Sponsor liabilities (dangerous sporting events)

[pdisme]

Just curious if anyone knows what legal liabilities a sponsor of sports assumes, if any? I'm primarily interested in motorsports but the same issues apply to any dangerous sport where the actions of a participant run the risk of harming a competitor or bystander. So for example, manufacturer so and so sponsors a NASCAR driver and the driver makes a mistake that sends the car into the stands and kills someone.

I'm assuming sponsors are either charged a fee or, at lower levels, maybe they're sent copies of invoices the team has incurred and the sponsor reimburses the team in that amount. In either case, I would not think the person who got injured would be able to go after the sponsors right? A participant in a dangerous sport assumes the risks by playing, although I'm not sure if spectators at major sporting events like nascar races have to sign a liability waiver? I know at the small stuff like the track and race events I go to, everyone signs a waiver before they can get into the paddock/grandstand areas.

What lead to this is someone who was asking about contributing a small amount to my soon to be racing efforts in return for logo on the car, but he was thinking out loud about if he'd run the risk of having someone come after him if I got in a wreck through a fault of my own and someone else got injured?

[gday]

Any connection makes for a potential problem. I'd be surprised if some cheap insurance could not be found - even to protect yourself from hitting an innocent bystander for example.

However, normally these things are based on how much control the sponsor had over things. In the case of them giving you some cash in return for a logo, they probably have no control and thus very little if any exposure.

If the sponsor is the one holding the event, then the exposure could be great. "Owner & Sponsor Insurance" deals with just this.

-mick

[pdisme]

I've got a general liability policy on myself for several million just to be safe. I think I'll put together a contract that explicitly states the sponsor has no input into the operation and maintaining of the car and is receiving nothing more than a logo in return for their agreeing to pay some of the bills. Between that and the liability waivers all the drivers and spectators have to sign to even be present, I think everyone would be protected.

[gday]

To add a little bit more regarding waivers, as a participant or instructor in various high speed/risk activities like skydiving, motorcycle racing etc I've always viewed waivers as a release of basic negligence but never of gross negligence. Even the California supreme court ruled along these lines in recent times. The point is that even the most tightly written waivers can be penetrated given a certain degree of bad shit going on.

One of the most extreme waivers I've dealt with involved me watching a video of a morgue and cemetary and then reciting a paragraph to video along with the video of me signing - skydiving related.

-mick

[pdisme]

Right, if I tried to save money by not having a proper mechanic prep the car and check it after every on-track session, or if I drove in an unsafe manner, I can see the issue; I'll be on my best behavior and my car is maintained by an expert so I don't have to deal with it. :)

How was sky diving by the way? I've got a gift cert for two jumps from a previous birthday but haven't used it yet.

[Lasombra52]

My father in laws business does sponsor someone that does races for SCCA. He pays for a logo on the car. If the driver totals the car or something, they do not go after him for anything, it wasn't his fault that the car was wrecked. The driver has never hurt anyone else, so I don't know about liability to persons hurt, I just know that they don't charge him for fixing the car if the driver damages it. Maybe I read your first post wrong. (Completely possible)

[pdisme]

^Yes, I'm talking about someone coming after one of my sponsors if I were to make a mistake or have a failure that resulted in someone being hurt, racer or spectator.

[gday]

How was sky diving by the way? I've got a gift cert for two jumps from a previous birthday but haven't used it yet.You have to do it. I skydived every weekend for about 10 years in multiple countries. Held instructor ratings and competed on a regular basis and have more than a few good stories to tell ie "no shit, there I was, thought I was going to die......". I still say I'm on an extended sabbatical - never officially quit. Have recently been discussing taking it back up.....

-mick

[pdisme]

Yeah, it's really just been a time issue; I wake up on Saturday and if I'm not hung over, I say hmm, I can go karting or I can go strap myself to some dude for a tandem jump... karting it is. :) But I do intend on using them, I can't remember how many jumps you need before you can solo, not that I would be interested in rushing it since that's a good way to make an early exit. A friend of mine flies the jump plane for one of the near-by places so I told him I'd probably be more inclined to jump off the plane if I go on a day he's flying since I know he can't see worth a damn. :lol2:

[gday]

I can't remember how many jumps you need before you can solo, not that I would be interested in rushing it since that's a good way to make an early exit./Its a minimum of 7 beyond the tandem - but likely more. Frequency makes a big difference.

-mick

[AgentTripleX]

Every time I've gone to the race track, whether I'm a participant in my own car, a passenger in someone's car, or just walking around I've had to sign a waiver to release them of liability.

[artherd]

Those waivers aren't worth the paper they're printed on. (beyond goodwill in court to say "hey, we warned you so don't come after us mcdonalds style")

You may not waive your right to have someone else not be grossly negligent, period.

That said, a sponsor has no control, therefore next to no liability. Consult an attorney, but when Jeff Retard crashes into 3 kids, they don't sue Nextel, they sue Jeff Retard. (and possibly the track for not providing good crash barriers. And possibly Porsche for not putting traction control into the CGT. No I'm not kidding. http://www.pcars.us/about3087.html

[pdisme]

That said, a sponsor has no control, therefore next to no liability. Consult an attorney, but when Jeff Retard crashes into 3 kids, they don't sue Nextel, they sue Jeff Retard. (and possibly the track for not providing good crash barriers. And possibly Porsche for not putting traction control into the CGT. No I'm not kidding. http://www.pcars.us/about3087.html

I remember that case but I didn't realize it had finally been settled. Sounds to me like the two negligent acts were the event staff waiving someone on track at a very inopportune time and the track being set up i a way that cars coming on track just pop in without warning. Kids are just as likely to wreck Honda Civics every day by driving them stupidly and not having traction control as someone with a lot of experience is to wreck a CGT when driven at the edge, it's not Porsche's fault someone drove the car in the intended environment but either beyond their abilities or on a track with a dangerous setup.

The track setup does sound stupid though, every track event I've done has fortunately had very experienced flag crews and they knew which drivers were novices and left very wide gaps in traffic before waiving them on so they'd never get on-line at a point where a fast driver would not have a lot of notice. Every track I've driven at that has had pit-out on a straight has done so in a way that there's a lot of visibility for the drivers coming down the straight. I don't think there's an issue with having moved the wall though, some tracks don't even have runoff areas, just walls on each side, so drive in an appropriate manner for those conditions.

[artherd]

I couldn't agree more, look at sears point, NO runoff at all to speak of.

The only act here with proximate cause in my opinion was waiving the (slow) ferrari out infront of the CGT, and possibly poor pit in/out locations. (they should be off-line in a turn, it's a track day not a Grand Prix).

The fact that Porsche was even named much less paid out sickens me. Learn how to fucking drive.

[pdisme]

The fact that Porsche was even named much less paid out sickens me. Learn how to fucking drive.

Unfortunately they likely looked at it from a financial perspective; 2% of 4.5 mil is $90k; would have cost much more to take it to trial.

I want a CGT now, I can wreck it and blame it on not having traction control. :lol2:

[artherd]

Unfortunately they likely looked at it from a financial perspective; 2% of 4.5 mil is $90k; would have cost much more to take it to trial.
Yes, getting out like that WAS cheap. They also avoided any possibility of actual negative adjudication. It still stinks.

I want a CGT now, I can wreck it and blame it on not having traction control. :lol2:

Since this was a settlement not a verdict, you can't. It still sets VERY dangerous precedent!

[eshaun]

... Learn how to fucking drive.

Unfortunately there is no substitute.