Tony Stewart purposefully ran someone over?

[iamshack]

Yeah, with the difference is burden of proof, there might actually be some merit to a civil suit if they can prove any kind of issue with Stewart, though again, there will have to some better camera work or eyewitness testimony to prove something.

Well, it's not just that...I think there is a different sort of perspective given to the event given that it occurred within the context of an actual race. The fact that they were under a yellow flag does change things a bit, but it all happened very quickly. The argument would likely be whether the drivers had enough time to adjust their driving and exhibit more control over their vehicles as a result of the yellow caution flag or whether it all happened too quickly. But it's probably not the same standards of "recklessness" that might be evaluated in a normal context, such as driving on the street.

[Jake]

One of the main things will be what other footage is available and, like others said, telemetry data. I think evidence of Stewart accelerating would be a problem, though there are defenses for it. If his line goes toward Ward and he accelerated, he'll be in trouble. We don't know either thing for sure.

 

I wonder if something like contributory negligence, like there is in traffic cases, could come into play here

[iamshack]

Pretty good law journal aricle on the topic of tort liability in the context of a sporting event

[Jenksismyhero]

Where did this happen? New York?

 

In Illinois, that civil case is VERY defensible. The jury would be asked to assess fault between Stewart and Ward. If Ward was determined to be 51% or more at fault, he gets nothing. If it's 50% or below, the judgment gets reduced accordingly.

 

I don't see how a jury could find him 50% or less at fault. He got out of his car and walked straight into the middle of a car race. The car before Stewart's nearly hit him. Without his own negligence, Stewart doesn't have the opportunity to be "negligent." And that's on top of the question of whether Stewart WAS negligent to begin with. It would depend on when he first saw Ward outside of his vehicle. There's certainly no duty to "reduce speed to avoid an accident" while in the middle of a race like that.

 

edit: looks like New York is comparative negligence state, so take the percent of Ward's fault and reduce the judgment. It could be 1% and he's still get it. Although you would still have to prove Stewart did something wrong here.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Kyyle23]

Where did this happen? New York?

 

In Illinois, that civil case is VERY defensible. The jury would be asked to assess fault between Stewart and Ward. If Ward was determined to be 51% or more at fault, he gets nothing. If it's 50% or below, the judgment gets reduced accordingly.

 

I don't see how a jury could find him 50% or less at fault. He got out of his car and walked straight into the middle of a car race. The car before Stewart's nearly hit him. Without his own negligence, Stewart doesn't have the opportunity to be "negligent." And that's on top of the question of whether Stewart WAS negligent to begin with. It would depend on when he first saw Ward outside of his vehicle. There's certainly no duty to "reduce speed to avoid an accident" while in the middle of a race like that.edit: looks like New York is comparative negligence state, so take the percent of Ward's fault and reduce the judgment. It could be 1% and he's still get it. Although you would still have to prove Stewart did something wrong here.

 

Yes there is, the race was under yellow caution flag because of Wards wreck. Regardless, I agree about Wards responsibility to stay away from the race. IMO, there would have to be proof that Stewart intended to scare him or shoot dirt at him, which seems to be damn near impossible without Stewart admitting it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes there is, the race was under yellow caution flag because of Wards wreck. Regardless, I agree about Wards responsibility to stay away from the race. IMO, there would have to be proof that Stewart intended to scare him or shoot dirt at him, which seems to be damn near impossible without Stewart admitting it.

 

Ah ok, I didn't know about the yellow flag.

 

[iamshack]

Where did this happen? New York?

 

In Illinois, that civil case is VERY defensible. The jury would be asked to assess fault between Stewart and Ward. If Ward was determined to be 51% or more at fault, he gets nothing. If it's 50% or below, the judgment gets reduced accordingly.

 

I don't see how a jury could find him 50% or less at fault. He got out of his car and walked straight into the middle of a car race. The car before Stewart's nearly hit him. Without his own negligence, Stewart doesn't have the opportunity to be "negligent." And that's on top of the question of whether Stewart WAS negligent to begin with. It would depend on when he first saw Ward outside of his vehicle. There's certainly no duty to "reduce speed to avoid an accident" while in the middle of a race like that.

 

edit: looks like New York is comparative negligence state, so take the percent of Ward's fault and reduce the judgment. It could be 1% and he's still get it. Although you would still have to prove Stewart did something wrong here.

From the link above:

 

The personal injury action in Nabozny arose from an incident in a soccer game between two amateur teams composed of high-school age players. The plaintiff, Julian Nabozny, was the goalkeeper for one team, and the defendant, David Barnhill, was a forward for the opposing team.2 The rules of soccer ban any player from making contact with a goalkeeper who was in possession of the ball in the penalty area, which is an area in front of the goal where the goalkeeper may touch the ball with his hands.3

 

Several witnesses who testified at trial stated that they saw a teammate pass the ball to Nabozny, who knelt down on one knee, grabbed the ball with his hands, and pulled it into his chest. Nabozny was in the penalty area at the time.4 Barnhill, who had been running toward the ball, approached Nabozny and kicked him in the left side of his head, injuring him. Several witnesses testified that Barnhill could have avoided contact with Nabozny.5 After Nabozny presented his case, the trial court granted Barnhill’s motion for a directed verdict.

