Porsche, track owners sued over Carrera GT crash | FerrariChat

Porsche, track owners sued over Carrera GT crash

Discussion in 'Porsche' started by Maranello Guy, May 17, 2006.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. Turb0flat4

    Turb0flat4 Formula 3

    Mar 7, 2004
    1,244
    Singapore
    Full Name:
    RND
  2. wbaeumer

    wbaeumer F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Mar 4, 2005
    8,826
    Totally agree! If those chaps couldn`t handle such a car then it was definitely their mistake!
    Typicall US-law case like: "hey, I broke my finger in your door. I want to get 10 Million $$`s for that"!

    Ciao!
    Walter
     
  3. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Honorary Owner

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus
    Very interesting. As an aside Ben was an FChatter.

    I remember when Mark Donohue was killed driving an F1.
    His widow sued as well.

    I remembered a Friend of Mark's commenting that if Mark was alive and he heard about the suit he would "Throw up".
     
  4. Turb0flat4

    Turb0flat4 Formula 3

    Mar 7, 2004
    1,244
    Singapore
    Full Name:
    RND
  5. Simon^2

    Simon^2 F1 World Champ

    Oct 17, 2005
    12,313
    At Sea Level
    Until there is Tort reform, this sillyness will continue. If the side bringing the suit simply had to pay opposing sides costs (court, lawyers fees, including missed work, etc) if they lose, most of the really silly cases would stop.

    (Yes I know this will prevent some from fiing valid suits.... blah, blah, blah)
     
  6. arshad

    arshad Formula Junior

    Mar 10, 2004
    648
    Toronto, Canada
    Full Name:
    Arshad
    If I remember correctly, wasn't this accident due to negligence on the part of the corner worker who let a car onto the track as they were coming full tilt down the straight? They crashed trying to avoid the other vehicle. This was a while ago, so maybe I'm thinking of another incident, but if that's the case, then perhaps they have a legitimate beef against the track/corner worker. Suing Porsche is silly. When you're going at those speeds, it doesn't matter how safe the car is -- if you hit a wall at 150+mph, you're likely going to die. That's the risk you take when you get on the track, and why you should read the waiver and accept responsibility for the inherent danger before you sign it.
     
  7. SRT Mike

    SRT Mike Two Time F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    23,343
    Taxachusetts
    Full Name:
    Raymond Luxury Yacht
    There's another piece we're missing to tort reform.

    The problem with loser pays is that a person would not bring a case against a big company unless it was almost a slam-dunk case. If I sued IBM, their legal fees would be enormous. Conversely if they sued me and lost, paying my legal fees would be a mere pittance.

    I'm not so sure that loser-pays is the best solution, however I DO think Porsche should be able to counter-sue for "frivolous lawsuit that wasted our time and the courts". If damages were awarded in cases where suits were determined to be frivolous, without merit, or seeking excessive damages, it would stop a lot of this crap. They should be able to sue for their costs of defending this suit, IMO!
     
  8. Malfoy

    Malfoy Formula 3

    Mar 22, 2004
    1,960
    Hampton, VA
    I've always believed when corporations or other large wealth entitys are suing the less wealthy, they should have to pay the costs of the defense until its over and if the the defenses, loses, they'd foot the bill. I think this would make a lot of those cases where a big company is playing a game of "drag this out until we get a settlement or bankrupt the competition" go away since its costing them money to draw this out. Actually I want this rule in place soley so the RIAA/MPAA has to actually goto trial and possibly lose for once.
     
  9. GT Fan

    GT Fan Formula Junior

    Jun 25, 2005
    312
  10. Noel

    Noel F1 Veteran
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    sorry about what happened, but the lawsuit is crap.
     
  11. classic308

    classic308 F1 Veteran

    Jan 9, 2004
    6,793
    Westchester, NY
    Full Name:
    Paul
    I think your recall of the facts is spot on and I agree 100%.

    But this occurred in the People's Republic of California; I'm surprised that the widow didn't sue the gasoline maker who's gas was in the Porsche, the tire manufacturer and the owners of the ship that bought the car over to the States...
     
  12. riverflyer

    riverflyer F1 Rookie

    Nov 26, 2003
    3,583
    Mendocino, Ca
    Full Name:
    John
    This is the one and your recollection is pretty correct from what I know. Tragic accident as both men had young families.
    Additionally, the car(Ferrrari) coming onto the track was hesitant and did not move onto the track at speed further compounding the problem. Though the corner worker should not have waved the car out seems to be agreed upon, but in their defense, they were not likely used to cars that could hit 150 on that straight.
    All very unfortunate and I think the law suit is also unfortunate, especially concerning Porshe liability for making a car "too fast".
     
