In case any of you are wondering why I didn't comment on this earlier... I have to be careful what I say about this, as I am in correspondence with some of the lawyers involved in this case. (And before anyone asks, none of the legal teams involved have hired me - yet). So I'm trying not to say anything that isn't either in, or reasonably easily derivable from, information in the public domain.
There are a few things I probably should say for the sake of clearing up some confusion:
John S: racing drivers accept the risk of accidental injuries and fatalities. So do the Bianchis. They simply don't regard Jules' accident as being in that category. In an interview he did with Auto Hebdo on 23 December 2015, Phillipe Bianchi said:
"Jules n'a pas été victime d'un accident comparable à celui de Justin Wilson, par example, qui fut un fait de course (sur l'ovale de Pocono, Pennsylvanie, en août dernier, lors de l'avant-dernière manche d'Indycar. Ndlr). Ces fameux risques du métier. Ce qui est loin d'être le cas de celui de Jules."
As far as I can translate into English: "Jules has not suffered a similar accident to that of Justin Wilson, for example, who was racing (on the Pocono oval, Pennsylvania in August, during the penultimate round of the Indycar series. Editor's note). These famous occupational hazards. This is far from the case for Jules."
Besides, a family which had experienced one of its members die (Lucien, Jules' great-uncle, in the 1969 Le Mans) and another get badly burnt (Mauro, Jules' grandfather, in the 1968 version - that Lucien won) long before Jules was born is hardly going to be under any illusions about the degree of natural hazard it possesses. They're more bothered about the unnatural hazards...
cosworth151, I am surprised that there is nothing in the FIA's written regulations that indemnifies them. But there isn't, as far as I can tell. My guess is that it's in the fine print of the Superlicences, since that effectively acts as a driver's access to F1 races. It will certainly also be on the passes that everyone with paddock access is required to wear.
This works well against regular incidents. Any injury lawyer worth their salt knows this, and will advise their client to settle or plain drop the case in such circumstances. However, the law in many countries, including France (where the FIA is based) and England (where FOM and Marussia - Russian license notwithstanding - is/was based) prevents anyone from being indemnified against negligence of reasonable actions reducing the risk of egregious injury/death. And this is why the disclaimer doesn't work well in court - the cases that get to court are almost always ones where the disclaimer had already been tested by the appellant's counsel and found wanting. Disclaimers are good at stopping cases from reaching court in the first place, rather than for granting "not guilty" verdicts to respondents already in court. Again, it's the difference between natural and unnatural risk.
J. Clark, the scheduling of races, in the normal calendar/intended timing sense, is FOM's responsibility. The FIA can object if the race is unsafe or its national sporting authority hasn't paid its dues to the FIA (or if someone involved is otherwise in bad standing with the FIA). Only once the calendar is signed off does FOM lose responsibility for when a race is run. (In unusual situations, such as the last-minute negotiations Suzuka 2014 experienced, it appears both FOM and FIA were involved. If a misstep occurred there, either or both could be in trouble).
As for Marussia... ...a safety car component failed. It's natural that they be brought into the case, even if it's only to find out why that happened.
There are several points from others of you that I want to answer... ...and perhaps when all this settled down, I'll be able to do so. I hate that I have to write these words. I hate this whole scenario.