The Lawyers Win Again

[bg43wex]

this is very unfortunate!

Subject: SCCA To Discontinue ProRally, ClubRally Programs In 2005


For Immediate Release



SCCA TO DISCONTINUE PRORALLY, CLUBRALLY PROGRAMS IN 2005



TOPEKA, Kan. (Oct. 5, 2004) – Sports Car Club of America’s Board of Directors voted Monday to discontinue the sanction of its current stage-based rally format, including the ProRally and ClubRally Championships, beginning January 1, 2005 due to increasing risk exposure.



“This was a difficult and unfortunate decision to make,” SCCA Board of Directors Chairman Gary Pitts said. “However, from an insurance standpoint, the stage rally format has gotten to the point where it puts the entire Club, its activities and entities under an undue risk.”



“We have many SCCA members whose interests lie in rally,” SCCA President and CEO Steve Johnson said. “It is my intent to allow these members the opportunity to rally in the future and continue to access the sport. I am confident we can accomplish this task.



“We are in negotiations to transition SCCA’s elements of the stage-based rally activity to Rally America, a longtime partner and participant in the sport of rally.”



Unaffected by the decision are SCCA’s RallyCross and RoadRally programs.



SCCA began its special stage-format ProRally Championship in 1973. Since then, the ProRally Championship Presented by Hot Wheels has been regarded as the top domestic rally series. The 2004 Championship has one round remaining, Lake Superior ProRally (LSPR), which will run as scheduled Oct. 22 in Houghton, Mich.

[RSTPerformance]

Great… In one year we loose ProRally and gain "drifting" To bad the real drifting, and probably the only place it is every used to "optimize" performance is in Pro Rally... It is very disappointing to see the SCCA membership loose the most talented drivers from its roster.

I hope the "risk" of real racing doesn't affect us on the track to the point we have "club rules" such as with BMW club racing, Porsche club racing, and Vintage club racing. I think if SCCA allows such "risks" to effect the sport in which we participate it will be in a lot of trouble 10 years from now. We are all aware of the risks, and the risks have not changed since long before 1973. In fact I would say racing everywhere is much less of a risk now then ever before.

It is to bad someone had to get those darn lawyers involved... oh I hate those darn insurance companies also, but I think they are just reacting to the lawyers.

Raymond "Lawyers are about as good as Unions..." Blethen

* Not all Layers and/or Unions are bad... it’s just a well deserving stereotype of many.

** The opinions in this e-mail are my personal opinions and not necessarily everyone within RST Performance Racing family.

[mgyip]

The problem doesn't just lie with the lawyers (although the best lawyer is a dead lawyer as a general rule) but with the insurance companies that are desperately trying to retain their huge ROI and thus asessing "risk" at an absurd level. IIRC there were several deaths in the SCCA rally program this year and the reaction is most likely necessary to avoid further exposure in the future.

I share your concern that Road Racing and ultimately Solo will soon become too risky to insure either since these are competitive sports with inherent dangers even though the competitors willingly accept the risks. It just takes one pinhead (or a dead pinhead's pinheaded family) with a mindful lawyer to state that the dangers of the sport weren't fully detailed and thus any harm should come from the sponsoring club.

Perhaps it is time for all car clubs that sponsor "club races" to band together to standardize their safety rules. This should save a lawsuit from (for example) an injured PCA member whose car was originally built for SCCA - the claim being that SCCA's safety rqmts weren't safe and that PCA allowed the car to compete even though PCA's rqmts are different (however slightly).

As for Unions - they've outlived their usefulness, just look at the UAW and the "quality" of your new Cavalier.

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
...We are all aware of the risks, and the risks have not changed since long before 1973. In fact I would say racing everywhere is much less of a risk now then ever before.

Absolutely. 50 years ago drivers were dropping like flies.

The Club lost two Rally drivers this year, but I'm not certain whether the concern is for the drivers or the fans.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[This message has been edited by gsbaker (edited October 06, 2004).]

[JLawton]

Steve O,
I'm curious on your thoughts.......