 

The First District Appellate Court reversed. The court stated that it believed "that the law should not place unreasonable burdens on the free and vigorous participation in sports by our youth."6 It went on to state, however, that "organized, athletic competition does not exist in a vacuum"and "some of the restraints of civilization must accompany every athlete on the playing field."7 Stating that "a reckless disregard for the safety of others cannot be tolerated," the court held that a player in an athletic contest has a duty to other players to refrain from conduct that violates rules that are designed to protect participants from serious injury.8 The court further held that "a player is liable for injury in a tort action if his conduct is such that it is either deliberate, wilful or with a reckless disregard for the safety of the other player so as to cause injury to that player."9

 

One would think Ward violated a rule in exiting his vehicle, walking onto the track, pointing and seeking a confrontation with moving vehicles, presumably Stewart in this case. Such a rule would be designed to protect participants (namely Ward, but other drivers as well) from serious injury.

 

One could also claim that Stewart's action was deliberate, willful, or with a reckless disregard for the safety of Ward so as to cause injury to Ward...however, that is much more difficult to prove given what we know today.

 

So given what we know today, the case might actually be stronger against Ward (as a posthumous defendant) than for Ward (as a posthumous plaintiff).

[LittleHurt05]

If Stewart is really worth as much money as it seems, wouldn't it make the most sense to him for an out of court settlement? Give the family a few million and not let them talk about it anymore.

 

Even if a civil court found him 100% not liable, he will have a negative light shined upon him from the public court of opinion, so a settlement wouldn't make things worse.

[iamshack]

If Stewart is really worth as much money as it seems, wouldn't it make the most sense to him for an out of court settlement? Give the family a few million and not let them talk about it anymore.

 

Even if a civil court found him 100% not liable, he will have a negative light shined upon him from the public court of opinion, so a settlement wouldn't make things worse.

Yeah, possibly...although the racing circuits might have something to say about it...they don't want to go down the road of having suits like this filed because it damages their sport.

[Goober]

http://jalopnik.com/this-is-the-view-from-...-car-1620047682

Still, he said: "I seen Kevin clear as day. Nobody else ran into him, either."

[Dick Allen]

http://jalopnik.com/this-is-the-view-from-...-car-1620047682

Still, he said: "I seen Kevin clear as day. Nobody else ran into him, either."

Stewart really didn't run into him either until he excelerated and his back end spun into him. He either has the worst timing of all time, is an utterly incompetent driver, or wanted to show the guy pulling a Tony Stewart on Tony Stewart who the boss was.

[Goober]

Stewart really didn't run into him either until he excelerated and his back end spun into him. He either has the worst timing of all time, is an utterly incompetent driver, or wanted to show the guy pulling a Tony Stewart on Tony Stewart who the boss was.

Yeah imo Stewart obviously was trying to f*** with the guy and it sure did backfire. No-one will ever be able to prove it with all the excuses of poor lighting, visibility, dirt track that's hard to control, and Tony will never admit it. But I think he knew what he was doing, didn't mean for it to kill the guy obviously, but he'll have to live with knowing that the rest of his life, so that is probably punishment enough

[Balta1701]

Yeah imo Stewart obviously was trying to f*** with the guy and it sure did backfire. No-one will ever be able to prove it with all the excuses of poor lighting, visibility, dirt track that's hard to control, and Tony will never admit it. But I think he knew what he was doing, didn't mean for it to kill the guy obviously, but he'll have to live with knowing that the rest of his life, so that is probably punishment enough

Again, it's been stated that a common thing drivers do during a confrontation such as that will be to accelerate away from the confrontation to prevent it from escalating. You may well be right but this entire thread ought to demonstrate that it's certainly not "obvious".

[harfman77]

Why is Tony Stewart still racing on dirt tracks, that is my question in all of this.

 

I know little about auto racing but what is the difference in that and Kane playing hockey in a church league?

 

Its really a passion of his, its a hobby, and it means a lot to those small town dirt tracks that they can promote having a Sprint Cup level driver at their track. The sprint cars are not really like any other cars, they get so much lift that they are almost hovering on the track, especially a dirt track, which is why it is common for a car to fishtail when it is rapidly accelerated.

 

The kid had no business being on the track. Yes, his car was spun around as happens in racing quite often, but running into the middle of traffic was not going to rectify the situation.

 

From the video, it looked to me as if Stewart was following the first car around and didn't see the other driver until the front car broke to the bottom of the track, at that point it looked like he sped up to get around Ward to avoid an altercation on the track and when he accelerated his right rear tire caught Ward. What I could not see is what Ward did when Stewart tried to break to the bottom, did he run after him and put himself in a danger zone or did he keep his distance knowing the way that sprint cars handle very loosely on dirt tracks? You can not really tell from the angle of the video.

