CGT lawsuit filed.
02-14-2006, 05:04 PM
#32
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I don’t think the famous McDonalds lawsuit is as simple as you make it Bob. It was my understanding that the restaurant in question deliberately increased the temperature of their coffee over “normal” serving temperature. By doing so, customers would be less likely (because it was too hot to drink) to take advantage of the free refills policy in effect while at the restaurant eating their meal.
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
02-14-2006, 05:42 PM
#33
Rennlist Member
All we need is change the attorney compensation formula to either each side pays its own, or loser pays. Then, a lot of the incentive is gone.
It would be ironic if the winning attorney used his fees to buy a CGT. AS
It would be ironic if the winning attorney used his fees to buy a CGT. AS
02-14-2006, 06:07 PM
#34
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The complaint addressed the waiver issue and I can summarize the allegations and theory behind getting around the waiver. Bear in mind the passengers family has filed suit against Ben's estate and others and that Ben's family is a defendant not plaintiff.
The essence of getting around the waiver in the complaint is as follows:
"Keaton had been warned that his Porsche was not handling correctly and willfully invited Corey Rudl to be a passenger without informing him of the danger"
"Keaton also concealed the fact that that he had recently been involved in an incident with the Porsche in which he lost control over it"
"Scott Flavell an organizer of the event was also aware of keaton's reckless driving and recent handling problems of his Porsche but concealed the danger from Corey Rudl"
"SD Ferrai owners club allowed the track to be set up in violation of racetrack standards and concealed the fact from defendants customers"
The theory is that by these alleged overt concealments and alleged willful failure to disclose Corey couldn't make a knowing waiver and therefore the waiver is not valid. They also alleged gross acts of misconduct and negligence which would if proven true invalidate the waiver.
The essence of getting around the waiver in the complaint is as follows:
"Keaton had been warned that his Porsche was not handling correctly and willfully invited Corey Rudl to be a passenger without informing him of the danger"
"Keaton also concealed the fact that that he had recently been involved in an incident with the Porsche in which he lost control over it"
"Scott Flavell an organizer of the event was also aware of keaton's reckless driving and recent handling problems of his Porsche but concealed the danger from Corey Rudl"
"SD Ferrai owners club allowed the track to be set up in violation of racetrack standards and concealed the fact from defendants customers"
The theory is that by these alleged overt concealments and alleged willful failure to disclose Corey couldn't make a knowing waiver and therefore the waiver is not valid. They also alleged gross acts of misconduct and negligence which would if proven true invalidate the waiver.
02-14-2006, 06:18 PM
#35
Wax On, Wax Off
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 5280 ft above the sea
Posts: 17,727
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by Les Quam
The complaint addressed the waiver issue and I can summarize the allegations and theory behind getting around the waiver. Bear in mind the passengers family has filed suit against Ben's estate and others and that Ben's family is a defendant not plaintiff.
The essence of getting around the waiver in the complaint is as follows:
"Keaton had been warned that his Porsche was not handling correctly and willfully invited Corey Rudl to be a passenger without informing him of the danger"
"Keaton also concealed the fact that that he had recently been involved in an incident with the Porsche in which he lost control over it"
"Scott Flavell an organizer of the event was also aware of keaton's reckless driving and recent handling problems of his Porsche but concealed the danger from Corey Rudl"
"SD Ferrai owners club allowed the track to be set up in violation of racetrack standards and concealed the fact from defendants customers"
The theory is that by these alleged overt concealments and alleged willful failure to disclose Corey couldn't make a knowing waiver and therefore the waiver is not valid. They also alleged gross acts of misconduct and negligence which would if proven true invalidate the waiver.
The essence of getting around the waiver in the complaint is as follows:
"Keaton had been warned that his Porsche was not handling correctly and willfully invited Corey Rudl to be a passenger without informing him of the danger"
"Keaton also concealed the fact that that he had recently been involved in an incident with the Porsche in which he lost control over it"
"Scott Flavell an organizer of the event was also aware of keaton's reckless driving and recent handling problems of his Porsche but concealed the danger from Corey Rudl"
"SD Ferrai owners club allowed the track to be set up in violation of racetrack standards and concealed the fact from defendants customers"
The theory is that by these alleged overt concealments and alleged willful failure to disclose Corey couldn't make a knowing waiver and therefore the waiver is not valid. They also alleged gross acts of misconduct and negligence which would if proven true invalidate the waiver.
