Porsche, track owners sued over Carrera GT crash

Our local Porsche club is tops. We very rarely have anything happen, and on the rare occassion it has, it was not related to organizer actions.

- I won't drive in events with un-regulated passing. That is racing, and is sure to involve swapping paint when ego's get involved.
- I don't think it is mandatory to partition cars by potential speed, depending on the drivers involved. Many drivers of very high priced cars do not know how to drive them to half their capability; or do not choose to drive them quickly at all to avoid risk. Should an expert S2000 driver be banished to some other run group because a so-so Enzo driver is as fast in his super car? Not necessarily. Since it was a Honda mentioned as the slower car, perhaps the criteria being used is price of the car instead of speed? An S2000 will outrun many an older Ferrari on the track.
- No yellow flag for disabled cars? Inexcusable.
- Pit lane is hard to control, esp if open to the public. All you can do is ask...

Some miscellaneous rambling.

 

As I remember it Mark ran over debris and got a slow puncture. He kept going. He crashed. IMO that was not the mfg's fault. (Foggy Memory as well
could be wrong)

 

Agree. Have a heart man!
BT

 

I don't know anything about this sad situation, other than what I have read on the Internet or SCM, which means that I don't know jack.

I do know that, like it or not, our legal system is our primary change agent in our society. By putting this event under a microscope, hopefully, we can all learn from whatever went wrong that day. Maybe we need to have iron-clad waivers where every participant understands that he or she might die. Maybe we need separate run groups. Maybe there needs to be more training of corner workers. Or, just maybe, amateur day at the track with cars making over 500 hp are going to have to be a thing of the past. I do know that the more time I spend at the track, the less I'm inclined to get out there and mix it up with drivers of unknown abilities.

Dale

 

Clearly its not the widow dictating who gets sued its the lawyer, he is suing anyone that got near him that day practically, 165 on a cool down lap with no helmet is pushing the limit.

Anyone can file a lawsuit lets see if it gets thrown out by the judge, I hope that happens and this lawyer looses a lot of $$ he has invested in this case.

 

I agreee. My post wasn't as clear as you have stated now. It is not necessarily the car, but also the driver and previous track experience. I only used the Honda/Enzo example to show both ends of the spectrum. Well organzied track days will divide people into groups, that fit the skill level and lap times of the cars. And if there are any discrepancies discovered, the groups should be altered accordingly. I have been to a few track days where this is not the case.

 

Unfortunately, to use your words "anyone that got near him that day practically" is being sued, and must spend time, $$$, energy, and worry defending themself.

I agree with Dale, in the post above, the legal system initiates change. This change is sometimes for the good, but often not.

 

Exactly, its always the few that destroy it for many as no one is responsible for their own actions these days.

This case could impact the future of track events, Ferrari organizations/drives and hp limitations by car manufacturers or the liabilty of building sports cars, the bad few can take away alot of our freedoms.

 

I think it is not so much the widow as it is some greedy lawyer. The lawyer convinced her to do it "No Cost to her", if they win he takes big %. This is I think a case of a mourning and vulnerable widow, and a heartless manipulative lawyer.... I still sympathise with her, this was a terrible tragedy.

 

Call me heartless but...life is dangerous. If you get in a car and drive it at high speeds around a track, you accept the risk that bad stuff can happen to you.

IMO, the only questions of liability should be 1) if the worker made an egregious error in judgement, and 2) if the sponsoring organization put an undertrained person in the position to be making "track entry" decisions.

Everything else is too far removed to be "fair game" for a lawsuit, IMO.

As for HP limits on cars...one of the reasons Porsche went to AWD on the turbos was so that they would be safer to drive (and all the ramifications that entails).

 

holly crap!! who arent they suing??

well at least I dont see a gas company on there for making gas that made the car go "too fast"

 

FWIW:

One version of the story that I have read is that the grid marshal signalled the F-car to enter the track. The F-car hesitated and the window for entering the track closed so the grid marshal motioned a stop signal. At that time, the F-car entered the track, crossed the blend line and into Ben's driving line.

///Michael

 

Noone held a gun to her head and told her she had to sue, and noone is forced to listen to a lawyer's advice. In any case, a lawyer represents you and not vice versa.

You're right, lawyers can be very persuasive where money is concerned, which is why I've always felt that a severe limitation of lawyer fees in big awards should be imposed,that will take away the ambulance chaser factor to some extent.

 

That is the way litigation works. You name as many parties who could be found liable, and the court sifts through them and allows dismissal of those who don't have liability. You've heard the term, "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" ? Well, in high stakes litigation you sue them all and let the court sort it out.

