Race tracks are some of the few places in the country where you can enjoy your car to the fullest without fear of consequences. But they’re also dangerous places. With no speed limits, no road markings, and no traffic lines, it’s up to drivers to know how to navigate a race track safely. All it takes is a quick YouTube search to see that not everyone can handle the privilege without causing a huge accident.
By all accounts, Artin Nazaryan and Akihiro Fuchigami, the owners of a pair of imported Nissan Skyline GT-Rs, were following the rules of the track when they were stopped on the front straight of WeatherTech Raceway Laguna Seca in California. Flaggers had deployed a track-wide red flag, signaling a dangerous condition on the track, which required all cars in the session to come to a complete stop.
That’s when disaster struck. Videos published to social media show a telehandler (a big type of forklift vehicle) striking the rear of both cars while transporting a bundle of tires, causing serious damage. Now, the two owners are suing the track, the organization that runs the track, and the telehandler operator for negligence.
What Happened, Exactly?
According to the lawsuit, filed on December 16 in the Monterey County Superior Court, the telehandler “proceeded at an unsafe speed for the conditions and the environment,” and did so “without maintaining a safe and clear line of sight ahead and without taking adequate measures to ensure the path of travel was clear,” leading to the collision. From the lawsuit:
The telehandler operator failed to perceive both of Plaintiffs’ stopped vehicles in front of him in sufficient time to avoid a collision.
The telehandler violently collided into the rear of Plaintiff Nazaryan and Fuchigami’s vehicles (“Subject Incident”).
The impact from the telehandler caused substantial force to be transmitted through both Plaintiffs’ vehicles, pushing them forward along the racing surface.
View this post on Instagram
Video published to Instagram earlier this month (above) shows footage of the collision taken from a camera mounted in the rear windscreen of a car parked in the pit lane. It shows the telehandler barrelling into the rear of the red R34 GT-R, which was operated by Nazaryan at the time.
Another angle, taken from the perspective of Fuchigami’s car and published by Nazaryan to Instagram, shows the moments after the initial impact, where the telehandler seems to then strike Fuchigami’s R32 GT-R:
View this post on Instagram
A photo of the R34 published alongside the lawsuit shows the car’s rear end smashed in, its bumper hanging partially, its wing missing, and its rear glass shattered. A photo of the R32 post-incident shows a crunched right rear corner panel, a damaged taillight, and a broken bumper, among other things.
Here’s Exactly What They’re Suing For
Josh Kohanim, a lawyer representing both Nazaryan and Fuchigami, told me over email that the claims against Laguna Seca Raceway, Friends of Laguna Seca (the non-profit that manages the track), and the unnamed telehandler driver include negligence, premises liability, negligent hiring/supervision/retention, vicarious liability, negligence per se, negligent entrustment, and gross negligence. From the lawsuit:
Defendants had the ability to prevent this type of incident by ensuring that heavy equipment was not operated on the racing surface until it could be done safely; by ensuring appropriate communications and confirmations that the track ahead was clear; by using appropriate spotters and/or guidance when operating large equipment with limited forward visibility; and by requiring speed and other operational restrictions.
As a result of the impacts, the lawsuit claims the plaintiffs “sustained life-altering personal injuries,” the full extent of which, according to the filing, is “not yet fully known.”
Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer damages, including, but not limited to, physical injuries, pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, inconvenience, and such other non-economic losses as will be proven at trial.
In addition to covering past and future medical expenses, the lawsuit is asking the defendants to cover past and future loss of earnings and earnings capacity, the cost to repair the cars, and “[f]or general damages according to proof, including but not limited to pain, suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life.”
Where’s Laguna Seca In All Of This?
When asked for comment, a Laguna Seca spokesperson sent over the following statement:
An incident involving a track support vehicle and a racecar occurred at the facility during a privately operated on-track event earlier this month. The track continues to work through the process with diligence and timeliness.
This doesn’t really say much, which is not terribly surprising considering there are lawyers involved. Anything Laguna says to me can be used against it in court, so the less it shares, the better.
While it’s up to a jury to determine what Nazaryan and Fuchigami are owed in this scenario, I’m nonetheless hoping their cars get fixed quickly. Seeing a couple of classic Skylines beat up like that makes me sad, and Nissan’s not making any more of them. So if there’s an opportunity to get them back on the road, I’m all for it.
Top graphic images: Wise Personal Injury & Accident Law
I was a telehandler (skytrack) operator for a while. This was preventable and on the operator to ensure he operated it safely. As such, the track and its insurance should be paying out.
