Tony Stewart Case Goes to Grand Jury

[1930fordpickup]

At no point do I think that the two people involved wanted the outcome to be what it was. Both sides were at fault ,

There have been some great points posted here on this subject.

I have a few questions that will come up in a civil trial .

We all agree that the Twenty year old kid should have been smart enough to know not to get out of his car and walk on the track.

So why is a guy that won a championship racing against adults the same year the Dumb Kid was born not smart enough to hit the brakes( yes sprint cars have brakes that should work at 25-35 MPH just fine) or swerve to avoid the kid? This is a man with talent through the roof, he can drive anything he has that much talent. But on this night he did not act on any of it.

The dark track comments are silly , if you can drive a car at over 100 MPH just 20 seconds before the death happened then you could have seen the kid on the track. If the visibility was so bad why was the race not called before it happened? Sprint cars have never had head lights .

Why did Tony not drive at the bottom of the track as the driver always do during a caution at our local track?

Again I think this was an accident , I do not think anything that happened was intentional.

[johnbuzzed]

Going by that, couldn't the family sue any other racer for racing with him, the man who sold him the marijuana thus impairing his judgement, or the manufacturer or his car for allowing him to actually participate in the race?

I've heard of people suing gun companies for someone getting shot before, so it isn't too far-fetched. If people want money bad enough, they'll go down every stupid avenue they can with their pursuits before it's exhausted.

Many years ago (1979), I was on a civil suit jury in which someone was injured while using a mower sold by a large department store. The suit not only hit the store but also the manufacturers of the mower, engine and engine controls.

(edited to correct mispellings...)

Edited October 6, 2014 by johnbuzzed

[Psychographic]

Many years ago (1979), I was on a civil suit jury in which someone was injured while using a mower sold by a lrge department store. The suit no tonly hit the store but also the manufacturers of the mower, engine and engine controls.

I remember reading the reason they go after everyone associated, is because a lawyer was sued by his client when they lost a case for not going after everyone who had anything to do with the product involved with the case. The client found another lawyer who sued the first one. I don't know if this is true (it must be, it was on the internet!). This set a precedent for all future cases.

Judging by how screwed up our judicial system is, it's easy to believe.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Psychographic

[johnbuzzed]

At no point do I think that the two people involved wanted the outcome to be what it was. Both sides were at fault ,

There have been some great points posted here on this subject.

I have a few questions that will come up in a civil trial .

We all agree that the Twenty year old kid should have been smart enough to know not to get out of his car and walk on the track.

So why is a guy that won a championship racing against adults the same year the Dumb Kid was born not smart enough to hit the brakes( yes sprint cars have brakes that should work at 25-35 MPH just fine) or swerve to avoid the kid? This is a man with talent through the roof, he can drive anything he has that much talent. But on this night he did not act on any of it.

The dark track comments are silly , if you can drive a car at over 100 MPH just 20 seconds before the death happened then you could have seen the kid on the track. If the visibility was so bad why was the race not called before it happened? Sprint cars have never had head lights .

Why did Tony not drive at the bottom of the track as the driver always do during a caution at our local track?

Again I think this was an accident , I do not think anything that happened was intentional.

As long as the sanctioning bodies allow it, certain big-name drivers will continue to participate in those races of lesser prestige.

I don't think there is a kid born in the USA who has not been told to not step out into traffic, much less someone who wants to drive a race car and compete against such known luminaries as Tony Stewart. And I don't think it was very smart of that young man to have THC in his system during a race against drivers of ANY capabilities. In today's society, one has to be crazy to get stoned and drive down to 7-11 for some Doritos.

None of us know how we would have reacted in Tony Stewart's shoes that night; we have no idea of what he did or didn't see from in his car to be able to determine that. Still, we might speculate and hope that we might know what to do and to act accordingly, but nature and life have their own ideas.

From the video that I saw, Stewart was driving pretty much on the same line as the few other cars that proceeded his. Ward didn't try to avoid Stewart's car as it approached; we will never know what was going through Ward's mind that caused him to take such obviously stupid action.

Why the race wasn't "called" due to bad visibility has nothing to do with the incident. Accidents do occur during broad daylight during all kinds of auto racing.

Ward's parents are looking for $$$ (for what reason, really- will it help them to mitigate the loss of their son?), and as long as there are greedy, bottom-feeder lawyers and a judicial system that will allow someone to sue because their take-out coffee was too hot, we will have suits such as this.

Edited October 6, 2014 by johnbuzzed

[Tom Geiger]

Many years ago (1979), I was on a civil suit jury in which someone was injured while using a mower sold by a large department store. The suit not only hit the store but also the manufacturers of the mower, engine and engine controls.

It's called "Deep Pocket Syndrome". You sue everyone you can think of. You don't want to go to trial, the goal is that some of these companies will offer a settlement to avoid going to court. A matter of simple economics for them, pay you a few dollars, save the big cost of a trial. It's become an American industry!