Share This Page

Injured Sprint Cup fans explore legal action

| Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2013, 7:33 p.m.
Getty Images
Kyle Larson's car flies into the fence during the NASCAR Nationwide Series race at Daytona International Speedway on Feb. 23, 2013, in Daytona Beach. More than 30 fans were injured by debris. (Getty Images)

ORLANDO, Fla. — The attorney for three NASCAR fans injured last weekend during a race the day before the Daytona 500 said they are exploring a possible lawsuit, but some experts say they could face tough obstacles in winning damages.

Matt Morgan, the Orlando-based lawyer for the fans, said at a news conference Tuesday than any suit would focus on the safety fence used along the track at Daytona International Speedway. He said he hopes to reach a settlement with NASCAR to avoid a lawsuit.

More than 30 people were injured last Saturday after a horrific wreck in a second-tier NASCAR series race sent chunks of debris, including a heavy tire, into the stands.

Morgan declined to provide the identities of his clients but said two of them were seated directly in front of the crash and sustained injuries ranging from a fractured fibula to abdominal swelling. All have been released from the hospital.

Some experts say there could be grounds for a lawsuit and that courts have looked past liability waivers written on the backs of sporting event tickets. Others maintain the ticket is a legal contract that could be hard to overcome in court.

“Ultimately, I believe it would be gross negligence,” Morgan said. “We all know that when you go to a race you assume a certain amount of risk.

“But what people don't assume is that a race car will come flying into the stands. ... That's why they make the fences.”

Asked to comment on the fans' retention of a law firm, NASCAR spokesman David Higdon wrote in a statement, “We are unaware of any lawsuits filed.”

Daytona International Speedway is owned by International Speedway Corp., a NASCAR sister company. Spokesman Andrew Booth said, “As per company policy, we do not comment on pending litigation.”

Donnalynn Darling, a New York-based attorney who has been practicing personal injury law for 30 years, said there is a theory that a spectator who buys tickets to a sporting event assumes the risk of objects coming out of the field of play, such as a foul ball at a baseball game.

But she said there is also a foreseeable risk question that promoters of events also accept.

“Did the sporting event promoter take action to prevent that specific risk?” Darling asked. “In terms of this fence ... it was put up to prevent people from being hurt. You have people who were not only injured by falling debris but by the failure of the fence.”

Others say such restrictive clauses on the back of tickets are generally disfavored by Florida courts.

“If it's just something written on the back of the ticket and not called to the attention of the person purchasing, there's reason to believe many courts in Florida won't hold that they consented efficiently,” said University of Florida emeritus law professor Joseph Little.

Still, Paul Huck, an adjunct professor at the University of Miami School of Law, said contract law could take precedence.

“A ticket to one of these events is like a contract — and its provisions limiting liability are generally enforceable.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.