 

You can't waive negligence.

From the version of the story I've heard (not from the internet), Keaton appears to have killed Rudl through disobeying the track rules. I think it will be hard to hold the track responsible because they could not possibly be held accountable for the actions of track users who directly ignore the instructions.

As far as track worker liability, I'm not sure but my gut would say that they would be indemnified by the track, absent criminal negligence. Off the cuff I think this is not criminal negligence because Keaton stayed out longer than supposed to and was going far too fast for his cool down lap.

BTW, anyone can look at the court filings in cases like this through the PACER system. They are public record. It would be interesting to see what they allege against each of the defendants.

 

I think that the niggest thing wrong with America is that people don't want to take responsibility for thier own actions, and feel the need to put someone else at fault for bad things caused by themselves. Same with family members who can't possibly believe that thier family member died of thier own negligance.

Examples from this thread:
McD's coffee - When you get a cup of coffee from anywhere, and its 185*, you feel it though the cup, and doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize its hot. Yet these people still decide to try and drink the coffee while driving, or put it in thier lap, while driving. This is thier own negligance.

Porsche- While the driver certainly wasn't 100% at fault, he was still at fault, the track is at fault as well. However, the passenger wasn't forced to get in the car and ride with the driver, he chose to, so anything that happened to him should fall on him, because he put himself in the situation. Porsche did nothing wrong by building the CGT as fast as they did. There were a number of circumstances at fault here, and there should not be a case against what happened.

If America would step up and learn to take responsibility for thier own actions, we would all be much better off. Also, have a jury know every single detail of a case can severly alter thier decisions to be irrational, as with the McD's case. Because they knew she was an 81 year old woman, they felt bad for her, and couldn't bare decide against the elderly even though she was negligent as well. When people die, juries have a hard time finding that that person is at fault because they feel bad for the widow and the family left behind.
These fast are clearly evident just reading though this thread by the remarks of "She was 81, now I believe the case was warranted," or whatever. The fact of the matter is that the elderly are people too and they must be held accountable for thier own newly aquired disablities, as well as the choices they make just as much as anyone else.

Personally, I can easily see why so many Europeans make fun of Americans for reasons like this. It's ridiculous how flawed many aspects of this country are sometimes.

 

This type of stuff makes me sick to my stomach. As a former fraternity member, we were warned that if someone underage brought their own alcohol and drank it at our place and died, we would be held liable. We were even told that having people sign waivers would be pointless because they'd likely be worthless in court. In essence, peoples' words are not worth anything anymore.

I don't think anyone forced Corey Rudl to ride in the car. He made a concious choice to jump in, whether or not he was aware of the danger. I'd be more inclined to say that it is his fault for not fully being aware of the situation. No one forced Mr. Keaton to purchase the Porsche. Similarly, no one forced Mrs. 81-year-old-McD's-coffee-drinker to purchase the coffee, put in between her legs, drive at the same time, and spill it on herself.

If McDonald's coffee is too hot, BUY SOMETHING ELSE!!! If the Porsche is too dangerous DON'T BUY IT!!!

As far as I am concerned, if a provider does not make any express guarantees, the consumer should assume the possiblity of all other situations occurring and proceed based on that assumption. Human beings are unique in our mental capacity and ability to rationalize and evaluate complex situations, people need to take advantage of that wonderful grey matter in their thick skulls more often.

It seems that now-a-days the motto is "Act now, Sue later." And that is just sad.

 

I'm always amazed at "the coffee was too hot..." foolishness.

every school child is aware water boils at 212F (at sea level for the physics majors...), everyone knows you boil water to make coffee (or you should)... coffee should be presumed to be 211F. that' why we all blow on a soup spoon before the first sip!!!

If these concepts are to advanced for someone to understand, they should have... "I'm too stupid to be trusted with anything..." tatoo'd to their forehead...

Then if someone serves them a slurpee, and they stain their blouse, go ahead and file a lawsuit...

I'm sorry. if you drive with coffee in you lap and spill it, it's your own fault. I don't care if your 81 or 21. refuse to serve an 81 year old a cup of coffee at a drive-thru and see what happens!

 

One thing that we all should realize that the real problem is not the lawyers. They are just paid whores.

Nope the real problem are judges and juries.

Case in point in today's WSJ. Massachusetts's highest court said that Phillip Morris could not use the "personal choice" defense in a tobacco lawsuit.

In other words, a tobacco company cannot claim that a smoker had ANY personal responsibility for smoking.

Folks, I'm in my mid-50s. I have hated smoking all my life. However, even us juvenile delinquents back in the 60s knew that smoking was bad for you.