This ****e is Ridiculous. I hate to see this. WTF was Scott Flavell to do? Stand up with a loadspeaker, and say "EVERYONE STAY AWAY FROM KEATON AND THE CGT!"
*sigh* I seriously hope this gets shot down.
02-14-2006, 07:17 PM
#37
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by icon
a distinct possibility
would be even worse if porsche's funds were used to purchase an enzo
would be even worse if porsche's funds were used to purchase an enzo
For those of you not aware that Les is also an attorney, I suggest you pay attention to what he writes. Very good stuff!
Les time to get back into the saddle.
02-14-2006, 08:48 PM
#38
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
interesting....
Hypothetically, if the wife now has to provide for her family she should be compensated in some way, but isn't that what life insurance is for?
This is just greed.
Hypothetically, if the wife now has to provide for her family she should be compensated in some way, but isn't that what life insurance is for?
This is just greed.
02-14-2006, 09:26 PM
#39
Still plays with cars.
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Les - thanks for the info. Please, share what you learn with us.
02-14-2006, 09:53 PM
#40
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBH,
I think it was I who played this out in public not Nick? I am the one who found the complaint and discussed the details on these forums.
Sometimes it is good to view things from anothers standpoint? Let's use Nick as an example.
He is at the track the day his close friend Ben is killed.
He then attends Ben's funeral and possibly is involved when the news was broken to Ben's wife about the crash.
He then works with a devasted family to help recover as much as possible for Ben's car from the insurance company and works with them with other estate details. I remember Ben leased his CGT so that recovery must have been very difficult with the current depressed market for CGTs.
I am aware of what Nick recovered for Ben's family in regard to the CGT and it was VERY fair. Really really fair.
He then successfully represents Ben's family in a very difficult and pressure packed negotation with the insurance company( because the down side is huge) to get them on board with indemnification.
Nick must at some point break the news to Ben's family that Ben is being blamed for the crash and death of his passenger and that a judgement could exceed the families insurance coverage limits and bankrupt Ben's family.
He must also tell Ben's widow that she will have to relive this crash for the next several years during this litigation and that her husbands name will be dragged through the mud as a reckless and irresponsible person instead of the beautiful and caring person he was.
Each and every time he makes contact with Ben's family must be very painful and bring back terrible memories of the crash for him as he watches Ben's family endure the crash and now being named as a defendant in a high dollar lawsuit against a powerhouse experienced attorney who has already brought Porsche to it's knee's once before.
I honestly fail to see where Nick gets ANY pleasure out of this lawsuit as he helps Ben's family through this process for the next few years. Geeeeez.
I think it was I who played this out in public not Nick? I am the one who found the complaint and discussed the details on these forums.
Sometimes it is good to view things from anothers standpoint? Let's use Nick as an example.
He is at the track the day his close friend Ben is killed.
He then attends Ben's funeral and possibly is involved when the news was broken to Ben's wife about the crash.
He then works with a devasted family to help recover as much as possible for Ben's car from the insurance company and works with them with other estate details. I remember Ben leased his CGT so that recovery must have been very difficult with the current depressed market for CGTs.
I am aware of what Nick recovered for Ben's family in regard to the CGT and it was VERY fair. Really really fair.
He then successfully represents Ben's family in a very difficult and pressure packed negotation with the insurance company( because the down side is huge) to get them on board with indemnification.
Nick must at some point break the news to Ben's family that Ben is being blamed for the crash and death of his passenger and that a judgement could exceed the families insurance coverage limits and bankrupt Ben's family.
He must also tell Ben's widow that she will have to relive this crash for the next several years during this litigation and that her husbands name will be dragged through the mud as a reckless and irresponsible person instead of the beautiful and caring person he was.
