Loew's Speedway Facing Suits Over Walkway Crash

Lowe's Speedway Could Face Lawsuits Over Walkway Tragedy

Track won't pay medical bills yet; negligence and maybe strict liability claims may be filed

Charlotte, North Carolina, May 24, 2000 -- The legal reverberations resulting from the collapse of a pedestrian walkway at the Lowe's Motor Speedway are beginning. Lawyers for the victims are retaining lawyers, while the management of the race track won't commit to any payments.

The legal maneuvering is a result of the crash of the walkway, which injured more than 100 people after the conclusion of a race. According to the Atlanta Constitution, officials say the track hasn't decided whether it will pay the medical bills of the victims pending an investigation of the cause.

After the accident, local bridge inspectors noticed that crucial steel cables had corroded inside the bridge after examining the collapsed section An engineer was quoted in the Charlotte Observer as saying: "It's still very early, but my initial reaction is that these cables were exposed to moisture and they became corroded. That would have weakened the bridge." The investigation now will center around why the steel corroded.

The accident marks the third consecutive year in which speedway fans died or were injured in accidents. Two years ago, four patrons died when their helicopter crashed after leaving the Coca-Cola 600, and last year, three fans were killed at LMS when a tire spun off a car at an IRL race. [click here]

Suing the Speedway and the Engineers

The victims could sue both the speedway, which maintained the walkway, and the engineering firm which built it for negligence. The key allegation is that the defendants acted below a standard of reasonable care in either the construction and maintenance of the walkway. Negligence is the common area of tort law and most suit are based on the concept. While it stands to reason that the speedway is responsible for the facilities on its property, the case with the engineering firm may not be as easy. A key issue would be the involvement of the engineering firm in the maintenance of the property. The walkway was four years old -- not a very short period of time. If the engineers had no involvement in the subsequent care, it may be more difficult to pin liability on them.

An alternative theory for the victims would be strict liability [click here] a concept that imposes liability without any fault. This is used for "ultrahazardous activities" such as pollution and rock blasting and for certain types of products. Despite the seeming ease of proof, it is actually difficult to apply strict liability in many tort cases. In this case, some evidence of defective design or warning would have to be determined, something not always easy.

But it is likely that some settlements will be made.