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

More than likely John is a participant (co-plaintiff) in the suit.  For years when insurance companies are making large payouts to their insured, it's probably from a car accident (or racing accident in this case).  The insurance company will try to "recover" as much as they are paying out by sueing those who they think stand the best chance of being liable for the injury.  As the insured, John would have to partiicapte in the law suit or loose his coverage.  It's the way the insurance companies play the game, subrogation.  

If John were a co-plaintiff why does the article mention HIM and HIM only?  Maybe the reporter can clear this up? 

I know this will raise many more questions if it's John alone.

The comparisons to Wolfgang are very unfair, in Wolfgangs case there was very clear negligence.  The they had no idea how to put out a fire at a race track would be the definition of neligence.  A reasonale driver would expect a track to be able to put a fire out in a reasonable amount of time, from his book, his fire lasted several minutes.  If you read Wolfgang's book, he sued to try change the sport and make it safer, he made a quote in the book stating if his son raced and was caught in a fire he would never be able to live with himself.  A more fair comparison would be Brad Doty or Paul Lotier.  I read in Doty's book and in it he said people asked him about sueing but he just didn't feel it was right for him.  Could he have sued the track for watering before the feature which caused his someone to slide in front of him and then a wreck occurred - probably but he didn't.  In his words it was an unforetunate series events and he didn't hold anyone responsible for them, it was just racing.  Wolfgang's deal was not just racing, it was complete and utter incompetence not to have any way to put out his fire.

This case is only at a summary judgement proceeding which means that Westbrook only needs to prove that he has some sort of right to move foreward.  Even if he wins, it still must go to trial (or settlement).  Winning a summary judgement hearing is generally very easy for the plaintiff to win as long as they have any reasonable arguement.  However a regular trial would be much, much harder because they will have to prove a lot more then they would at a summary judgement.  So if he wins this hearing, it by no way means he will win this case, it just means he has the right for a real trial to take place.

Agree on all points.

My guess is that if he wins the summary judgement that WG and the insurance company lawyers will settle out of court in the long run (which I am sure happens a lot more often than most think it does).

People sue racetracks, and other venues (stadiums, arenas, etc.) all the time for slick floors, handrails that don't meet ADA standards, etc.  99.9% of them never make it into a courtroom, they get settled out of court by the lawyers.

Daytona will have this soon from the wreck during the Nationwide race @ speedweeks in 2013.  My guess is none will ever see a courtroom, they'll settle them all out of court (to avoid the publicity of a legal battle).

I think the other driver that thought  8 tires corner better than 4 that punted Mr. Westbrook should be held liable

I just did a websearch and pulled up the "Arguement Court" listing for cases to be heard on 12/20.

The case is listed as follows -

Plaintiff: John Westbrook

Defendent: Williams Grove Inc - Kathleen Hughes

I would think it would have listed a Insurance company beside Johns name if they are involved?

There were actually 12 tires/3cars invloved in that crazy 3 wide racing event that went down the front stretch and ultimatley ended overtop of turn 1.  It was a race for position and no one was giving an inch.

I don't blame the 3 car for this wreck...

Is there  a video we can see.     

The accident and results are unfortunate; however, racing is and always has been a dangerous sport.  This driver knew and assumed the risks when he strapped himself into the car and went out on the track.  Unfortunately there are lawyers who will take almost any sort of a case.  After all, this is probably on a contingency basis so it's a "crap shoot" as far as the lawyer is concerned.  He puts in some hours and files the suit and then waits to see what happens.  Often times it turns out to be easier for the insurance carrier for the track to settle out of court than face the time, cost and risks of going to trial.

Tucson Osty, J.D.

If a known area exists and clearly is documented as such, then Mr. Westbrook has a good chance. I know in the past there has been an uproar from fans and teams asking to improve the Fire/Rescue etc...which Joe Darrah did head up and spent his own coins to get up to date training for crews. Does this still continue? dont know.

I have seen so many take a header over that rail. Its a known problem there, why not spend a little jingle to prevent Harsh injuries and or death at your facility?? No brainer me thinks!!

Ok back to hibernation. Merry Christmas, holy shit wheres the tylenol!!

