Porsche, track owners sued over Carrera GT crash

The goal is to get money and prevent others from experiencing what the best technology has to offer because they want to protect us from ourselves.

 

I hope her ass gets counter sued for slander

 

Anyone want to go to the neighborhood pool and use the diving board? Sigh...

 

I agree the damage looks minimal. No way that car was still going 150 when it hit the wall. It is likely that both suffered neck injuries. I wonder what difference a neck brace would have made?

I also wonder if the shark has read the waiver that everyone signs prior to a track day.

Ken

 

AFAIK, the guy was doing 165 on what was supposed to be a cool down lap.

The ECU said the side impact stopped the car from 100 to 0 in THREE FEET!

 

The goal SHOULD have been to NOT save minimal $$ and make that track safe BEFORE people got killed!

 

That's like 200 Gs! With or without a HANS device, you'd be dead.

Edit: 225 Gs is a little more accurate.

Also note that crumple zones reduce this amount that is experienced by the passengers. I doubt the two had Gs upwards of that amount placed on them. 225 is probably the reading from a body panel that was the first directly in contact with a wall.

 

Neck brace? Are you serious? I always laugh at those wankers who show up with those at the track. You wonder what they're thinking...

Try thinking HANS, buddy, but even then it can't fully protect you from a basal skull fracture.

 

Roland told me Ben wasn't wearing a helmet. Normally I would not believe such a thing, how could he get on the track without a helmet, but he told me that 2 times, so I believe it!

 

I don't know all the facts but I am inclined to give the woman the benefit of the doubt, after all, it is her husband who is dead. Nobody at Porsche died, nor did the owner of the track, etc.

IIRC in the McDonald's case the elderly woman suffered serious burns that required extensive treatment, after hearing facts in that case I was very sympathetic to her. I guess that's shaping my judgement in this case as well...

 

As it should:

McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

Everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention "the McDonald's lawsuit." Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the "problem" with our civil justice system.

The business community and insurance industry have done much to perpetuate this case. They don't want us to forget it. They know it helps them convince politicians that "tort reform" and other restrictions on juries is needed. And worse, they know it poisons the minds of citizens who sit on juries.

Unfortunately, not all the facts have been communicated - facts that put the case and the monetary award to the 81-year old plaintiff in a significantly different light.

According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation.

The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case.

Courtesy of Legal News and Views, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers

 

They were going through a divorce at the time and she just wanted money.

 

The company was Goodyear and they admitted Mark was knowingly running on an experimental set of tires. Mark not only knowingly did it, but also wanted to because as all race drivers, he wanted an edge and wanted to push the boundries a little further, just as all the great ones do.


Sad day. He was one of the best ever.

 

Per fact 8, 185 degrees (McD's) vs. 165 degrees is not a large difference. Both will still burn one's skin if careless. We're talking about someone spilling coffee on themself(!) it wasn't done by an employee of the franchise or by anyone else.

It's hot coffee like anyother served coffee. Of course it can cause injury! They also have billions of customers annually, yes? 70 per year for over 1 billion cups sold, not much (McFact 6). That's a rather small percentage of their client base imo. Many companies settle small things such as this out of court and no one knows about it. 95% of "cases" are resolved without going to court. It saves everyone time and money.

Good for her. That's what happens when you're an 81 year old weak lady who doesn't know why not to put a liquid close to boiling temps (212 for water) between your legs. Nice one lady, nice one...

Of course she had to bring the lawsuit, McD's wouldn't settle out of court. Not their fault she's an idiot.

There are risks for pretty much ANYTHING. That's why warning labels are put on so many items even though a lot of the time it's really useless. It's to keep people from hurting themselves from their own stupidty. I'm really surprised that after 81 years of living, she doesn't know the risks of handling hot fluids.

I would also like to know what "dangerously" hot coffee even means. This kind of ambiguity doesn't help defend the lady. At what point does it become dangerous? The ONLY time I will consider it dangerous is when it is superheated. You can superheat water by putting water in a polished container (no scratches!) and then heated in a microwave. It will stay in the liquid state at over 212 degrees F when it should've boiled. As soon as anything touches the surface, it literally explodes violently as it boils. That is the only dangerous scenario I can imagine because it's so volatile.

Good for the juries, they just have to decide based on what's present in a case (can anyone say OJ?), which didn't seem to take into account her stupidity even after 81 years of living. She's not a child that doesn't know better. What about those jurors what have used ouija boards to make a verdict? They must be the sharpest knives in the drawer. Also, the majority of McD's you see on the road are owned by private owners, its' a franchise. McD's doesn't get the profits from that, only a royalty and maybe a few % of net.

True, most people didn't know that. A lot of awards are lowered on appeal. Still doesn't change what I think of the lady.

Okay, I guess refer to fact number 1's response I gave. Not sure what this fact is suppose to tell me. I've accidently burned a finger while grilling when trying to flip a burger or piece of chicken. I understood the risks of what I was doing and accepted it. I don't care if I burned my finger and I have no plans to sue any grilling companies (or propane companies!)

Edit: Another thing that happened to me that I could probably sue with cases like McD's as precedent. When I was a kid, we had a chattahoochee stoned patio. My friends and I would frequently run from the end of our patio (closest to the house) and into the pool. We did this repetitively, which meant water got all over this stone making it very slippery. We were given no warnings about it being slippery with water on it. At one point, I slipped and hit the pool deck and my momemtum took me into the pool. Scars and everything and I was bleeding a lot. Who did I blame? Myself. I never again did that even though my friends continued to even after 10 years. Everytime I told them that they could hurt themselves. Warning labels are really only useful for children who don't know better and for products that are so advanced know one really knows what the dangers are.

