Paul Walker from Fast and Furious died in a wreck...

A class act it appears in Walker will now be smothered away by someone sueing a car company for his death.

Sueing Porsche would be like sueing gun companies for murders.


Cars don't kill people. People kill people. Sue The driver. He's the at fault.

The family sueing Porsche is a joke and proves greed and money are all they care about. So sad. Great guy it seems and now his legacy will change IMHO.

 

Originally Posted by johnhoughtaling
No lawyers need to visit anyone involved in this tragedy. Walker's heirs are entitled to the insurance policy covering the driver for this accident in the same way they are entitled to claim any life insurance proceeds. If the facts are that the crash clearly involve driver fault, it should be a simple application to the insurance company and coverage should be as clear as a life insurance policy without lawyers or lawsuits of any kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon^2
You giving odds on that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnhoughtaling
I give it high odds and would bet on it. This tragedy is so high profile, and the lost income so great, I would bet an application to the driver's insurer results in a tender of the policy. (I say this even though insurance insurance companies are dishonest and in many cases you need to hire a lawyer to sue them.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon^2
0% chance both sides aren't represented within days, if not already. Does that mean a trial,... of coarse not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wtdoom
Paul Walker's family to sue Porsche over car crash death - Entertainment - DNA
I can't fathom how anyone ever thought this wasn't heading to legal action...

Simon, re-read my posts that you quote.

I said lawyers were not necessary to receive the policy limits of the driver's policy. My opinion was that it is highly likely that the insurer would pay this policy with a simple application to the driver's insurer. If they were speeding or driving aggressively, no one, will argue about the fault of the driver. Bc Walker likely has a lawyer the lawyer will make this application, and if the family would like the limits of this policy they can simply take it. Do they need a lawyer to get it? No. Will it require litigation? No. Will a lawyer make the allocation for this (as well as for life insurance)? Yes. The point I made was that the issue of whether the driver is at fault will be undisputed. No litigation or lawyers necessary.

The point of the distinction I made about this claim and others was obviously lost. The issue of whether Porsche shares any fault with the CGT has been disputed before these deaths and will be after. It's an entirely different issue. I expressed I did NOT see much legal liability. That said, most people confuse discussions of legal fault, and simply confine analysis to whether it is the drivers fault or Porsche. Would I be surprised that someone may have a lawyer argue that the driver was 92% at fault and Porsche 8% at fault? No, I would not be surprised by this. And I will not be surprised if this is brought by the driver's insurance company (for subrogation) if the Walker family does not make it. Porsche paid 8% of the last high profile accident. Will they be willing to agree to pay 8% of the liability in this case? That's anyone guess. I'd say maybe.

My opinion is not simple. I think the car is particularly dangerous among supercars but NOT enough to rise to the threshold of legal liability. But I can see someone disagreeing with me. One thing is for certain. No car manufacturer lies down for a product liability lawsuit, and they usually test the metal of the party that makes such a claim. Any plaintiff lawyer that takes the case better be ready to risk the 1-2M of their own that they can win. The best case scenario they will have to admit 90% or more of fault on part of the driver to win, $8M max? ( assuming The economic loss is 100M and Porsche would pay 8%). At a 1/3 contingency, would I risk 1-2M of my assets to have a chance at making 2.5M on a case were someone else was 90%? No. I would characterize a plaintiff lawyer that makes this claim as a big risk taker, without much upside considering the risk. Will the analysis be different for the insurance company that wants subrogation? Maybe. Will Porsche will have a lot of bad press about the CGT controversy? Yes. And is that worth something? Depends how much. So as I see it, bad PR? Yes. Legal liability? Not serious.

That being said I am not surprised it is being debated with lawyers. Is this the same issue as the insurance of the driver? No.

 

And you complained pages ago when someone pointed out you post was a tad lawyerly. Thank you for the clarification esquire.

 

You previously asked be about a legal conclusion, and I was trying to be thoughtful and precise in explaining a misunderstanding. That's a far cry from expressing an enthusiasts opinion regarding the history of super cars and having someone ignore my point entirely and troll me bc I am a lawyer (not you someone else).

I've tried to be fairly clear in making a distinction between a legal opinion, and another one that is purely as an enthusiast. I previously stated I thought that there was NO real legal liability for Porsche. And, I thought I had some points that were interesting to add to the discussion about the history of supercars. In response to the points about Supercar history (not the legal comments) I was trolled and called ambulance chaser, which I objected to, particularly because it ignored (or misunderstood) my comments.

I don't have a problem having a discussion about the legal ramification of this case. I also think its interesting from an enthusiast point of view. I have pointed out that I think the issues are different. And I've tried to be respectful and thoughtful in my comments.

 

I for one appreciate your insight.
I am sick to my stomach that in any shape Porsche could pay a nickel for driver negligence but at least I see a little different point of view.

Although none of this would be in question it seems without lawyers

 

You left out where I offered to bet with him. How much you think he owes me ...?

 

Re-Read the posts. My bet was that no litigation would be necessary or occur over the drivers insurance policy. I never said litigation would not occur over Porsche. I've tried to untangle the tendency to confuse the fact that the drivers fault will be undisputed, and how the insurance works. Its confusing which is why I've tried to carefully dissect and explain.