Some of the wording in the lawsuit is a bit ridiculous (although it is presumably standard lawyerese), but the owners of the Skylines deserve to get paid. They went out of their way to enjoy their cool cars in a way that doesn’t endanger or inconvenience anyone else (i.e at a racetrack where they followed the rules) and their cars got wrecked anyway. The racetrack screwed the pooch by hiring and/or not training the dipshit operating the telehandler. I hope the track’s lawyers don’t make this more difficult than it already is.
Apparently the operator wasn’t forklift certified. Hopefully the track or whoever is involved with the track makes them whole. Otherwise I could see jlg getting a frivolous lawsuit for alleged lack of visibility just to pass the blame.
OK so… yeah, I understand that directly in front of him, this guy may not be able to see. But he’s in a wide open stretch of track, in a wide open cage, going somewhat slowly, and knows that there are participating cars present at the track that day.
Someone please explain to me how this person should even need a spotter to just NOT HIT A CAR? Couldn’t you, at the very least, stop the thing for a moment and step out to make sure that there are no cars before you continue down a strait stretch of the track at a slow speed? Heck, he probably could have just leaned his head to the left a little bit and seen the shiny red thing.
I drive a telehandler regularly. The load can definitely block your vision. You can lift the load higher for visibility, turn left or right to see around it, or like you said, even stop and open a door. If you cannot see ahead, that doesn’t give you the right to proceed blindly.
General practice seems to be to wigwag left and right to see what’s in front of you if you can’t see around the load and don’t have a spotter.
Lifting vehicles can be much heavier than they look, because they often carry large counterweights.
So, at a red-flagged event someone thought it’s not safe for cars but somehow safe for the telehandler to meander around on the track?
I remember an incident at Houston Grand Prix where a Security supervisor ran across the track while HOT. Training is a very important part everywhere including public/private venues. It seems it’s always the first to be cut or limited in the sake of profit.
“Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer damages, including, but not limited to, physical injuries, pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish…”
I wanted to smirk and make a comment about how a little fender bender caused physical injuries to a helmet-wearing driver in a car equipped with roll structures and five point harness. But then I saw the video. That’s a pretty good whack and there needs to be an explanation for how the forklift rammed a bright red car on sunny day on a straightaway.
The emotional distress and anguish part, though? Get outta here with that nonsense.
I mean, both these guys had a really shitty day because of this, and now they have to go through the time-consuming, stressful, and annoying process of dealing with lawyers, insurance, etc, to try to get this squared back up. This is just the lawyer speak version of getting back some kind of restitution from the party that caused all that.
Sure, there are lawsuits where emotional distress and mental anguish may arguably be taken further than they should, but I’m all for these guys getting something for all this trouble considering none of this was their fault. It’s not nonsense to want the offending party to make some restitution for time and annoyance.
Moreover, I can’t imagine the time to restore an R-34 GTR in the United States. You need the time of a specialist shop (they may be busy and not have time for you any time soon) who knows them well, you need to get the parts which may have to literally come from Japan, etc.
The time to repair that car properly is non-trivial. Huge amount of calendar time, plus all the work and effort of the owners to get it done, done right, and to keep costs in check rather than “blank checking” it.
EDIT: Heck with “shop.” Shops. You’re probably dealing with a minimum of four, as you have mechanical work, you potentially have structural work, you have body work, and you may have detailing.
Not to mention that making the track pay is the best way to prevent this in the future. If you can save more money cutting corners than you spend on the lawsuit, most places will keep cutting those corners. This feels like a significant number of errors–I’d wonder whether the equipment operator was properly trained and certified, who decided that navigating the occupied track was the right move, whether there should have been a spotter, whether someone should have been radioing a stop work order before the accident, and whether the track had policies in place around all of these things (and whether there was a history of skirting those policies).
In addition to mental anguish (and I’d think people here would understand seeking compensation for seeing a special car smashed up and being without it for some time), I’d want to seek punitive damages and/or significant corrections (if allowable) to the way the track operates, just to prevent future occurrences. (I am not an attorney, nor am I familiar with California tort, so I’d also assume the attorney drafting these motions is already going for everything possible in an attempt to make sure a fair settlement/verdict is reached.)
“This is just the lawyer speak version of getting back some kind of restitution”
Fair enough. I would have thought this could be achieved through language that doesn’t read like gross exaggeration but law isn’t my field and I’ve never needed to sue anyone. There’s certainly no argument from me on who is to blame for negligence here.
I know you mean legal consequences, but this funny to me, essentially reading that the danger is not a consequence of the speed, but completely unrelated danger, like all tracks are built where there are dangerous animals and quicksand for some reason. Or, I guess, like this instance, where the danger was not the cars that were supposed to be going fast.