Didn't know about this. Saw it here http://www.wreckedexotics.com/special/lp640/ "Safety has become a big issue for exotic car manufacturers lately, especially after a recent lawsuit was filed against Porsche for "selling an unsafe car". The suit claims the Porsche Carrera GT has design defects that make it a poor-handling car, mainly that the rear end can lose traction easily. The suit also claims that the car is too difficult to handle at high speeds for the average driver without instruction. The suit was filed by the wife of Cory Rudl, an internet marketing superstar who was killed when the Carrera GT he was riding in crashed at a track. " also here http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/jun2006/bw20060608_466074.htm
There may be some defendants with some liability but I don't think they will prevail against the manufacturer- think assumption of the risk that you are getting in a car that will be going 145mph+ with an amateur driver, the foreseeability that there could be a crash and the waivers signed which put the unfortunate decedents on notice that they were doing something really dangerous. I really don't like the idea of families suing if the unforeseen happens when we are out playing what Phil Hill called "lets see if I can't be killed"
I don't know the law in America, but these sorts of claims would go nowhere in most European courts, I think. I find it astonishing that you can buy a potential 200 mph car, go on a track, get killed and have you relatives suying the track owner, the car manufacturer, etc... I can't detect no element of 'negligence' from Porsche, the track operators, etc... the only negligence I can see, if from the unfortunate driver who knowingly engaged in an activity beyond his abilities and endangered the life of his passenger.
Assumption of risk is applicable if: 1) you actually know the risk involved 2) you have consciously and with full knowledge assumed #1 Just getting into and driving a car at 145 MPH is not assuming all risks! If the car was built for those speeds one assumes it would be safe to be driven at those speeds. There is a basis for law suits regardless how one outside of the realm feels about the suit!
unlike Judges, we know a car is only as safe as its driver. if you take the safest car & intentionally drive it off the Grand Canyon, well thats not the cars fault
There is more to this story than someone driving too fast for their skill level. I've read about this particular CGT story from multiple angles, the owner and driver was in fact a member of F-Chat and many other forums. From what I can gather, the owner was a fairly good driver, the accident was caused when the driver was forced to swerve out of the way of a merging Ferrari who came out onto the track at the wrong time (a bit of misinformation between the Ferrari driver and the pit lane marshall). The quick right/left maneuver kicked out the tail end of the CGT and sent it off the track sideways where it hit a cement retaining wall which killed both occupants. Bill
I dont think these are a case of bad engineering. I think that people who drive supercars dont realize how much power they actually have. I blame driver error and not the cars.
Thought I read somewhere else about the Carrera GT's penchant for having the rear end step out unexpectedly....
This is America. The question was never "if" a relative would sue regarding to this case, only how much $$$$ they would end up getting. Terry
The family wants to cash in on thier dead family member, so what. Free money is free money. And along the way they will try to shift blame to 100 other sources from their dead family member, so it's a win win. Go Team Go!
Are you kidding me?! The car has a bizzilion HP OF COURSE THE REAR END "STEPS OUT". I have an 8 year old car with 300 hp/ 300 torque, guess what, when it rains, I can't drive it as hard through turns. When my new car has 1,000 hp, I won't be able to drive it at 250 mph around turns I normally drive at 60 mph. When you ramp up every stat on a race car which the CGT is, then you put a city driver who has some money in his pocket behind the wheel and somthing goes wrong, do the simple math. Waaayyyyy to fast, waaaaayyyyy to little skill = "F! HIT THE BRAKES". The worlds didn't line up and cause this, nor did the Gods. F the family and too bad for the people in the destroyed car. Bad things happen all the time and when you up the ante look out!
Call me naive if you want, but I find that the above statement reflects very poor ethics. I have the firm conviction that everyone must assume his/her own responsability and not blame anyone/everyone for the result of his/her own action. Nothing is free if you have to compromise your integrity to obtain it.
Well said. I think it's said that we've come to such an era where the safety police and policially correct find fault for everything/one else and not the actual perpetrator.
I was being sarcastic. Look at my second reply under my first and above your last. That's how I feel. The family is trying to get some fast cash and also take blame away from their fallen family member. I'm sure he didn't want or deserve to die but to grab money and throw x,y and z into play just to muddy the water shows poor ethics on the remaining famliy members.
Is there a difference? The one got straight As and liked the academic side, the other got Cs and enjoyed arguing at the pub. They both go to the country club together.
So what you are telling me is that these supercars are too dangerous for the average driver, which not only pose a threat to themselves but others around them? Playing devil's advocate here.... FWIW, suing Porsche in this situation is in poor taste if one assumes there was no mechanical defect which caused the crash-there may have been driver/course worker error but remember Porsche is the one with deep pockets. Sadly, the legal system in the US makes it possible to sue everyone without any serious ramifications; it is up to the defendants to make the appropriate motions to get out or they can buy their way out ie, settle. Basically it is a "carpet bombing strategy"-instead of "Kill them all and let God sort them out" it is now "sue everyone and let the judge sort it out" mentality. Sometimes it is cheaper to settle than to litigate, especially since this incident occurred in the People's Republic of Kalifornia. Can you imagine the granola/tree hugger jury hearing the performance figures of the socially irresponsible Carrera GT death machine? Porsche is f@#$&d if this gets to a jury. Another point-have any of you read the articles about the "loose" handling of the new ZO6? How long will it be before someone kills themselves in the car and sues Chevy?
Not sure about this, after all Cory drove a mighty Murcie. He was used to those numbers and knew what he was getting into. I could imagine Porsche getting out of this unscathed. I wonder how Cory would have felt about his widow filing the lawsuit.
Yes there is a difference, most judges got the C's & they are incredibly, dense, egocentic, obtuse & stubborn people
I could imagine Porsche getting out of this unscathed also-after having paid tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars in legal fees. If they can't get out on a motion for summary judgment or, at trial, they can't get out on a directed verdict by the judge, then it will go to the jury. Unless the jury has a majority of car enthusiasts/track day junkies Porsche will get hosed. I think both men would have disapproved of the suit but, sadly, they have no say in it. It is in the hands of the lawyers & courts now......
They bought a Porsche supercar! They knew the risks. His wife's just trying to cash in on his death. Over in the UK there are many cases of 'bullying' in the workplace and women are cashing in millions. It's becoming a trend.