Now, a Massachusettes court has said that a smoker bares no responsibility for smoking. The court apparently ruled that this defense could be raised only when "...a reasonably safe product was used in an unreasonable way."

What a crock.

Dale

 

All judges are lawyers.....and lawyers pick the juries....

The problem isn't lawyers however.....it's the laws....but the laws, are made and influenced by lawyers.....hence....lawyers are the problem.....damn circular logic !!!

 

Thats what I was talking about, HANS or the newer type that straps to your back.

I'm one of the wankers that wear a neck brace. It is definately helpful around corners but I'm sure that your correct...it isn't stiff enough to truely limit helmet movement during a crash.

Ken

 

You guys are right, this is out of control. We need to lock the courthouse doors. We certainly don’t want to give widows and burned grandmothers their day in court. At the time of this incident McDonald's operations and training manual said its coffee must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190 degrees. Sure the Shriner’s Burn Institute had warned them that this would cause serious burns. So what if at this temperature the coffee would deform the cup making it even harder for an older person to open the lid when trying to add cream and sugar. The old biddy should know her own limitations. She also should have known, unlike some thermally challenged members of FerrariChat, that the difference between coffee at 190 degrees and 160 degrees is that it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees. So she has third degree burns requiring skin grafts to a very private portion of her body. She should learn to strip off her clothes faster. Plus I am sure you will agree; that’s what she gets for not wearing her asbestos suit when handling this coffee. You guys are right that all victims should take responsibility for their actions. Defendants on the other hand, should be free to take no responsibility. We don’t want poor McDonald’s to be forced to stoop so low as to take any responsibility for the happy meal they served this old fool and the 700 morons who were burned before her by McDonald’s molten coffee. And then to add insult to injury, the jury wanted to make McDonald’s pay punitive damages in the amount of two days worth of coffee sales. When that drunk driver hits your family car catching it on fire and burning the kids, I am sure you won’t want him to pay more than two day’s wages, right? So what if it was his 700th offense.

I think we should do away with this whole trial system. Let’s go back to the old days with an “eye for an eye.” McDonald’s you burn my grandma; I burn your corporate president. Some doctor commits malpractice and my kid dies, I get to run the doctor over in my car. Accidents happen. Why do we need a system with all these burdensome checks and balances? Lets let them be tried by public opinion based on what people heard while listening to Rush Limbaugh.

I don’t see many of you outraged at the many people on this site who have pursued buybacks of their Mercedes or other cars under the “lemon law”. Are we so sure they have valid claims or are they trying to dupe the poor car manufacturer? So you don’t like the fact that Porsche is getting sued over this incident. Get over it. Many also think it is silly that WalMart is suing in patent court for a trademark to the smiley face. I don’t know the facts in either the Widow's case against Porsche or the Wal Mart case and don’t want to shut either of them out of court. It is not a perfect system, but it has many safeguards. Usually, when there is a bad verdict in one of these cases it is because there are bad facts. Plus, when a jury finds few damages it is rare that an appellate court will add to the judgment. However, if a verdict is deemed too high the courts often exercise the option of reducing the verdict through the process of remitter, as they did in the McDonald’s case reducing the punitive damages to $480,000.00.

 

Good points, Lloyd. It's easy to get outraged at the tort system, especially when it's not our pain.

Gary

 

Fine, let's keep torts the same way. Just make two small modifications, both affecting only lawyers who take tort cases.

1) Restrict the maximum fees that lawyers can reap from damages awarded. E.g. whether the plaintiff gets $20,000 or 2 million, the lawyer still gets a maximum of $10,000 or whatever is deemed reasonable. Disallow fees paid on a contingency basis. Fee structures can be decided by an oversight committee comprising members from different walks of life, including many lay public members. A similar committee (with lay public members and a minority of doctors) has been in place in my country for a long time, and they decide fair fee structures for doctors. As far as I am aware, there is no similar committee for lawyers - this should change, both in my country as well as in the US.

2) Lawyers are not allowed to advertise the damages they have secured their clients in tort cases. This is to prevent clients coming to lawyers who have a track record of winning big awards, because it then becomes all about getting more money. It is inevitable that the press will report big judgements and big awards, but the law firm/lawyers themselves should not be allowed to advertise or disclose the awards they have won in the past.

Happy with those changes? I'm sure you would be, it's all about the principle of the thing right?

BTW, I don't know to what extent those things I suggested have already been implemented. If there are already similar restrictions in place, then well and good.

 

she already has a big fat pile of cash. they were worth well over $100 million when he died.