Each and every time he makes contact with Ben's family must be very painful and bring back terrible memories of the crash for him as he watches Ben's family endure the crash and now being named as a defendant in a high dollar lawsuit against a powerhouse experienced attorney who has already brought Porsche to it's knee's once before.
I honestly fail to see where Nick gets ANY pleasure out of this lawsuit as he helps Ben's family through this process for the next few years. Geeeeez.
02-14-2006, 11:36 PM
#42
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by JBH
You might note from Les' description, he sticks to statements of fact. On the otherhand, Nick you seem to take some kind of perverse enjoyment from this lawsuit. I don't understand the attitude, I dont understand why you want to play this out in a public forum and it really makes you look...well...very amateurish.
If you are going to offer your professional opinions, at least try to act like a professional.
If you are going to offer your professional opinions, at least try to act like a professional.
The last thing I get from this lawsuit is pleasure. As Les pointed out, this has been a very traumatic experience for all of us involved in the case. I have NOT recommeded an action against Porsche to Ben's widow. However, if it ever came down to Ben's family or Porsche, rest assured I will dump all over Porsche.
Fortunately, we are no where near that stage.BTW, ALL of my arguments regarding whether there is a case against Porsche are merely illustrative. Also, I am trying to impress upon you all that until the facts are all in DON'T prejudge the case. Most are thinking with their heart and not their mind. To excoriate any Plaintiff for starting a suit without knowing the merits is being closed minded.
I suspect the income level of the boards participants is fairly high. You all did not get to this point by putting your head in the sand.
02-14-2006, 11:53 PM
#43
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
On a much more pleasant subject do you know where any nice1966 through 1969 275 GTB/4s are for sale with a verifiable owner history? I thought perhaps in your Ferrari circle of friends if you come upon one you could let me know? Or if you know of an honest classic Ferrari dealer or broker? I have heard some horror stories on the classic Ferrari dealers?
You know the 275 GTB series that I am referring to? It is the Ferrari that doesn't do all the driving work for you and rewards you when you do a nice job of driving it as opposed to the ones designed today like the 430 paddle shift series for Grandmothers and soccer moms?
I thought I would get us back on track with some good old fashioned Ferrari 430 paddle shift Nick bashing.
On a much more pleasant subject do you know where any nice1966 through 1969 275 GTB/4s are for sale with a verifiable owner history? I thought perhaps in your Ferrari circle of friends if you come upon one you could let me know? Or if you know of an honest classic Ferrari dealer or broker? I have heard some horror stories on the classic Ferrari dealers?
You know the 275 GTB series that I am referring to? It is the Ferrari that doesn't do all the driving work for you and rewards you when you do a nice job of driving it as opposed to the ones designed today like the 430 paddle shift series for Grandmothers and soccer moms?
I thought I would get us back on track with some good old fashioned Ferrari 430 paddle shift Nick bashing.
02-15-2006, 12:04 AM
#44
I think Les does a perfect job of viewing Ben's family's position through compassionate eyes. The whole thing is horrible, there's no avoiding that truth, and the allegations against Ben in the complaint sicken me.
Nick, I can prejudge the case because I think race track waivers should be upheld against all but the most extreme claims - intentional misconduct, for example. Even if the CGT truly is a handful of a car, beyond the abilities of amateur drivers - LOTS of cars, street and track, are difficult to drive at or near the limit - the 360 CS and C have in my experience a wicked tendency towards oversteer that could hurt you. One could buy an ex-Champ Car and race it in BOSS. A GT2 must demand care on track. And so on. A man, it's true, simply has to know his limits.
It is essential in my view, for the future of motorsports that claims like the one presented by Mr. Rudl's (sp?) estate virtually always fail to defeat the track and other waivers. Racing and performance driving are not for everyone, and the reactions of some drivers to wrecks and even mechanical failures make me think that we have too many participants who just don't get it. Racing in particular, offers up some really, really bad days - everyone who races for very long knows this, I could tell you a few stories - and you have to be able to survive them.