P.S. I don't care for McDonald's anyways, I've always like Burger King more. That crap McD's makes will never be touched by me. Give me a Tendercrisp!

 

OK, now I'm sidetracked but that seems like a heartless reply. To me an 81 year old lady suffering massive burns throughout her "pelvic region" (read between the lines on that one) is sad and calling her stupid just doesn't seem right.

I hope that no elderly person ever falls or has a cardiac emergency around you, sounds like you'd just tell them they should have excercised more in their youth and watch them die with a grin.

People make mistakes as in the case of the CGT crash but needless exacurbation by others that makes such mistakes fatal instead of simple $$$ lost should see legal action.

 

Is this thread really turning into a McDonald's coffee debate? They (McD's) were greedy and they lost as a result. BFD! No relevance here.

The guy was driving like an AH when he shouldn't have been and cost another his life. Like I have been saying all along, when high profile guys get killed unnecessarily, right or wrong, lawsuits happen.

I'm surprised it took this long to happen.

 

She's not a grieving widow, nor does she want "closure". She wants a big fat pile of cash.

Rudl VS. Dr. Ing HCF Porsche

Case number GIC 858645
Plaintiff Tracy rudl

Defendants:
Dr. ING HCF Porsche.
California Speedway.
Porsche AG
Driving adventures Inc.
Driving ventures Inc.
Estate of Benjamin Miles Keaton.
Ferrari owners Club San Diego region.
Flavell
International speedway Inc.
Niles.
Niles.
Porsche North america
Sposato

 

If you owned a gym and an elderly person joined, went on the treadmill and died, would you be happy with being stuck with a lawsuit and potential damages?

Ironically, if you'd tried to cover yourself and prevent that old person from joining the gym in the first place, you might have had to defend a discrimination suit instead.

Society is far too litigious, we have to rein this sort of crap in and let common sense prevail. This old lady (the Mcdonald's one) may not have been "stupid" but she was certainly very careless in taking the risk of putting hot coffee between her thighs. A reasonable person wouldn't have, and we should judge these things based on what reasonable people ought to do. We simply *cannot* cover every conceivable contingency lest the lawyers come after us.

Remember that great saying - "If you make something idiotproof, someone will just come along and make a better idiot". Today, we have to deal with better and better idiots and their greedy lawyers.

 

This post will be the last I reference to McD's because it is getting a bit sidetracked. I think you're missing the main points I was making because you read a lot into my emotions. You can tell I don't like the outcome of that case. It doesn't have anything to do with how I feel about helping an elderly person having a heart attack. I don't even know how that's similar to this. It has everything to do with a person's negligence in things they could've easily prevented if a little more thought was given on their part.

Taking that last line I said in the paragraph above is something I'm not sure anyone in this thread truly knows in dealing with the Porsche case and who was most negligent. Has any fact been given on if it he was wearing a helmet? Either of them? I know I've seen a picture of the passenger in his Murcielage Roadster with a helmet. I don't see why he wouldn't be wearning one this time. What signals were given by the corner worker? Did he have enough previous training and experience to make good calls? Did the track have a rule that all riders must have the proper safety equipment in use and was it enforced?

Depending on the answer to some of the questions above, I can see why a lawsuit is justified against the track. I'm not sure what the reasons are for brining one against the driver's widow or Porsche, but maybe it's for insurance purposes as someone said earlier.

Edit: Just saw Korr's post. Nice find, but the suit is also against the Ferrari owners Club in that region??? I'd really like to know her reasoning for that one. That one out of the rest seems really odd. I don't know what Flavell or Sposato mean, though. Maybe the cornerworker and the driver of the incoming car?

 

Dunno. I found it on the first post here.

http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/showthread.php?t=253838

 

I personally do not know the details of the crash, however, I have attended a few track days that were very chaotic, not well organized, and safety had been overlooked in a number of ways. On those days, I just pulled my car off the track and got the heck out of there. Now, in retrospect, had I been in a serious accident on one of those days that was a result of the officials overlooking safety, you bet I would be suing big time. I do not know if this was the case on the particular track day in question, but I can say from experience that I have been to a few track days where the organization was brutal, and it was fortunate that on those days that nobody got hurt.

Things I have seen on private track days:

- No regulation on passing (when or where)
- No separation of faster cars and slower cars in different heats (Honda's out there with Enzo's)
- No yellow flag for disabled cars on the track (cars still whipping by at full speed while the driver tries to attend to his car)
- Large groups of people openly walking through pit lane, not looking where they are or what cars are coming in/out

I must qualify that the safest events that I have participated in are the Lamborghini Track Days (I have participated twice), and they were very well organized, had the proper number of officials, and provided all proper safety orientation and rules.

 

Being a Flag Chief at our local track...can a corner worker be sued for such an incident??

 

I guess this would be under Respondiat Superior (sp?). If the worker is an employee of the track (I'm assuming) and not an independent contractor, the employer is responsible for his/her actions. I believe both can be sued in a tort like this, but the one with the deeper pockets is usually pursued.

 

And, what will it mean to track day organizers? (And, track junkies)

Mike

 

One track day (whose organizer I will leave anonymous) I had other cars waved onto the track right in front of me, at an incredibly dangerous time. I had to lift and brake mid-corner, in a fairly high speed chicane. I was approaching the merging traffic from the rear (blind spot direction), so they had no real way to spot me. The track worker simply used very poor judgement, and as a result, almost caused a high speed collision, or at the least, a very exciting, spinning "off". Luckily, my car is of the more forgiving type (handling wise), and so no drama ensued. I doubt I will attend another event held by that organizer, or if I do, I will be on "high alert".

I agree with the assessment above. If the organizers don't have things FIRMLY under control...leave. No track day is worth an accident, much less injury.