Or are you not going to touch this one http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

[m glassburner]

To blame quality on the workers (all blue collar) is unjust.GM is to blame....they could change the quality standards...but do they ???

[joeg]

The Club lost two Rally drivers this year, but I'm not certain whether the concern is for the drivers or the fans.

This year? Who?

The risk is not with the competitors. It is transiting race cars on public streets and uncontrolled spectators on stages.

Competitors and workers are on releases, so that "risk" is manageable.

[SamITC85]

Someone on the Prod. Board made the comment that it probably had more to do with the Spectators since they really have no rules on where they can be on a course and don't have to sign a waiver. We as drivers in club racing sign waivers so the SCCA is partially covered, unless gross neglegance can be proven.
I would say it is more our society in which everyone wants to sue everyone, because some lawyers (not all, after all I am married to one) encourage people to sue over absurd things so the Insurance companies have to cover their butts. For instance the person who sued McDonalds for their cofee being too hot and then spilling it on themselves. ITS COFFEE ITS SUPPOSED TO BE HOT!!!

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by joeg:

The Club lost two Rally drivers this year, but I'm not certain whether the concern is for the drivers or the fans.

This year? Who?

I believe it was the ProRally series. Two drivers (actually driver and co-driver) died this spring--around June. Johnson had a followup letter in SportsCar.



------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[David Ferguson]

This past weekend, two road racing drivers in the San Francisco region were killed in an accident during the test day preceeding an SCCA regional race at Thunderhill. Both were in closed-wheeled cars.

It seems that we have as many as 2 or 3 deaths per year in SCCA road racing, but most are kept pretty quiet. The deaths in the Pro Rally world of a top-running team seem to have caught the attention of the insurance folks, let's hope that Road Racing doesn't suffer the same fate.

[lateapex911]

In road racing on the amatuer level (SCCA), most of the deaths I have been aware of were caused by health failures.

Either the driver was dead before the incident, or died shortly thereafter due to causes beyond the crash induced trauma.

Rally spectating has always AMAZED me...it does appear that an innocent person is in the line of fire to be seriously hurt or killed sooner or later.

When it happens, it could become veeeeery ugly.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[RKramden]

I worked on the Maine Forrest Rally last year to clear and mark the spectator areas.

They were the ONLY places that spectators were allowed on the rally.

Each area had a marshal in charge who had control of a "STOP" sign.

The spectators were all told the rules, and if anyone went outside the marked (and judged to be safe) areas, the stop sign would be displayed, the stage aborted, and then all the spectators would see absolutly nothing.

What actually happened was that they all understood the reasons, were supportive of what the club was doing in terms of safety, and caused absolulty no problems that I knew of.

In many cases, some of the early arrival spectators talked to the ones that were late to the area and explained what was going on, and were a big help. Everyone, including those required to leave their favourite spots and head to a marked area, were really, really nice about it.

[Diane]

Originally posted by lateapex911:

Rally spectating has always AMAZED me...it does appear that an innocent person is in the line of fire to be seriously hurt or killed sooner or later.


I wouldn't call a person who walks out onto a stage to spectate, stands in an apex when told not to, and runs into the road to get the perfect shot "innocent".

Seen it happen........


Diane

[joeg]

I think the deaths you refer to in Pro Rally were in 2003.

There were some serious injuries this year (one on a transit, I believe--public road, civilian traffic), but fortunately, so far as I know, no 2004 US deaths.

There is a big risk with Pro Rally because the sport mixes people on liability releases for the event and civilians who are not on releases.

In road racing, at the club level, everyone at the track--in whatever capacity--is on a release (hopefully).

Regards.

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by joeg:
I think the deaths you refer to in Pro Rally were in 2003.

Thanks. I stand corrected.

Gregg

[Steve Ostrovitz]

Jeff, just checked in here for the first time in a while. Of course its the lawyers' fault! I even had a class in law school titled "How to Ruin The Fun for Everyone". It met right after "The Myth of Personal Responsibility in American Culture". Great stuff!