Beyond racing, it may be necessary for the future of performance cars, at least as I love them, that such claims fail altogether. I recently bought an F40 - truly an easy car to kill oneself in, no? Is it Ferrari's fault if I can't manage all that boost? I have an F430, Nick, like you - now, there's a car that let's an amateur drive well over his head, covering many mistakes. The Gallardo, with its awd, also covers newbie mistakes and allows relatively inexperienced drivers to be heros. Is it Ferrari's or Lambo's fault if someone hurts himself in one of these fantastic machines? One consequence of the various driver aids you favor is that they permit the unseasoned driver to go even faster, raising the stakes when the inevitable occurs, and the car's limits are exceeded.
So Nick, you have to expect fierce and bitter opposition from me and perhaps some of your other fellow enthusiasts to the assumptions underlying the suit that has been filed.
Nick, I can prejudge the case because I think race track waivers should be upheld against all but the most extreme claims - intentional misconduct, for example. Even if the CGT truly is a handful of a car, beyond the abilities of amateur drivers - LOTS of cars, street and track, are difficult to drive at or near the limit - the 360 CS and C have in my experience a wicked tendency towards oversteer that could hurt you. One could buy an ex-Champ Car and race it in BOSS. A GT2 must demand care on track. And so on. A man, it's true, simply has to know his limits.
It is essential in my view, for the future of motorsports that claims like the one presented by Mr. Rudl's (sp?) estate virtually always fail to defeat the track and other waivers. Racing and performance driving are not for everyone, and the reactions of some drivers to wrecks and even mechanical failures make me think that we have too many participants who just don't get it. Racing in particular, offers up some really, really bad days - everyone who races for very long knows this, I could tell you a few stories - and you have to be able to survive them.
Beyond racing, it may be necessary for the future of performance cars, at least as I love them, that such claims fail altogether. I recently bought an F40 - truly an easy car to kill oneself in, no? Is it Ferrari's fault if I can't manage all that boost? I have an F430, Nick, like you - now, there's a car that let's an amateur drive well over his head, covering many mistakes. The Gallardo, with its awd, also covers newbie mistakes and allows relatively inexperienced drivers to be heros. Is it Ferrari's or Lambo's fault if someone hurts himself in one of these fantastic machines? One consequence of the various driver aids you favor is that they permit the unseasoned driver to go even faster, raising the stakes when the inevitable occurs, and the car's limits are exceeded.
So Nick, you have to expect fierce and bitter opposition from me and perhaps some of your other fellow enthusiasts to the assumptions underlying the suit that has been filed.
02-15-2006, 12:07 AM
#45
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBH,
I just read your post and I don't think I have ever said Nick was appropriate or didn't enjoy coming onto this Porsche forum and start an electronic riot among us all. But I see that as just like you say fanning the flames for fun.
It seems to me when we are discussing Ben, his memory and the continuing ordeal Ben's family is going to have to endure with this lawsuit we should be clear on our facts and acknowledge that when Nick is not inciting a riot on this forum that he has really honored Ben's memory and friendship by sticking with his family after Ben's death and helping them in a real and tangible way.
I can overlook his blind ,stupid and ridiculous devotion to his soccer mom series 430 Ferrari when he goes out in the real world and helps Ben's family in such an important and meaningful way. Not to mention his stubborn failure to acknowledge that the 360 series was a unstable tail happy piece of rolling automotive garbage as stated by everyone who ever drove one on a track.
I just read your post and I don't think I have ever said Nick was appropriate or didn't enjoy coming onto this Porsche forum and start an electronic riot among us all. But I see that as just like you say fanning the flames for fun.
It seems to me when we are discussing Ben, his memory and the continuing ordeal Ben's family is going to have to endure with this lawsuit we should be clear on our facts and acknowledge that when Nick is not inciting a riot on this forum that he has really honored Ben's memory and friendship by sticking with his family after Ben's death and helping them in a real and tangible way.
I can overlook his blind ,stupid and ridiculous devotion to his soccer mom series 430 Ferrari when he goes out in the real world and helps Ben's family in such an important and meaningful way. Not to mention his stubborn failure to acknowledge that the 360 series was a unstable tail happy piece of rolling automotive garbage as stated by everyone who ever drove one on a track.