ILNews

7th Circuit issues U.S. Grand Prix ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Race fans have a reason to watch the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals today.

As the Indianapolis 500 weekend kicks off, the Circuit Court has issued a decision fitting the mood - one involving the notorious U.S. Grand Prix race in 2005. The unanimous decision today comes in Larry Bowers, Alan G. Symons, Carey Johnson, et al. v. Federation Internationale de l'Automobile, Formula One Administration Limited, Indianapolis Motor Speedway Corp., et al.

The ruling affirms a 2006 ruling from U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Baker in Indianapolis - she threw out the 10 class action suits that were consolidated into one action where fans sought punitive damages as well as compensatory damages for ticket costs, travel expenses and food.

Unhappy fans sued following the tire performance mishap two years ago, where all 14 cars running on Michelin tires withdrew from the race.

Judge Barker ruled that the fans had no basis for the lawsuit. "It's to be assumed that the Michelin teams made the decision they believed to be in their best competitive and professional interests, and in doing so, they owed no legal duty to let the preferences of the spectators trump their own good judgment," Judge Barker wrote.

In its 14-page ruling today, the three Circuit judges affirmed the dismissal of breach of contract and tortuous interference, promissory estoppel, and negligence claims.

"But while a six-car race under the Regulations may be less rich, interesting, or challenging than a 12-car race, it is not prohibited or nonsensical under the rules (like a soccer match between three teams or a basketball team getting a first down)," Circuit Judge Richard D. Cudahy wrote. "These rules cannot be interpreted to impose a 'minimum car' requirement. There is no reason to claim, as the plaintiffs in all seriousness do, that no race occurred."

He added that sports fans had to understand in this case that any number of events - such as dangerous track conditions, sudden illnesses, or an accident - could always prevent a driver from participating and that it would be unreasonable to expect otherwise.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT