COVID-19 could affect more races this year.

[Big Tea]

F1 is owned by an American company. So yes.

I think it’s more of a ‘who will blink first’ mentality. The legal liability of mass infections are readily neutered by having fans acknowledge some legalese prior to the event. Even my local homeowners association has covered their ass for the common areas. The part waiting for a blink would be the millions of dollars in fees on the line and who needs to fork (or not) over the money may very well be determined by who cancelled the event (promoter, local government, FIA, Formula 1).

Depending on the jurisdiction, disclaimers are not always sufficient to protect one from negligent actions. Of course negligence is happily argued after the fact in court by expensive lawyers.

You can not sign away your 'duty of care'. Even if disclaimers are signed, if anything seems amiss there will probably be an army of legal bods 'proving' that enough care was not taken and the waver was just an attempt to hoodwink people.

Big companies in particular will give very careful consideration before deciding, or say stay away in a grey tone and hope someone turns up.

[Steven]

I allowed the above posts about media, but this is the end.
Further conversation about media in here will be removed.

Back on topic!

[adrianjordan]

It may also come down to whether European and other governments are willing to accept team members back from the Americas if cases there are still very high.

I think it's safe to say that Brazil won't happen. Mexico might, there doesn't seem to be as much in the media about their figures. USA probably could, but with no fans at the circuit.

[e30ernest]

I think it’s more of a ‘who will blink first’ mentality. The legal liability of mass infections are readily neutered by having fans acknowledge some legalese prior to the event. Even my local homeowners association has covered their ass for the common areas. The part waiting for a blink would be the millions of dollars in fees on the line and who needs to fork (or not) over the money may very well be determined by who cancelled the event (promoter, local government, FIA, Formula 1).

Depending on the jurisdiction, disclaimers are not always sufficient to protect one from negligent actions. Of course negligence is happily argued after the fact in court by expensive lawyers.

You can not sign away your 'duty of care'. Even if disclaimers are signed, if anything seems amiss there will probably be an army of legal bods 'proving' that enough care was not taken and the waver was just an attempt to hoodwink people.

Big companies in particular will give very careful consideration before deciding, or say stay away in a grey tone and hope someone turns up.

The Trump campaign seems to be doing the same for its rallies (requiring agreeing to disclaimers that participants accept the risk of getting Covid19 if they participant and they agree not to sue). Took a screenshot from his site:



Not meant to be political, but I reckon US organizers can do the same for their event?

[Big Tea]

Depending on the jurisdiction, disclaimers are not always sufficient to protect one from negligent actions. Of course negligence is happily argued after the fact in court by expensive lawyers.

You can not sign away your 'duty of care'. Even if disclaimers are signed, if anything seems amiss there will probably be an army of legal bods 'proving' that enough care was not taken and the waver was just an attempt to hoodwink people.

Big companies in particular will give very careful consideration before deciding, or say stay away in a grey tone and hope someone turns up.

The Trump campaign seems to be doing the same for its rallies (requiring agreeing to disclaimers that participants accept the risk of getting Covid19 if they participant and they agree not to sue). Took a screenshot from his site:

https://i.imgur.com/68A3xhg.png

Not meant to be political, but I reckon US organizers can do the same for their event?

TBH, I can not comment on the US laws, but in EU and I think most of the world 'duty of care' overrules any other.
They did start something similar with bungee jumping and offroading courses etc but they were overturned so many times it was abandoned.

If I comment on this it will become political, so I best leave it at that and say I dont know

A quick google comes up with this
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-ce ... -a-waiver/

[Jolle]

You can not sign away your 'duty of care'. Even if disclaimers are signed, if anything seems amiss there will probably be an army of legal bods 'proving' that enough care was not taken and the waver was just an attempt to hoodwink people.

Big companies in particular will give very careful consideration before deciding, or say stay away in a grey tone and hope someone turns up.

The Trump campaign seems to be doing the same for its rallies (requiring agreeing to disclaimers that participants accept the risk of getting Covid19 if they participant and they agree not to sue). Took a screenshot from his site:

https://i.imgur.com/68A3xhg.png

Not meant to be political, but I reckon US organizers can do the same for their event?

TBH, I can not comment on the US laws, but in EU and I think most of the world 'duty of care' overrules any other.
They did start something similar with bungee jumping and offroading courses etc but they were overturned so many times it was abandoned.

If I comment on this it will become political, so I best leave it at that and say I dont know

A quick google comes up with this
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-ce ... -a-waiver/

In Europe a waiver doesn’t hold any value. Even something simple as a sign at a wardrobe “the management is not responsible for any lost items” is non valid.

I suspect that if people get sick from that rally in Tulsa, the insurance companies will try to get some money back from the organisation with a claim.

But on the other hand... good chance it’s almost impossible to prove (in a jury system) to get a conviction. I assume most of the 6000+ attendees don’t practice social distancing at all during normal life.

[Just_a_fan]

There is a defence, in the UK at least, of volenti non fit injuria which means that if someone voluntarily takes a risk it's their problem. There is, I believe, a similar defence in the US of "assumption of risk" - someone knew the risk and undertook the course of action anyway. The waiver that participants at an event sign would be used by the event organisers to show volenti. You can't sign a waiver, go to the rally, catch a virus and then claim against the rally. You knew there was a risk of catching the virus. You would probably have to show that the rally was so badly organised that you couldn't protect yourself. But even then...