  13. neilmac

    neilmac Formula 3

    Apr 18, 2005
    1,252
    Oakville, Ont.
    Full Name:
    Neil
    Was there not even more to this story? IIRC, the tire maker was held responsible even though the car was using the very best tires available. The tire technology was not yet up to handling the power of the car, so - they were at fault.

    Foggy memory, though, so I may be wrong.

    Neil
     
  14. Buzz48317

    Buzz48317 F1 Rookie

    Dec 5, 2005
    2,862
    Shelby Twp., MI
    Full Name:
    Michael
    I feel bad for the family and if the track waved a car in front of them then the track and its worker should be held responsible, but to sue Porsche for this accident is rediculous. BTW from the photo the accident didn't look that bad...at least the car stood up well to it...if that was a 150 mph accident the car is in remarkably good condition.
     
  15. Tspringer

    Tspringer F1 Veteran

    Apr 11, 2002
    6,155
    Driving on racetracks is dangerous. Riding as a passenger is also dangerous. Thats just the nature of the game and everyone who plays understands it and agrees to the risks. I spend lots of time and money on this hobby and I accept that it is dangerous.

    There was a good article in this months Sports Car Market about this legal case. Basically, I would agree that this is all about bitterness and money. The widow is probably extremely bitter, angry and wishing to hurt anyone and everyone she views as possibly responsible. A shameful attitude, but its impossible to put yourself in her shoes given her loss and how her family has been destroyed.

    Was someone negligent? Did negligence result in this accident? Maybe. It certainly appears a confluence of events came together.... wrong time, wrong place. Sometimes bad shiit just happens.

    My wife lets me pursue my hobby but she mandates that I have LOTS of life insurance! IF something happens to me, she will be financially fine. She also knows that I would NOT wish to see any such lawsuits filed.



    Terry
     
  16. ylshih

    ylshih Shogun Assassin
    Honorary Owner

    Mar 21, 2004
    19,803
    Northern CA
    Full Name:
    Yin
    Similar intentions are held by most private pilots. They know that the cost of flying is high in large part due to liability issues and many fully accept that flying is their responsibility and would not want their families to sue anyone or any manufacturer in the event of an incident. The problem is that if a liability lawyer dangles the prospect of several $M in front of the family they usually succumb to the temptation despite their knowledge of the pilot's wishes. In most cases, they don't have the same passion and just tolerated the interest so it's a secondary concern for them. Ultimately, these suits are filed because so many are successful; so you have to make them risky to file or have a liability limitation law before they moderate.
     
  17. teak360

    teak360 F1 World Champ

    Nov 3, 2003
    10,065
    Boulder, CO
    Full Name:
    Scott
    I have read about this case and there are lots of mitigating circumstances invloved. I am no fan of lawsuits but this one probably has some merit. Including some culpability on Porsche's part re: defect and training.
    It's interesting to note too, that the attorney for the plaintiff sued Porsche in the past for selling a dangerous car; one of the old Turbo models, and he won what was a legitimate case.

    It reminds me of the old McDonald's hot is too hot lawsuit that ended in a judgment. The iconic "Frivolous Lawsout" of the past century. In that case in particular, the defendant was remiss. They were serving a dangerously hot product in a flimsy cup that lots of people sat between their legs, and the temp was simply too high. They had previous injury to client records, they knew they needed to lower the temp and they didn't do it.

    Sometimes there's more to the story than just "Damn the Lawyers"
     
  18. Simon^2

    Simon^2 F1 World Champ

    Oct 17, 2005
    12,313
    At Sea Level
    I disagree. As I suspect do the majority of others, thus why this still is the iconic case...

    Hot coffee, too hot. please. ever make instant coffee at home. do you boild the water or use tap water. people chose to put hot coffee in a foam/paper cup between there legs (don't know the whole story, but likely drove), and it's McD's fault. Not in my book.

    A beer fit's in the cupholder in my car, if I use it that way, is that budweiser's fault? ford's fault? Silly example, but to me not much different than driving with hot coffee in your lap being McD's fault.

    IMO we all make choices. some are bad choices. usually we get away with them. occasionally we don't. sometime's there is blame, but not always. I just think the lawsuit culture is way too prevolent...

    From your post, I know we aren't ever going to agree on this. That's OK. Just my opinion. And you are obviously entitled to yours.

