Larry Dent wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> The waiver has generally held up in court, but contrary to your belief
> that spectators are held to any waiver standards, they are not.
>
> Courts have held that spectators are entitled to almost total safety
> while viewing racing events,
Since this is a matter of state law, I question the accuracy of that
statement. I am not aware that any jurisdiction has determined as you
have put it. In the jurisdiction with which I am familiar, California,
I doubt that anyone would make the assertion you just did. One of the
leading cases is of a spectator who sued, unsuccessfully, Cal Club, on
the basis that he had assumed the risk of injury. The court didn't even
need to reach the issue of waiver.
If one confines one's reading to the reported cases of the 1970's, your
view makes more sense. But the jurisprudence which has developed over
the last fifteen years or so is very strongly supportive of both the
doctrine of express assumption of the risk and of the validity of
waivers.
> thus a wheel in the stands will genereate
> very substancial suits and judgements, which is what the first insurance
> is designed to cover. The suits are not normally filed against a driver,
> but can be. In that case the driver would have protection under the
> liability policy, but a 20 million judgement when there is only 1
> million of coverage would mean the named parties to the suit would have
> to pay the remaining 19 million. NOT a pretty picture. I know of no
> case of this happening, but the possibility is always there.
<snip>
Well, the above occurs more usually as a motivation to buy liability
insurance than it ever does as an actual reality. The real value of
insurance is that neither assumption of risk nor a written waiver
prevents the filing of a suit. The value of insurance is that the
carrier pays the costs of the defense.
--
Tom M
Elva Courier #43
CA sbn#077330
|