Gotta run and finish shredding the Constitution before I hit the sack. Just three more Amendments and I'm done for the night!

Steve

Steve

[theracinglawyer]

I read with interest the recent Posts.

To those who want to tear up the Constition, My friend was arrested in canada and wanted Bail. Sorry their laws say you stay till you , you, you , prove you are innocent.America is a great place to live and the Criminal Justice System is part of it's greatness

To those who bash Unions, Before Unions, when a worker, steel mill or Coal miner was killed on the job they threw the body on the back porch and let the widow and all the small kids see it and said I'm sorry. They treated the mules in the mines better than the young breaker boys some as young as 6 years old.The Unions Help Stop that.

It's the Insurance companies who have mega millions who want the preium but don't want to pay pursuant to their contract. they dictate who gets covered and who does not.

Come sit in my office when the injured come in to see me , the parent's of the drunk driver victim, the person hurt when someone was at fault and the accident could have been so easily avoided.

To the non believers I always say DON"T BECOME A VICTIM.

My Blood Boils when I hear the bashing of the things that make America so great.

I'm Proud to be a Trial Lawyer,

------------------
Love "the commander"
Mike Cefalo
BE SAFE GO FAST HAVE FUN

[Quickshoe]

The two Pro Rally drivers that were killed in 2003 were Mark Lovell and Roger Freeman--Team Subaru...legends...Godspeed Mark and Roger.

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by theracinglawyer:
I read with interest the recent Posts.


I'm Proud to be a Trial Lawyer,




Ok so why not work the process like the 99 percent of all workers, work for an hourly rate that is in line with the rest of the high tech or higher education field. Why do you work for a percentage of the take, If I work hard and develop a new process for a customer that saves his/her company a lot of money I don't expect to get 40% of the companies gross. In other countries, the legal profession works on a realistic fixed rate or fixed hourly rate why not here?

The insurance company's roi is based on overall expenses, that includes the cost of settlement fees for cases lost, which includes legal fees.

This is an industry that is definatly broken and needs some fixing.
Tom Blaney

[theracinglawyer]

Tom

Thanks for the response to my triade. Trial lawyers work on a percentage basis because, if they lose You don't have to pay them.

A more important item is costs. Our firm has advanced over $1,000,000 in costs on behalf of clients who could not advance that money with no guarantee of winning.

The money is spent on Doctors depositions which run $4,000 to $5,000, expert witnesses, consultants, Trial exibits, computer animations, Research scientists in Drug recall cases, investigators, photos, If we lose the case we bite the bullet and absorb the lost money.We have lost $300,000 in some cases. On more thing the costs are not deduuctible as an expense, the IRS considers them as a loan to your client so the money advanced is after tax dollars. We pay 40% in taxes on the money we advance.

Contingent Fees are the poor mans key to the Court House, without them you would not have justice. Take the widow with three small children who has no money and just lost her husband to a drunk driver and expect her to come up with money for costs and an hourly rate for a lawyer. The Drunk driver and the insurance company gets off and the widow and the kids suffer.She doesn't know where she is going to get her next meal let alone money for a Lawyer. There are a ton of snior citizens who have been wronged, you can't expect these people who live on fixed income to spend their rent money from Social Security on a lawyer.

By the way recently I was awarded the Pennsylvania Bar Association Pro Bono Award for free legal services I provide to people who could not afford a lawyer. Of all the Professional Awards I have received in My years as a trial lawyer, it is the one I am the proudest of.

All Lawyers are not the ones you read about, Greedy,Selfish,unethical. There a lot of great Lawyers you just have to look for them.


------------------
Love "the commander"
Mike Cefalo
BE SAFE GO FAST HAVE FUN

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by theracinglawyer:
Tom


All Lawyers are not the ones you read about, Greedy,Selfish,unethical. There a lot of great Lawyers you just have to look for them.




You know Mike...of all the words you've written here, these are by far the best.

It's too bad that the industry has...."issues", shall we say.

One of my most respected father figures is a lawyer, albeit not a rich one...



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Steve Ostrovitz]

Well said, Mike.

