By Jerry Jordan, Editor
A filing in the United States Northern District of New York earlier Monday provided information to the court that the parents of the late Kevin Ward had reached an agreement with retired three-time NASCAR Champion Tony Stewart in the wrongful death case involving their son.
“Court having been notified of a pending settlement prior to the scheduled trial date and pursuant to the verbal Order of the Hon. David N. Hurd, USDJ, an in person settlement hearing is now ordered for Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 2:00PM,” the entry states. “Counsel and parties shall appear in person in USDC Utica, NY and place the terms and conditions of the settlement on the record, prior to the court releasing the trial certain date of May 7, 2018.”
The case, filed in August 2015 after Kevin Ward was struck by Tony Stewart’s sprint car during a race on August 9, 2014, at Canandaigua Motorsports Park. It is undisputed that Ward walked out onto the track after being wrecked by Stewart during the race and was struck by Stewart’s racecar.
Autopsy results showed Ward had used marijuana at some time prior to the race and it remained in his system while he was racing and after his death.
Stewart said he tried to swerve to miss Ward, only seeing him a second, or so, before impact. The Ward’s say Stewart swerved at their son, who was walking out to confront Stewart after the wreck. It appeared from video made available by a fan that Ward tried to grab the down wing of Stewart’s sprint car and was either snagged or hit by the rear wheel. Medical records filed in the case show it was, in fact, the rear wheel that struck and killed Ward. Stewart’s expert said that was proof the well-known driver did his best to avoid contact.
Court records show in the two-and-a-half years since the case was filed both sides have had contentious battles with each trying to exclude the testimony of their respective expert witnesses and failing to previously reach a settlement. Additionally, the court ruled against Stewart in a decision that voids the liability waivers signed by racers in New York.
Stewart sought to appeal the ruling but under federal law appeals may not be heard until a final verdict in a case is rendered, sans extraordinary circumstances. Hurd ruled against Stewart saying the claims were “run of the mill” and did not meet the “exceptional” circumstances needed for judicial review.
By framing the issues in this way, Stewart signals that his desire for an immediate appeal is based on simple disagreement: either the December Order answered these questions wrong, or that the questions themselves are difficult to answer when applied to the facts of this case,” Hurd wrote, in a Feb. 26, 2-18, opinion. “But neither of those arguments are of a type that would ordinarily provide a basis for immediate appeal.”
The harshly-worded February document continues with Hurd stating, “With all this laid out yet again, it is obvious that Stewart is attempting to fast-track appellate review of a decision that is unfavorable to him, not one that is manifestly incorrect or for which there is ‘substantial ground for difference of opinion.’”
An attempt to reach Stewart for comment on the settlement filing was unsuccessful at the time of publication.