Fallout From Racetrack Tragedy

Lawsuits may occur after 3 died, 8 injured at first fatal accident at Lowe's Speedway

Charlotte, North Carolina, May 13, 1999 -- Auto racing events pack motor tracks throughout much of the Southeast United States. It is a particularly dangerous sports not only for the participants, but also for the fans who attend, as the recent tragedy at the Lowe's Motor Speedway attests.

During the VisionAire 500, a race sponsored by the IRL Lowe's Motor Speedway near Charlotte, three spectators were killed and eight were injured when debris passed over a 15-foot fence into the grandstands. The fatalities were the first in the 40-year history of the track. The accident occurred on the 61st lap of the 208-lap race. The race was canceled shortly after it was discovered that fatalities occurred. IRL race use Indianapolis 500-style vehicles.

What about the liability of the speedway, the sponsor and the IRL. The answers are not as easy as one can think.

Releases

All sports venue seek to limit personal injury liability in several ways. The most traditional defense is a concept known as "assumption of risk." Although it applies more to athletes than spectators, an argument can be made that if the spectators know of the reasonable dangers associated with a sport and still accept the risk of attending the event, liability is negated.

Assumption of risk alone probably would not be enough to insulate the potential defendants. The owners or a speedway have a duty to design it in a safe manner and it the protective barriers were not designed according to a reasonable level of safety, liability will likely result.

Since the owners and sponsors know this, they seek to limit liability by contract. That is sometimes done by drafting a separate document outlining the risks associated with the activity and requiring a signature -- a tactic more frequently used for athletes participating in competition, especially on the amateur level. With spectators, it is more common to incorporate such a clause on the back of their tickets. Presumably that was done in this case.

The nature and language of these releases vary, as the states treat these clauses very differently. Since there is not federal law or uniform law on the issue of releases, one has to know the rules of a given state. Some states permit such releases for negligence claims only (that is a nonintentional act, but act done, even if accidentally, below a standard of proper care); other permit releases for any injury claim. A few places may even prohibit these releases entirely.

If a court deemed that the release is too broad or too unfair, it can render it unenforceable as a matter of public policy. That means that the owners and sponsors must be clear on how far they can protect themselves under contract law.

Sponsors

An owner of a facility is responsible for the actions of its employees. That is known as vicarious liability. A supermarket chain, for example, cannot avoid liability just because one its employees commits a personal injury. However, Independent contractors , those who are not under the dominion and control of the owners will generally not be liable for the act.

In the case here, that can apply to VisionAire, the sponsor of the event. If Visionaire had no control over the event, and its only connection was the name of the speedway, it will not be subject to liability. The same can be said about Lowe's, the firm that has the name rights to the particular track.Of course, the poor publicity resulting from the accident may affect whether VisionAire will keep its name associated with the event or whether Lowe's will keep its name on the track. But this involves their rights in the agreements made with the owners of the race track and IRL.

Manufacturers of the Vehicles

The type of vehicles raced were known as "open-wheel" vehicles. As many have seen in highlights, these wheels protrude out of the vehicle and often come off after a crash. The force can make them fly in the air for considerable distances, and possible cause injury to patrons, as was the case at the Lowe's speedway.

If it can be shown that these vehicles were defectively designed, making them unreasonably dangerous, it is possible that the manufacturers and owners of these cars could be shown under a concept known as "strict products liability." Products liability could be difficult to show, especially if such dangers were within the scope of danger noted on the back of the ticket.

Drivers of the Vehicles

If it can shown that the drivers exhibited conduct beyond the scope of the dangers, it is also possible to sue them. The issue of the scope of the release would come into play here, as it did above.

The Owners

Although the releases would generally protect the Speedway Motorsports Inc., the owner of the speedway, if certain dangers existed outside the foreseeable dangers of the sport, the releases can be negated and liability conferred. A major issue if the height of the protective fencing used. Is 15 feet enough? Too little? Is that the industry standard or is there a trend to have great heights in other such tracks. Or should the entire track be caged? These are issues to be explored by a court and if it can be shown that the protection was inadequate, Speedway Motorsports would have to pay damages.

At this time, officials have established a fund to help the families of the race fans who were killed and injured at Saturday night's IRL race. According to the Charlotte Observer, track officials have also made arrangements for fans to receive counseling.