did install a catchfence down the last part of the frontstretch and through turns one and two.  Lynn Schaffer's tapes show numerous cars flying out of the ballpark over turns one and two through the years...violent crashes.  You'd think after all these years they've been running there and had cars go flying out they would have a put up a catch fence.  If you ask why would they, then why would other high-speed tracks like Eldora, Knoxville, etc have them (doesn't even need to be high-speed)? That is a pretty significant drop-off there.  Seems like a catch fence would have been warranted along time ago.

While we are at it, can we please get rid of the corner/back straight flag man?   With the improvements to the overall track lighting, the safety lighting, and the use of raceivers, there is no reason for someone to be a couple feet from the track waving at the cars.

It is just an accident waiting to happen.   Besides it is a total waste,  when I was a driver I always found the lights on the track.   I was always going to see them before some daredevil in the infield.   BTW, every driver knows that when the lights go off on the back straight away that the green is about to come out.   Once again, don't need a daredevil telling me things that I already know.

While we are at it lets get a taller front straight fence at Silver Dollar........

Ditto

I personally think he loses this case.1. He raced there for years prior to his accident.He knew there was no fence and has personally witnessed cars flipping over it. So the defense he didn't think he would go over it won't fly. 2. If after the accident he suddenly became aware that it was unsafe, that won't fly either when the Groves attorneys ask him " then why do you continue to field a race car there and put other drivers at risk ?" That will be hard hurdle to cross and explain. The Grove may be smarter than you think. Instead of banning him from the premises while the lawsuit was pending which they could have legally done, they let him continue to bring a car to the track which just solidifies their defense that he still to this day knows the risks and continues to compete and assume the risk.

And for everyone who thinks the catch fence / wall barrier is the save all for safety go ask Jeff Shepard if he likes the wall at knoxville ? Or would he have rathered  just flipped out of the track. For those who don't know what happened.....Jeff flipped up into the wall which put the car back on the track. At which point the car was on its side and another car hit him at full speed directly into the top of the cage impacting his head and helmet. His injuries forced his immediate retirement and he still suffers from the injuries today.

Bottom line is there is no way to argue a fence/ wall is safer than none. Serious injuries have happened under both circumstances. Sprint car racing is a dangerous sport. I personally have lost respect for John based soley on the fact he continues to bring a car to the track to compete " in dangerously unacceptable conditions".  If he never fielded a car at the grove since his accident I probably would feel different about this situation.

Again, the Grove looks like geniuses letting him defeat his own claim.

Nothing good will come. The man has no need for material things and the reality is the tax payers will pay to care for him the rest of his life. If he wanted material things his family should have asked for the track/ community to rally, not poke the bull. His dignity will also be impacted in the end. Wolf was a marked man and shunned by the entire fan base for near 20 years... TIme heals all wounds, but Wolf missed some of the best years of his life to live out a diff. life in race. IE: see Brad D....

Why would you sue the sport you par take in... How many drivers have lost their lives and others been seriously injured and never once thought of suing.... As well respeceted as Wolfie was, and is, he wasnt allowed to race again after doing that...

my dad talks about years back when drag racing highway potrol men out of a ticket... He said back then sometimes you would spin and just keep going.... back then there was nothing around to hit.....

????

Wolfgang came back and ran AFTER the lawsuit was over.  The main thing was is that he could no longer perform at the level he could before due to the injuries caused by the negligence of the WoO, Lakeside Speedway, and to a lesser extent, the steering wheel quick release manufacturer.

Wolfgang made the 1997 Knoxville Nationals A-main, then had a crash @ Granite City, IL later that season and broke his neck for teh 2nd time.  He retired from driving following that crash.

Other that have been seriously injured or worse yet have been killed, have sued or have settled with insurance companies if they had a case to be made (not all accidents have any level of negligence involved (Kevin Gobrecht's crash for example was a freak accident through no fault of the racetrack, therefore there was no one for them to sue.  I'm sure the tracks insurance company still paid out a settlement though.