 

Sure. Here:

{public ribbing}

{/public ribbing}

 

Dr Strangelove

Here are the quotes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by COBRA MAN OF UTAH
Just Jared - Paul Walker Died Alongside Former Racer Roger Rodas
Look at the pic not the comments...
People saying there will be lawsuits should get a clue... they were very close friends

Dr Strangelove:
"Close friends" mean nothing to the heirs. I have seen close brothers and sisters torn apart by lawsuits when parents die.
You could be my brothers best friend in the world but if I thought your driving like a moron on city streets got him killed your family would be visited by my lawyers too. I knew and liked Roger via here as well, no way he was obeying any laws on that street. (IMHO)

Originally Posted by johnhoughtaling
No lawyers need to visit anyone involved in this tragedy. Walker's heirs are entitled to the insurance policy covering the driver for this accident in the same way they are entitled to claim any life insurance proceeds. If the facts are that the crash clearly involve driver fault, it should be a simple application to the insurance company and coverage should be as clear as a life insurance policy without lawyers or lawsuits of any kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon^2
You giving odds on that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnhoughtaling
I give it high odds and would bet on it. This tragedy is so high profile, and the lost income so great, I would bet an application to the driver's insurer results in a tender of the policy. (I say this even though insurance insurance companies are dishonest and in many cases you need to hire a lawyer to sue them.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrStranglove *
I'll bet $10 against you and REALLY hope I loose. But I doubt I will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnhoughtaling
I wouldn't take your money, even that level of confidence.!
Insurance is often misunderstood. Its simple if you understand the economics. Lets assume the driver had a really big insurance policy, say $5M, or even $10M. With this actor there would be a lifetime economic loss (which is calculated to heirs) that could be proven to exceed 50, 100M or more. If an insurer denies this claim, and refuses to settle it for an application for the policy, then they expose the drivers family (and then themselves in a certain return claim), to the excess. It would be complete foolishness to deny the claim of the facts turn out as one thinks. This is why it would be a bet they wouldn't likely take. That said I said it should not take lawyers for the claim on any policy to be paid. But odds are there are lawyers involved: Walkers lawyer makes the insurance application and the drivers family's lawyer supports tendering the policy for a release. That's what should happen. Regardless no lawyers or lawsuits or disputes are necessary for the insurance policies discussed to pay. (Other claims are a different matter.)*
Ok, enough lawyer talk.* RIP to the guys, and condolences to the families. These appeared to be very good car guys. A horrible loss.


Your recent post deletes the portion where I am talking about the drivers insurer and the drivers policy. The part you except that says "No lawyers need to visit anyone in this tragedy," was my copied reference to your suggestion that lawyers from Walker could visit the driver's family. There was a debate between someone saying they were friends and you who suggested that if it was you lawyers would soon be visiting the drivers family regardless of the friendship. My point was that no one needs to go there. I tired to explain that the drivers fault would be undisputed and why no lawyers or litigation would be necessary to get the limits of the drivers policy, if the family so desired. I tried to explain how and why the fault of the driver would be undisputed. I understand its confusing which is why I have tried to go to lengths to explain it. (Despite the ribbing)

I am not trying to be a keyboard boxer. I'm really trying to thoughtfully explain the issues presented

 

This may be a case in which Porsche might be smart to defend themselves at any and all costs... If they win then it will curb any further claims... Afterall. There are 1200 more of these potential CGT lawsuits to come if they lose or pay "go away Money"

 

It's odd. It's been over a week and I feel gutted by this still. I would not have thought this would have affected me as much as it is has.

 

Life doesn't work that way. No matter how many times a company (e.g. Porsche) wins in court, there will always be attorneys attacking them thinking that they will win the lottery or at least get a go away settlement.

It never ends.

Never.

 

link to the tmz video showing car going 89mph?

 

uhhh..

TMZ

 

Anyone remember what Porsche's amount of the $4+M settlement after the California Speedway fatality was? I'm thinking about half. No?

 

@drstrangeglove,
yeah, i couldnt find it either........

 

8% seems to ring a bell...

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-porsche-carrera-gt-paul-walker-20131203,0,5070378.story#axzz2mrJho1SI

 

Does 8 percent set a benchmark or watermark for responsibility when making dangerous items? It makes me wonder. Gun companies, big Tobacco, bad doctors botching surgeries. ETC.....I think Porsche should get all of these cars retrofitted with driver aids and then when the owners remove the electronics it will free Porsche from all responsibility when someone runs out of talent and gets hurt or hurts someone...

 

Search - news | TMZ.com

Yeah, I'm not seeing any video of the car in motion prior to the accident on TMZ.

 

First, life doesn't work that way.
Second, logic doesn't work that way.

Of the dangerous items you tried to name, one of the three in your list...one third...isn't even an item ("Gun companies, big Tobacco, bad doctors botching surgeries").

Not to be too harsh, but because you don't understand logic, it follows that you will never understand the *why* part of how life works.

You "think" that Porsche adding electronic controls would magically protect Porsche from all legal responsibility (e.g. lawsuits).

That's laughable.

Life doesn't work that way...

 

Im not saying that life works that way.................Your words..........I am just saying with such a litigious society you would think they would change just a few things...



My buddy went into a tire store to get new tires installed and they wouldnt do it because there was a hair line crack in the wheel. Then when he said just install my spare they said sorry sir we cant do that because your spare is over 8 years old....

Its sad what lawers are doing to us....

Please dont take my posts as pure logic derived from me its just an idea...

 

Google doesnt always get it right...

Car / Poll - Google Fight : make this fight with Googlefight !

 

Ordered FF6 on Blu-Ray to contribute in some small way. Universal is making donations to PW's charity.

Amazon.com: Fast & Furious 6 (Steelbook) (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital HD with UltraViolet): Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordana Brewster, Tyrese Gibson, Chris 'Ludacris' Bridges, Sung Kang, Gal

 

The guy did your buddy a favor. If something ever happened it would be your buddies family getting a lawyer and suing the guys !$$ off. It's not the lawyers fault it's the people retaining them. Remember that!

 

No, that is just good service!! Those guys knew what they were talking about