The same thing would apply at a motor race. The ticket tells you it's dangerous so you assume some / all risk if you are injured. If the track is poorly designed / protected and you're injured then there might be a claim, but you'd have to prove it.

Note that volenti isn't a defence if the action is brought by someone acting as, for example, a rescuer. Voluntarily placing oneself in danger to rescue someone doesn't remove the right to claim.

For those at an illegal gathering, there would be no recourse for action - their illegal act basically trumps their rights to claim (Ex turpi causa). So someone assaulting a police officer during a riot can't claim damages if they get knocked down and injured in the course of the riot.


But IANAL.

[Big Tea]

There is a defence, in the UK at least, of volenti non fit injuria which means that if someone voluntarily takes a risk it's their problem. There is, I believe, a similar defence in the US of "assumption of risk" - someone knew the risk and undertook the course of action anyway. The waiver that participants at an event sign would be used by the event organisers to show volenti. You can't sign a waiver, go to the rally, catch a virus and then claim against the rally. You knew there was a risk of catching the virus. You would probably have to show that the rally was so badly organised that you couldn't protect yourself. But even then...

The same thing would apply at a motor race. The ticket tells you it's dangerous so you assume some / all risk if you are injured. If the track is poorly designed / protected and you're injured then there might be a claim, but you'd have to prove it.

Note that volenti isn't a defence if the action is brought by someone acting as, for example, a rescuer. Voluntarily placing oneself in danger to rescue someone doesn't remove the right to claim.

For those at an illegal gathering, there would be no recourse for action - their illegal act basically trumps their rights to claim (Ex turpi causa). So someone assaulting a police officer during a riot can't claim damages if they get knocked down and injured in the course of the riot.


But IANAL.

But this defence is with the participant assuming the organiser has taken all practical steps to ensure safety. If the government has issued a no gatherings warning, the organisers must have taken that into account? such as barriers at race tracks and medical cover etc

Anyway, sorry to labour the point, it is not really relevant unless it becomes an actual case, which would be very interesting

[MtthsMlw]

According to AMuS a race in Mugello will take place on 13.09. One week after Monza.
Race in Portimão (Portugal) also planned in October.
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... im-ersatz/

[adrianjordan]

This could be the nail in the coffin of the Austin race, possibly also Mexico and Brazil, if things don't turn around quickly in those countries.

www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/world/europe ... n.amp.html

[Jolle]

This could be the nail in the coffin of the Austin race, possibly also Mexico and Brazil, if things don't turn around quickly in those countries.

www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/world/europe ... n.amp.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ials-alarm

Next to the nail, here is the hammer.

[RZS10]

From the initial calendar there's a few GPs that aren't rescheduled or cancelled yet, those are
edit:some additional info from current news
Bahrain
Arguably not reached peak yet - still have mandatory tests+14d quarantine upon entry. Aims for two races probably in December (?)


Vietnam
Has a handful of cases per day, no deaths - still have suspended entry for all foreign nationals. May happen in November. [according to MST not really an option, no elaboration on why]

China
Just two handful corona cases per day - still with heavy travel restrictions. Supposedly have the offer for two races later in the season. [in a 'Wirtschaftskammer Österreich' Interview Marko essentially confirmed that there will be a race, he said "Das einzig fixe Rennen außerhalb Europas findet skurrilerweise in China statt." which roughly translates to "Bizzarely/ironically the only confirmed race outside of Europe is China"]

Canada
Past peak with ~300 new cases per day. Still with heavy travel restrictions.Aiming for October date.

Russia
Still ~7.5k new cases per day - still have suspended entry for all foreign nationals. Will apparently happen at the end of september. [The initial idea of holding two races got scrapped because of the unclear corona situation but even the single race is in doubt]

USA
Currently getting a second wave. Not possible to tell if and/or when it could happen.


Mexico
Nowhere even close to peak, starting to get 5k+ per day - at the beginning of June they thought they could retain the original date (October 30th). [The track is in the middle of the city which makes isolating the teams from the population difficult]


Brazil
Just no.
40k+ cases per day, not peaked, rushed to second most deaths total. Latest news i could find was from early March where the race organizer claimed they'd have a race with spectators ........... [same issue as Mexico]


Abu Dhabi
Past peak, will most likely [contractually secured] be the last race of the season.

[Wouter]

From the initial calendar there's a few GPs that aren't rescheduled or cancelled yet, those are

Bahrain
..................
Vietnam
..................

Thanks @RZS10.

[ENGINE TUNER]

USA
Currently getting a second wave (partially thanks to the protests). Not possible to tell if and/or when it could happen.
https://i.imgur.com/yPOZDXV.png

It has very little to do with the anti-racism protests and much more to do with the anti-quarantine protests around memorial day and the opening up that occurred then.

The incubation period is well documented

[subcritical71]

USA
Currently getting a second wave (partially thanks to the protests). Not possible to tell if and/or when it could happen.
https://i.imgur.com/yPOZDXV.png

It has very little to do with the anti-racism protests and much more to do with the anti-quarantine protests around memorial day and the opening up that occurred then.

The incubation period is well documented, stop spreading lies.

I didn't hear as much about the anti-quarantine protests on memorial day, but anyway, the anti-racism protests also occurred in Richmond, VA and are on day 26. But Virginia's numbers are continuing to trend in the good direction. Florida on the other hand , lets just say some states are opening too quickly. Some people seem to think the virus just magically disappeared. This years Darwin Award will go to the COVID-19.