Just so you know, I was being facetious when I was talking about shredding the Constitution. Our words and stories won't convince the unconvincable, at least not in an Internet forum.

My practice is also litigation based, with a good number of clients coming from the racing ranks, like the autocrosser I just represented who was out of work from his warehouse job for three months after being injured by a hit and run drunk driver. (later arrested and convicted) Or the 19 year old college student I just settled a case for. Kid was opening the driver's door for his girlfriend and was hit by a 3rd offesne drunk driver, thrown 35 feet and left for dead. Knee trouble and visible permanent scars everywhere, but worst of all he had to have a few dozen stitches on that most private of all male places. Neither of these people could afford to hire a plumber, let alone a decent attorney, if they had to pay by the hour.

Steve

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Steve Ostrovitz:
........Neither of these people could afford to hire a plumber, let alone a decent attorney, if they had to pay by the hour.

Steve

Steve...you clearly haven't tried to hire a plumber lately I see! Just getting a call back will cost you!

Ok, I'm being facetious....(Had to use that word now that you've spelled it for me!) ....but it IS a great trade from a $ perspective...although, I imagine it stinks some days more than others...



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[anthony1k]

Pro Rallying under SCCA has been hanging by a thread for years. Finally SCCA has decided to divest from a money loosing activity. The most fundamental problem facing the sport in my opinion is the lack of robust regional series across the country. If rallying is to survive and flourish the new sanctioning body must be creative in ways that will encourage grassroots participation similar to regional road racing.

As far as the argument that somehow lawyers are responsible for all of society’s ills, I just don’t buy it. Corporations and particularly insurance companies are pushing hard for tort reform only out of self-interest. This will translates to lower liability exposure for them but nothing in return for the rest of us. They have also done a masterful job in convincing the American public that all of our problems, including the high cost of medical care, will be somehow solved only if our right to sue in court was taken away or at least severely curtailed. By the way, coffee is supposed to be hot but not so hot as to cause third-degree burns to over 6 percent of someone’s body as it were the case in the infamous McDonald’s lawsuit.

[anthony1k]

Pro Rallying under SCCA has been hanging by a thread for years. Finally SCCA has decided to divest from a money loosing activity. The most fundamental problem facing the sport in my opinion is the lack of robust regional series across the country. If rallying is to survive and flourish the new sanctioning body must be creative in ways that will encourage grassroots participation similar to regional road racing.

As far as the argument that somehow lawyers are responsible for all of society’s ills, I just don’t buy it. Corporations and particularly insurance companies are pushing hard for tort reform only out of self-interest. This will translates to lower liability exposure for them but nothing in return for the rest of us. They have also done a masterful job in convincing the American public that all of our problems, including the high cost of medical care, will be somehow solved only if our right to sue in court was taken away or at least severely curtailed. By the way, coffee is supposed to be hot but not so hot as to cause third-degree burns to over 6 percent of someone’s body as it were the case in the infamous McDonald’s lawsuit.

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by anthony1k:
By the way, coffee is supposed to be hot but not so hot as to cause third-degree burns to over 6 percent of someone’s body as it were the case in the infamous McDonald’s lawsuit.

There's a perfect example of excess, the woman spilled the coffee on herself. The counter person didn't spill it, so when do people take responsibility for their own actions. How about the fool that puts the ladder up in a precarious manner in spite of the warning labels and falls of and breaks his butt. Was it the fault of the manufacturer that that dope misused the product. Does that justify the dope and their lawyers getting millions of dollars for acting improperly.

I hear the plea's about the drunk driver, and perhaps some of them are valid, but the legal profession seems to bring up those cases when the halls of justice are filled with judgements where the individual should take responsibility for themselves and that the lawyers should take the high road and not make a gold mine out of a mole hill.

[gsbaker]

Loser pays, or a bond version of same, solves the abuse problem.

