TRINITONY

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/content/carrera

g_murray

IMHO, gotta love Calif. courts (rolling of eyes). I also seem to remember an ex-football player getting away with murder(s) then writing a book (whilst wearing somebody else's Rolex.)

Gerry

Randy 1

Very interesting indeed...

Porsche settles because they didn't include electronic PSM, and from the Top Gear segments, we see that the CGT is not for the novice driver due to its oversteer issues.

Ferrari mechanic notes this issue as a "handling problem".

Under the heading of "what was accomplished?"

"he is hopeful that Porsche and other manufacturers will never again build a supercar without electronic stability control. "

If you can't run with the big dogs, don't buy an even bigger dog...

Arrwin

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

RallyJon

I'm all for personal responsibility. However, it's pretty clear there were some unsafe track conditions there. That's what gross negligence is all about, right--when you put someone directly in harms way?

And of course anyone should be able to buy and drive any car they want, with or without psm etc. And then if they can't handle it, they are responsible for what happens. Again, this part of the settlement makes quite a bit of sense given the evidence that the driver and/or car weren't up to the job at hand.

Porsche settled because that's what big companies do. No liability there.

The real culprit is, of course, NASCAR. They are 100% responsible and should be sued out of existence!

IamSMC

Here's a X-Post from 6speedonline.com
http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/s...ght=Ben+Keaton

The owner of the CGT was a beloved member there and here......

2Many Cars

IMHO, gotta love Calif. courts (rolling of eyes). I also seem to remember an ex-football player getting away with murder(s) then writing a book (whilst wearing somebody else's Rolex.)

Gerry


Yeah but New York's laws are even worse......from the article:

"The Court brushed them off, pointing out that NASCAR holds three races each year in Virginia and New York, both of which have laws that bar releases even in cases of ordinary negligence."

In NY injury waivers are invalid for even simple negligence! Remarkably it appears NY and VA trump CA in the avoiding personal responsibility race.

rome

It's important to remember that the damages component in a case like this (and here the award was more than $4million) is tied to the future lost earnings of the decedent. From what I understand, he was a pretty young person (I think in his 30's) making a very high income. That's bound to translate into a very sizeable damage award if the defendants are held liable.

So, whether you think there should be liability in this situation is one thing. But, in considering whether the AMOUNT of the settlement is just you have to consider who the plaintiff is (and, you take your plaintiff as you find them). I have to imagine that the defendents believed the result could have been much worse if it went to a jury because they did settle, after all, for a significant sum. Relatedly, the fact that Porsche agreed to settle claims which involve significant proprietary technology (or the lack thereof) which they have spent millions developing and including (or choosing not to include) in their cars is very telling about their views on the risks and uncertainties of this litigation.

mr_fizz

Very interesting and sad story. I dont think there was gross negligence by any specific party, but certainly there was a collection of several smaller negligent acts resulting in a terrible outcome, which maybe unto themselves, would not have led to such a diastorous result.

The claim against Porsche would have absolutely no merit in court, but would certainly create terrible PR for the company (hence the settlement). It is virtually impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that stability control would have prevented the accident, no matter who was at fault.

Bull

No "courts" involved....it was a settlement. But..... it is fun to bash the People Republic of California Courts, as well as the Courts of New York State anyway..................

John D.

Mr. Keaton was a friend of mine. Do you have anything else to add? And I should say "of any relevance whatsoever"?

Welcome to Rennlist.

John D.

Lorenfb

"he is hopeful that Porsche and other manufacturers will never again build a supercar without electronic stability control. "

"It is virtually impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that stability control would have prevented the accident, no matter who was at fault."

The inclusion of a PSM system most likely would have had no effect on this
accident given the significant CGT swerving and the vehicle's immediate
entry into the grassy area.

rome

Porsche (or, more likely, its insurer) paid about $400,000. Their prospective defense costs could have easily been that much. On the other hand, they may have deemed this litigation a much greater risk.

Consider, for example, what it would mean to them if a judge in this case established a precendent which required them to include their PSM technology in all of their vehicles.

race911

Civil court......preponderance of the evidence standard.

And John, I damn near damaged my laptop screen flicking at that that pesky "bug". You just put that "avatar" up?

John D.

What are you talking about??? My avatar is my 993..... I have no bugs in my code...???





JD