    All the best...

    Simon
     
  19. lotustt

    lotustt Formula 3

    Aug 28, 2002
    2,026
    Full Name:
    TRM
    Horrible situation but what could this mean for the manufacturers should Porsche lose this case??
     
  20. whart

    whart F1 Veteran
    Honorary

    Dec 5, 2001
    6,485
    Grandview NY
    Full Name:
    Herr Prof.
    I heard about the case recently, and it saddened me- for Ben's widow- who is now in the position of having to defend her dead husband against accusations that he was reckless, and even for the plaintiff, who will not even begin to get closure and move on while a lawsuit like this is pending. And, that could take years, without considering appeals and the unusual delays. There was a fairly detailed article in Sportcar Marketplace which suggested that the track may well have been remiss in a number of respects- the driver and passenger in the Ferrari are undoubted haunted by this for the rest of their lives as well.
    Most lawsuits are a means to an end- to get money, to get vindication of some sort, to punish. Occasionally someone does initiate suit to force a safety issue for others.
    An 'English' rule- loser pays costs, including attorney's fees, is good in theory. But, it may inhibit legitimate claims.
    One of our clients just won a verdict in England against a songwriter/artist who claimed that he had written and owned the rights to certain songs. The writer lost. He now owes the assorted defendants about 3 million or so dollars in attorney's fees. While I suppose that possibility did not inhibit him from bringing his claim, and may seem fair, at least from the perspective of the prevailing defendants, that verdict is a life-changing event for the losing plaintiff.
    Perhaps that gamble wouldn't be taken by others who may have meritorious claims.
    On the other hand, a similar group of defendants was sued here in the States over the rights in a song for which they had a written license. We believed the case was frivolous from the outset. But, it took about 7 years of litigation, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and cost our clients millions to defend. The court, in its discretion, did not make a prevailing party fee award even though it had the authority, but not the mandate, to do that. So, even making these things discretionary is not always a good answer.
    It seems to me that unless there is some inherent defect in the car itself, there should be no liability simply for Porsche's selling an extremely fast car. But, they are an obvious deep pocket, and from the plaintiff's perspective, I'm sure she regards them as one of many causes.
    All so sad.
     
  21. caymanslover

    caymanslover Karting

    Dec 16, 2005
    114
    New Jersey
    Full Name:
    Tom
    The Turbo lawsuit of circa 1980 was won by this lawyer with incredible jury participation. The fact that the woman (Cynthia French or Friend?) driving her husband's 930 at 60 mph in a 25 mph zone lost control of the car and got her passenger killed when the 930 was struck by another car was completely ignored by the jury. The lawyer cleverly brought out the internal Porsche memo that said the 930 turbo's handling was poisonous in inexperience or injudicious hands/feet and also claimed the brakes were defective in causing the spin out of control. When the jury is faced with such damning evidence and a weeping widow, they are easily persuaded to award money in judgement against the Evil Porsche. So The USA porsche enthusiasts were punished by loss of 930 sales in 1980-85 (no legal model for that market).

    The money in this case cannot be a motive since the parties are quite well off but the plaintiff lawyer clearly is the most greedy of parasites for bringing another suit against the same company that produces the safest cars in the world.

    I bet when he wins the first reward to himself will be a C-GT (and I hope he drives it off a cliff).
     
  22. robert biscan

    robert biscan F1 Veteran

    Jan 17, 2003
    5,066
    Nashville and Palm b
    Full Name:
    robert s biscan
    The widow is sueing because their insurance co. will not pay out without a judgement against the driver or Porche. I'm sure she doesn't want any money from the widow of the driver.
     
  23. fastback33

    fastback33 Formula 3

    Mar 8, 2004
    1,851
    Other then hitting the wall how did they die? I mean, that car looks like it didn't even get into an accident from the beginning of the drivers side door on back. I could see how the passenger would be hurt or even killed because the right side looks like it got most of the damage.
     
  24. J.P.Sarti

    J.P.Sarti Guest

    May 23, 2005
    2,426
    I posted a thread about this a few years ago concerning manufacturers making cars way too fast for average drivers with no requirements for training or classes in how to drive them, it kind of leaves them wide open like a product with no warning lable, Its only a metter of time before more accidents happen with these 500hp cars then the lawsuits which in comparison destroyed the private plane industry such as Cessina in the 90s, soon cars over a certain HP will be electronically limited or detuned to prevent the liabilty.

    I agree this makes the widow look very petty, whats her goal here outlaw fast cars and get some money?
     

Share This Page