Not true...he retired years later after breaking hid neck again in another crash...

what if john were 15 or 16 would your opnion still be that a minor new the rick?  does anyone rally know who owns the 1w i know geesey did in 09.

I was not at th tack THAt night but understsnd it was intense racing for position with Westbrook on the high side, as usual.

I remember heairing the car landed hard... perhaps on something much harder than the ground.

Lincoln 1845 ft/.35 mile T1=118MPH 
Eldora 2287 ft/.43mile T3=135MPH
Port 2716 ft/.51 mile T3=TBD
Grove 2792 ft/.53 mile T3=135MPH
Selinsgrove 2847 ft/.54 mile T1=136MPH
"I didn't move to PA from El Paso in search of better 
weather." Van May

That was the rumor I referred to in my previous comment.  If there was something back behind that turn that caused the injury, then there is a huge liability issue for not protecting the driver.  Again, tons of different rumors but hypothetically if there was something behind that turn that a driver would not expect, then the arguement for a catch fence would be very good and he will probably win.   Without knowing the details, only John and the Grove know exactly what the claim is and if there was something other then just a steep incline that caused the injury.

I feel for John and his family on this situation.  It could very well end up being that there is much more then what everyone is perceiving in this case - or it may be exactly what people are judging bases off this article.  I would hope that if other facts come out that everyone who is so harshly judging John will judge this reporter/writer just as hard.  For this article t come out at Christmas has to create a lot of stress on a young man that has gone through hell and back.  I hope that the writer would have known the circumstances around this accident and report on them in a ethical manner.  If he does not know all the details, this article in my opinion should never have been written.  If other evidence other then what is being reported comes to surface I would hope everyone would let this writers employer know how unethical this article is and the fact he choose to write it a few days before Christmas was very poor taste regardless - again based on reporting he is sueing over the embankment and no catch fence (no other details were provided in this article).  The writer may also be spot on and the only reason for the suit is the drop off in the turn and no catch fence; again even that said I still do not see any reason to report this with a young man that has been through more then anybody would wish upon there worst enemy.

The Plaintiff would be John Westbrook, not his insurance co., and I assume you guys are referring to his health insurance that paid his medical bills after the accident. I highly doubt that his health insurance has anything to do with this suit. Its the same for the defendent WG is listed and I assume they have liability insurance but there insurance co. is not listed as a defendent in the case, the insurance co. is not normally listed or mentioned in the case or trial, like if this does go to trial, the jury will not be told if the defendant has insurance, who it is or what the limits are. I believe the reason is because the verdict could be biased if the jury was told, they have Nationwide insurance and have $2,000,000 in limits. The decision should be based on the merits of the case and not who is paying out and how much can they afford. It is usually assumed like in say a auto accident case, that the defendant has insurance but it is not formally brought up at trial.

As far as the health insurance subro'ing, what I've seen is health insurance companies are not real aggressive about fighting over liability so they can subro someone, if it was a work related case they'll go to work comp. and ask for money back but in the case of vehicle accidents, the Health Ins. carrier is not on the front line trying to argue liability and in some states they are not even allowed to subro against certain things. It could be possible that if Westbrook won this case the health insurance carrier could go in after and request some of the money back that they paid out based on WG being found liable but this very well relies on the laws of the state.

http://gph.is/XMLGff

Why? ALL drivers know the risks as stap on a helmet and climb in their cars  what can happen and they sigh a release form just like ANYONE who enters the pits !

Long Live  20 Time  World Of Outlaws Champion Steve 
Kinser #11 

I'd like to clarify that Kevin Gobrecht's family (my family) never received, nor did we want, any kind of a settlement in regards to Kevin's accident.  We all know the risks involved in this sport and have learned to accept them as part of the thrill of racing.  Every time any of my sons race, i worry, but it's their choice and I have to accept that.  Kevin loved racing and if there was something that we learned could be changed to make drivers safer, we would have addressed it.  You were correct in that Kev's accident was a freak accident and no matter what, we had no intention, did not want, nor did we expect any kind of settlement from anyone.  It didn't take long for attorneys to contact us concerning lawsuits, but we never even considered speaking to them.  The consideration of whether we could sue anyone never entered our minds.  We lost our son and brother and nothing was going to make that loss less painful.  just wanted to make clarification since you were "sure" there was some kind of settlement.