Instructor screws up car, who is responsible?

[Mikelly]

Couple of comments here...

 

Mr. Cofee brings up a good point... Does the student hold responsibility for not listening to his instructor? Hard to say. I'd say that getting them to honor it would be hard to prove. Again, the instructor put himself in the situation. My guess is most students would just write it off as part of the "Experience". And wish the instructor well in the hospital.

 

First, If you ASK the instructor to drive your car, it is WELL within YOUR RIGHTS to stipulate a few things. The guy is an instructor... Put him on a leash that makes YOU comfortable... Second, I'd find someone who is more experienced with my particular car, instead of just grabbing an instructor. Sounds like there is ownership by both parties... However, I've been upside down on a track as a student in an instructors car, and as an instructor in a students car (As a passenger) and I see little value in having a student sit in the passenger seat of their own car... I'd always recommend they hop in mine, eliminating the risk all together.

 

I think the instructor has ownership, and I'm not sure why he would see the need to rev fourth so high, and then effectively speed shift into (What should have been..) 5th gear while "Showing" the student the line. However, He did "ASK" the guy to take him around the track... He is a lawyer and will know how to proceed. Litigation may be required, but my guess is the instructor will see how the cards are stacked and work something equitable and fair out.

 

Comment about insurance and ALL companies are different...

My insurance company (Virginia Farm Bureau) told me that as long as it was not a sanctioned "Racing Event" and that I was on the track for drivers instruction, that my cars would be covered 100%. Every insurance carrier is different, but I would NOT take a street driven Zcar to the track without sufficiant coverage. Too many things can happen on a race track, and if this car has millions in sweat equity, and thousands in parts, I'd not put it on the track uninsured, unless of course you could walk away from it without worry of the loss.

 

CHECK YOU HEALTH INSURANCE for clauses... Read the fine print. Friend of mine got injured last January at Jennings GP in Florida. He didn't find out until AFTER his release from the emergancy room that his health coverage through his employer did NOT cover his high side experience on his motorcycle ON TRACK. Clearly stated in a clause in the policy was mention of sky diving, motorcycle riding on closed course, flying aircraft, rock climbing, and about 6 other "Recreational" activities. The high side trashed his R6 (High sided at well over 90mph!) and cost him about $15K in medical expences... DO YOUR homework and READ your policy, especially the fine print!!

 

Mike :shock:

[Pop N Wood]

Who actually has auto insurance that covers a blown transmission?

 

It is not like they hit anything.

 

Car insurance goes witht the vehicle. Loan someone your car and it your insurance that pays for what they did. Believe me I know. IMO the BMW owner is just SOL. But personnally I know I would step up and offer to help correct my mistake.

[Kevin Shasteen]

Interesting thread.

 

I would have to say the outcome depends on a few items. How to proceed, if one were legally going to proceed, depends on the contracts involved: remember that the word "contract" isnt a reference to written contracts only, rather it is also a reference to vebal contracts.

 

The written contracts involved will be those signed by both the instructors and the visiting drivers who have brought along their cars. In these written contracts you will find a slew of "Hold-me-Harmless" agreements. A Hold-me-Harmless agreement is basically a disclaimer to which one or both parties sign and agree to hold each other harmless in the case of damages to property or injuries to persons.

 

The principles of fault involved will first be trumped by these Hold-me-Harmless contracts. If there were no Hold-me-Harmless contracts signed then the only contracts involved would be the "Verbal" contracts made betweent he owner of the BMW and the Instructer.

 

One word about Hold-me-Hamless agreements: if the instructor was covered by the track or a secondary policy of his own for injuries or damages to the track sponsored cars....those policies will always have an exclusionaly clause stating that this policy is not liable for any promisses made by the insured w/out the insurance companies permission. So if the instructor has insurance-w/the exclusionary clause not covering promisses to exposures that are not already covered; and the instructor makes these promises, out of ignorance or not-then the instructor is liable if/when damages arise as a result to his extra-liable/exposures not covered by his insurance.

 

Granted the court/judge/jurors and us common folk would assume that merely by having your car at the track your have assumed all damages to your car will be tuff luck. This principle falls under the "Assumption of Risk" principle. Just like taking your kid to a baseball game and you park your car too close to the diamond-then a foul ball hits your car breaking your windshild. Do you really expect the kid to pay for your glass? No. You assumed the risk by parking your car to close to the diamond-and anyone knows that baseballs brake glass...so dont park so close to the diamond next time.

 

Another principle in insurance is the "Guest Statute". Some states have this statute and some dont. The Guest Statute is a reference to the passenger, or guest, in a car. The guest is always someone who is sitting in any seat other than the driver's seat. How the principle plays out is if the driver of any car is operating their vehicle in such a manner that one, a couple, or all passengers feel the well being of their lives (or their property-as in a car) is in jeopardy "AND SPEAKS UP" requesting the driver to slow down...OR STOP AND LET ME OUT: and the driver refuses to do so-then looses control and injures someone or something, then the driver is at fault and expected to pay any/all damages.

 

Another principle in the finder details of fault is the Care-Custody-Control principle: also known as CCC. CCC involves someone who is given CCC over property that they themselves do not own. Withing this principle comes a duty/responsibility in accepting someone else's property that you not only acknowledge you now have that property in your CCC but that you will also return that property in the same condition or better condition that when you initially accepted it. When combining the operation of automobiles w/the CCC principle, CCC begins when the keys to your car are placed in the hands of someone else with your knowledge and having done so willfully and intentionally. Along w/that "giving of the keys" is a legal binding of what is expected of your car while under the CCC of someone else other than yourself.

 

Another principle in fault is the degree of negligence. Some states differ in how they apply negligence. Some states proclaim that a plaintiff must be less than 50% negligent to file a claim against someone. Other states are No-Fault states meaning each party handles their own damages: if you have no coverage, well-then you are up a creek w/o a paddle. Other states will allow a claim to be filed if the other party is only 1% at fault-but your award will be kept to that 1%. In other words if you are at fault for 30% of the damages you can only file a complaint for 70% damages and not 100%. Or if you were at fault for 40% damamges your complaint could only be for 60%. For clearifications you would need to check w/the rules of your state.

 

So, to racap: if there were no Hold-me-Harmless agreements signed by your friend or the instructor or agreements demanded signed by the track: then the track and the instructor, who are both experts, knew or should've known better and as a result are liable. If it were only that simple

 

In the absence of a written contract we must look at the intent of your friend showing up w/his souped up BMW and look at the scope of the verbal contract between your friend and the instructor when the offer "Take my BMW and show me the line" was made...to which the instruct accepted the offer, "OK come with me".

 

1) What was said

2) What was the verbal contract

3) What was the intent of your friend when he made the offer to the instructor

4) What was the fiduciary duty/responsibility of the instructor within the trust created by the verbal agreement

5) What was the expectation of your friend as a passenger/owner of the car when he made that offer

6) What was said by your friend at the very moment the instructor was going "balls out"

7) Who heard it

8) Can you prove it in court room?

 

Answer those questions and you will have your answer as to what degree of liability lies where.

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)