 

In almost all racing venues you are discouraged from ever leaving the protection of your car on the track, unless there is some imminent danger - such as the car being on fire, until the safety crew arrives.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Again, it's been stated that a common thing drivers do during a confrontation such as that will be to accelerate away from the confrontation to prevent it from escalating. You may well be right but this entire thread ought to demonstrate that it's certainly not "obvious".

 

"What happens when you hit that throttle is the car is going to move to the right . . . Stewart had to know that if he hit the throttle with a man standing on the dirt to his right, there was a good chance the car would hit him, which means there's a good chance he could be killed," Becker said Fox Sports 1.

[iamshack]

"What happens when you hit that throttle is the car is going to move to the right . . . Stewart had to know that if he hit the throttle with a man standing on the dirt to his right, there was a good chance the car would hit him, which means there's a good chance he could be killed," Becker said Fox Sports 1.

It's obvious you have a pretty clear agenda here...we get it...you think Stewart is at fault.

[Goober]

You don't really needed to accelerate to get away from the confrontation, he is in a car, in less than a second he will be yards past him and the confrontation can't escalate. If the kid had a rocket launcher, then yeah accelerate to get away but otherwise there is no valid

need that I can think of

[iamshack]

You don't really needed to accelerate to get away from the confrontation, he is in a car, in less than a second he will be yards past him and the confrontation can't escalate. If the kid had a rocket launcher, then yeah accelerate to get away but otherwise there is no valid

need that I can think of

Well accelerating allows you to regain some control of the vehicle.

 

If he was sliding right already, he may have tried to accelerate to move past him instead of sliding directly into him (obviously this didn't work out too well).

 

Think about if you've ever been sliding on snow or mud towards a parked car or other object. Accelerating allows you to potentially move past it by adjusting your line, instead of sliding directly into it.

Edited August 12, 2014 by iamshack

[harfman77]

You don't really needed to accelerate to get away from the confrontation, he is in a car, in less than a second he will be yards past him and the confrontation can't escalate. If the kid had a rocket launcher, then yeah accelerate to get away but otherwise there is no valid

need that I can think of

 

It is a pretty common practice in those types of situations. He would have no desire to stop get in a fight and be DQ'ed. While they were under a yellow flag, the race was still going, the yellow flag is not a pause button and if he stops and gets lapped in takes him out of contention. I am sure he had no idea that the kid was going to thrust himself into harms way the way that he did.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Except all of these explanations don't matter one bit in the court of public opinion, which formed pretty instantly in the 24 hours after they heard about the incident or saw the footage...it's going to be quite difficult to change anyone's opinion...either way.

 

 

Surprisingly, most people that I've talked to agree with me that the kid shouldn't have been on the track and that Stewart isn't culpable. Maybe I just don't associate with idiots.

[caulfield12]

Surprisingly, most people that I've talked to agree with me that the kid shouldn't have been on the track and that Stewart isn't culpable. Maybe I just don't associate with idiots.

 

 

If the NASCAR equivalent of Thome/Konerko/Dye was driving, it would be a non-issue, he'd get the benefit of the doubt and everyone would be be feeling sorrier for the driver and his family.

 

Because Tony Stewart is more or less AJ Pierzynski/Bryce Harper/Yasiel Puig rolled into one, it's not so cut-and-dried for many.

[Dick Allen]

If the NASCAR equivalent of Thome/Konerko/Dye was driving, it would be a non-issue, he'd get the benefit of the doubt and everyone would be be feeling sorrier for the driver and his family.

 

Because Tony Stewart is more or less AJ Pierzynski/Bryce Harper/Yasiel Puig rolled into one, it's not so cut-and-dried for many.

What I think it is a guy hits a homer showboats around the bases next time up is leaning over the plate pitcher decides to buzz him and winds up hitting him in the head and killing him.

[ptatc]

Surprisingly, most people that I've talked to agree with me that the kid shouldn't have been on the track and that Stewart isn't culpable. Maybe I just don't associate with idiots.

Or at least people who don't follow racing. While he should not have been out there, it happens all the time. Stewart is only culpable from the fact that he should have missed him. Out of all the times racers have gone on the track to yell at another driver, this is the only time a driver has been hit.

[StrangeSox]

Or at least people who don't follow racing. While he should not have been out there, it happens all the time. Stewart is only culpable from the fact that he should have missed him. Out of all the times racers have gone on the track to yell at another driver, this is the only time a driver has been hit.

The problem I have with this is that another driver was barely able to miss Ward after he ran out into the middle of track. Ward still kept coming after that close call.

[ptatc]

The problem I have with this is that another driver was barely able to miss Ward after he ran out into the middle of track. Ward still kept coming after that close call.

But the key is barely. Everyone else except the guy involved in the confrontation was able to miss him. Granted this is why nothing can be proven and why there will be no criminal charges however, in the racing world everyone knows what happened.