Street racing accidents create a legal landscape unlike typical car crashes. When two drivers decide to race on public roads and injure innocent bystanders, the law treats them as joint wrongdoers regardless of which vehicle actually struck the victim. This doctrine of shared responsibility significantly expands the pool of defendants and insurance policies available to injured parties.
Concert of Action: Both Racers Pay
The legal theory that catches both racers in the liability net is called concert of action. When two or more people agree to engage in dangerous conduct, each participant becomes liable for the harm caused by any participant’s actions. The driver whose car never touched the victim can be held fully responsible for the victim’s injuries.
Consider a street race where Driver A loses control and crashes into a family’s minivan. Driver B, who crossed the finish line safely, remains equally liable. Both drivers chose to engage in the inherently dangerous activity that created the harm. Courts reason that without the competition between racers, the incentive to drive recklessly disappears.
This legal theory matters enormously for victims because it doubles the available insurance coverage and assets. Instead of pursuing one driver with a $100,000 policy, the victim can pursue both drivers and their combined coverage.
The Pandemic Racing Surge
Street racing incidents surged dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic. With roads emptied by lockdowns, illegal racing events multiplied. Reports to police departments showed a 200% increase in street racing complaints during 2020 and 2021. Fatalities followed the same trajectory.
This surge produced a wave of litigation that continues today. Many cases involve spectators injured at racing events, passengers in racing vehicles, and occupants of vehicles caught in the middle of races they never asked to join.
Insurance Implications: The Racing Exclusion
Here is the bad news for victims seeking recovery: most auto insurance policies contain explicit racing exclusions. If a driver was participating in a race at the time of the accident, their liability coverage may not apply.
The standard policy language excludes coverage for damages arising from the insured’s participation in any “prearranged or organized racing or speed contest.” Insurance companies argue that racing transforms the vehicle from normal transportation into a dangerous instrumentality used for an uninsured purpose.
When racing exclusions apply, victims must pursue the racers personally rather than their insurers. This often means chasing individuals with limited assets while their insurance companies avoid paying claims.
Strategies Around the Exclusion
Victims’ attorneys attack racing exclusions through several approaches. Some argue the language requires a formally organized event rather than a spontaneous match race. Others contend the exclusion violates public policy by leaving innocent victims without compensation. Results vary by jurisdiction and specific policy language.
Umbrella policies sometimes lack the racing exclusion found in base auto policies. A defendant with a $1 million umbrella may have coverage even if their auto policy excludes the claim.
Criminal Penalties Running Parallel
Street racing constitutes a criminal offense in every state. Felony charges apply when racing causes serious injury or death. A defendant facing five years in prison may be more motivated to settle the civil case, particularly if a civil settlement might influence criminal sentencing.
California, a hotbed of street racing activity, allows courts to impound vehicles used in racing for up to 30 days on first offense and potentially forfeit them permanently on subsequent offenses. The threat of losing a prized vehicle provides additional leverage in civil negotiations.
Spectator and Passenger Claims
Spectators at illegal street races face complicated legal positions. Defendants argue that spectators assumed the risk of injury by choosing to attend a dangerous event. Some jurisdictions reduce spectator recoveries based on comparative fault, reasoning that the spectator’s decision to attend contributed to their injuries.
Passengers in racing vehicles face similar defenses. However, courts generally distinguish between passengers who encouraged the racing and those who asked the driver to stop. A passenger who cheered “go faster” receives different treatment than one who begged the driver to slow down.
Proving the Race Occurred
Defendants often deny that any race was happening. They characterize the situation as two cars simply traveling in the same direction at the same time. Overcoming this defense requires evidence of the competitive element.
Witness testimony about the vehicles’ behavior before impact establishes whether they were jockeying for position, accelerating competitively, or signaling each other. Social media posts bragging about racing or advertising racing meetups provide documentary evidence. Video footage from nearby security cameras, traffic cameras, or cell phones often proves decisive.
Vehicle damage patterns and accident reconstruction can reveal speeds inconsistent with normal driving. When both vehicles show evidence of traveling at 100 mph in a 35 mph zone, the racing defense loses credibility.
The Innocent Driver Caught in the Middle
Perhaps the most sympathetic victims are drivers and passengers in vehicles uninvolved in the race. These individuals made no choice to accept racing risks. They simply drove down the same road at the wrong moment.
For these plaintiffs, concert of action liability provides maximum leverage. Both racers bear full responsibility for the harm their joint venture caused. The victim can collect the entire judgment from whichever racer has better insurance or more assets.
The consequences of street racing extend far beyond the participants. Every person on the road becomes an unwilling spectator to a dangerous game they never agreed to play.
Sources:
- Concert of action liability: Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876
- Pandemic street racing increase (200%): Various metro police department reports (2020-2021)
- Racing exclusion language: ISO Personal Auto Policy Form PP 00 01
- California vehicle forfeiture: California Vehicle Code § 23109.2