Gregg

[anthony1k]

Tom,
My point is that what gets reported in the media is slanted and often just plain wrong. The McDonalds case was the perfect example. Here are the fact of this case if you're interested. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Anthony

[RSTPerformance]

Originally posted by anthony1k:
Tom,
My point is that what gets reported in the media is slanted and often just plain wrong. The McDonalds case was the perfect example. Here are the fact of this case if you're interested. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Anthony

I hope that Stella Liebeck and her lawyers feel awefull about this terrible abuse to our criminal system. I can't beleive people try to do that crap! She is the idiot certainly not McDonalds. I agree with Tom, People need to take responsiblity for there actions. Hopefully lawyers like this will suffer at some point for there unethical greed. I could understand a hospital bill being paid for and that is it. I never have understood the punitive damagaes. Why would she deserve them. If she deserved anything it would have been her 3 or 4 days of lost work if she actually had a job. $20,000 for medical seems like the doctor was probably a scam as well.

Stephen

I do think Lawyers should be on a % if they win but it should be capped so that they do not earn more than 1500 per week on a case. This would hopefully keep the outragiuos unethical suits to a minuimum.

[sccaflagger74]

I also thought that Stella was the moron in the McDonalds case until I read the facts about it several years ago after arguing with someone about it. There is no reason for coffee to be so hot that it causes 3rd degree burns. They knew it was too hot, had over 700 reports of burns due to the coffee but still did nothing about it.

The more I read the more I am against any plan to legally limit settlement amounts.

Regards,

Bob Lindenmuth
F&C guy
-not a lawyer
-but my sister is a law librarian!
-and I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once

edited to fix spelling

[This message has been edited by sccaflagger74 (edited October 12, 2004).]

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by anthony1k:
Tom,
My point is that what gets reported in the media is slanted and often just plain wrong. The McDonalds case was the perfect example. Here are the fact of this case if you're interested. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Anthony

Ok I just read the journal, and it still comes down to personal responsiblity doesn't it. The 78 year old woman had the cup between her knees so she can add condiments. McDonald's didn't tell her to do that, the driver hits the brakes so she can add the condiments, MickieD didn't tell him to do that either. She was wearing sweat pants that would absorb liquids, again not MickieD. A reminder on the coffee cup versus a warning. The woman was 78 do you think she never had a hot cup of coffee before or burned herself on the stove....

As before the dope falls off the ladder because of his stupidity, the woman is riding in a moving car with a cup of hot coffee between her knees because of her stupidity. Not because I want my coffee hot when I get to drink it at work sitting at a desk, list most intelligent people.

Frivilous misuse of the US Constitution.

[Steve Ostrovitz]

Jake, last time I had my plumber out to the house to give an estimate on something he showed up after hours in his brand new Jag wearing what I guess had to be a $2000 suit. I definately went into the wrong business.

About the McDonald's case: How anyone can read the *facts* and come away with the conclusion that it was mostly her own damn fault (which, by the way, the jury agreed she was 20% responsible anyway) escapes me. I mean, did you really *read* what happened? 700 complants. Admissions all around that beverages that hot were *dangerous*. Clear evidence the defendant knew all of this but still acted negligently. etc... Personal responsibilty? Absolutely. The jury spoke on that. How about corporate responsibilty? The woman was burned on her inner thighs and genitalia. No reasonable person who ever put a hot drink between their legs would expect to suffer debilitating burns if it spilled. But 700 prior warnings didn't seem to be enough for McD's that trouble was, as it seems, ...brewing.

Putting political issues aside, chew on this:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...0.mencimer.html (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.mencimer.html)

The American system of justice is not perfect, but its far and away the best in the world. It's like any endevour run by human beings: flawed. But at over 200 years old and still evolving, its the oldest continuous modern legal system in the world. As an attorney and college professor I've studied them all in depth: The French inquisatorial system, The Chinese socialist legal system, and Shari'a, as used in Saudi Arabia to name a few. You'd be sick if you saw how they handled such things, never mind *criminal* law. I hope none of you ever end up in an attorney's office because a tragedy has befallen you or a loved one becuase they were harmed by another. But God forbid it does, I doubt you'll have a crisis of conscience about whether or not seeking civilized relief from the courts is wrong.

