Opinion ID: 172867
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Specific risk associated with the conditions on Corner 10

Text: Wagner's case at trial, and his argument on appeal, focused most intensely on the claim that SFX behaved wantonly when it did not eliminate or protect with padding the concrete wall into which Wagner crashed, or enlarge the run-off area, outside Corner 10. To succeed on this claim based on a very specific risk that arguably contributed to Wagner's injuries, Wagner was required to show, first, that SFX acted, or failed to act, with a realization of the imminence of danger at Corner 10. Wagner could have made this showing either through direct evidence of SFX's actual knowledge of a dangerous condition at Corner 10, or through circumstantial evidence that SFX acted in disregard of a high and excessive degree of danger at Corner 10, where that danger was known [by SFX] or apparent to a reasonable person in SFX's position. Lanning, 921 P.2d at 819. While the jury was free to disregard or doubt the credibility of SFX's employees and former employees who testified that they were aware of no previous crashes at Corner 10 and that they had no reason to believe that the concrete wall in question would be an impact area, the jury was not free to infer SFX's knowledge of danger from an absence of evidence on the issue. Wagner offered no testimony to the effect that there had ever been a crash in the area of Corner 10, much less that the danger of such a crash was known [by SFX] or apparent to a reasonable person in SFX's position, Lanning, 921 P.2d at 819. While Randy Bodtke testified that he saw two racers go off the track at Corner 10 during the practice sessions on August 7, he clarified on cross-examination that one of the motorcycles at issue simply ran out of gas at that location and the other had a mechanical problem, so that both had to be pushed off the track. Bodtke then confirmed that he saw no riders that had traveled all of this distance across this grassy area and got down to where there was an impact with the wall. (R. vol. 6 at 1526.) Wagner offered no evidence that SFX knew or should have known of the danger posed by the configuration of Corner 10. Because there is no record evidence showing that SFX acted with a realization of the imminence of danger when it did not take additional precautions at Corner 10, we need not and do not reach the question of whether SFX acted with a reckless disregard [of] or complete indifference to the probable consequences of its conduct at Corner 10. Reeves, 969 P.2d at 256; see Lanning, 921 P.2d at 819 (Without knowledge of a dangerous condition, indifference to the consequences does not become a consideration.). We conclude that in construing the alleged risk and dangerous condition narrowly, a reasonable jury could not have found SFX liable for wanton conduct. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 50(a). However, we do observe that the general safety precaution that SFX took in conjunction with staging this race and which we detailed earlier would generally apply to Corner 10 as much as to other portions of the race track. Thus, even if Wagner had put on evidence that SFX knew Corner 10 was dangerous, Wagner did not show that SFX was completely indifferent to that danger.