Now, I'm going back under the hood of my truck. If I screw that up, I suppose I can sue myself http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Steve

[JohnRW]

http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/cat_p...onsibility.html (http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/cat_personal_responsibility.html)

[JohnRW]

http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/cat_product.html

[joeg]

Steve--Is the Shari'a the "blood money equivalent" for the "eye for an eye" deal?

My sister and brother-in-law worked there for over a decade and their stories about accidents and dispute resolutions are amazing.

[ITZ34]

I hope Mike and Steve aren't on the clock billing a client while they're on this site during office hours.

Dave Ciufo

[SamITC85]

Just to set the record straight I was using the McDonalds, case as an example(I guess not a good one) What I was trying to say is that there are good lawyers and bad lawyers, and unfortunatley the bad lawyers are the ones who make the names for the good ones. The same could probably said for any profession. Like someone said you just need to go out and find the good ones.

------------------
Sam Rolfe
TBR Motorsports
#85 ITC VW Rabbit being converted to LPHP
#85 GP Scirocco

[therooster]

"Stephen, I do think Lawyers should be on a % if they win but it should be capped so that they do not earn more than 1500 per week on a case. This would hopefully keep the outragiuos unethical suits to a minuimum. :"

Stephen, come to a court and watch what happens. If you say $1500 per week(less than a good attorney in the Boston area by the way), they would continue the case for ever, as there is no incentive to settle the suit. Especially if the lawyer is really bad. As for the %, this encourages them to get as much as they can as quick as they can.

BTW: Have you ever been envolved in a civil suit? It is so much worse then a criminal procedure. It take much longer and all of your propery is at stake, instead of your liberty.

PS I am not an attorney, just someone who works everyday in a court and has an interest.

Chris

[therooster]

Burp

[This message has been edited by therooster (edited October 12, 2004).]

[therooster]

Double Post

[theracinglawyer]

I have hear a lot of sides of the MacDonald's case. The Facts are undisputed but the dynamics are sometimes lost in the story.

Several years ago I had a long talk with the lawyer who represented MacDonalds. She said MacDonalds was lucky with the case, the jury according to her was ready to award more than they did when some MacDonalds witness said they were not going to lower the temperature of the hot coffee no matter what.. Well the Jury award was the exact amount of Profit MacDonalds makes on coffee in a single day.

I'm not sure what that means I only point it out as a side lite.

------------------
Love "the commander"
Mike Cefalo
BE SAFE GO FAST HAVE FUN

[ulfelder]

Given the flavor of McDonald's coffee, I would argue that pouring it on yourself and thus suffering third-degree burns is far preferable to actually drinking it.

Did the McDonald's legal team pursue this line of reasoning during the trial?

[theracinglawyer]

In the trial the taste of coffee came up. Cheap cofee only tasts good when it is scalding HOT. Reasoned that's why MacDonalds had it so hot. Who knows what Jury dynamics went on. Jury deliberations are secret by law, so unless the jury tells you what they discussed , you never know.

------------------
Love "the commander"
Mike Cefalo
BE SAFE GO FAST HAVE FUN

[tdw6974]

Wasn't the awarded amount reduced in the Coffee case???

[theracinglawyer]

The final resolution of the case will never be known. But from the court records.

1. The Jury awarded $200,000 for compensatory Damages, Pain Suffering, disfigurement, medical expenses, etc.The victum was found to be 20% at fault and so that amount was reduced to $160,000.

2. The Jury also awarded $2,700,000 in punitive damaged, usually when they find the conduct of the Defendant is reckless, callous and wilfull.

3. The Judge in a action called a remitter reduced that amount to $480,000, or 3x the compensatory damages.

4. The parties settled in a sealed agreement as far as I know.

We have more important things in America to worry about, that comes on Election Day.

Whatever you choice Please Vote.

Wouldn't you like to be one of the estimated 120,000,000 Americans who vote in the upcoming election. I hope you would.







------------------
Love "the commander"
Mike Cefalo
BE SAFE GO FAST HAVE FUN