roberga

A friend of mine is a lawyer that represented the defendant in a case with a waiver. He collected $900K from the plaintiff or his lawyer since in the waiver I stated that if you are greedy enough try you the plaintiff will have to cover the cost. The waiver won the day. Let us hope Porsche does the same.

Nick

Ray, Porsche does not have benefit of a waiver in Ben's case. Porsche's liability will be based on whether something was wrong with the car that contributed to the accident, failed to warn or should have given instruction for a car of that type.

BTW Lawyers rarely are required to pay cost in losing a case. The client pays and even then it is not that often.

ked

Jeff, I've seen more than enough of how "justice" operates in cases where a great deal of $ is in the offing. You might open your eyes - it's part of growing up.

1AS

ked,
I think a post of yours can be read two ways:
1. The way I think you intended: the death of two wealthy people attracts lawyers who function like buzzards ove a kill.
2. Two rich spoiled young men got themsellves killed (implication of prejudice against young, rich men)
Franlky, on my first read, I thought you were making the second point. Your ire suggests you were making the first. AS

ked

Alex,
Thank you for pointing out how I was unclear & misread. Allow me to be more clear.
It is a tragedy when life is lost. When it might have been avoided or when we can learn from the event we ought to examine it closely. I feel terrible for their families - they have my heartfelt sympathy. That those guys were young, wealthy or having fun (or driving a Porsche) at the time has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Your interpretation in point 2 is wrong - I was quoting & commenting upon an observation of the journalist that (I believe) is a significant part of what is driving all the subsequent focus on legal action. I apologize to the wealthy, young & those who (like myself) enjoy driving at the limit on tracks in high performance machinery.

Over the past three decades I have noted that racing became far more expensive for participants, even as our highways became more crowded. The increase in marque club racing, DEs and track days is a recognition of those trends. At the same time, production cars have now reached the performance levels (inc reliability & safety) of even prototype racing cars of the 60's (when I was a youthful enthusiast). If we work hard (or are plain lucky), we all can have an experience like Andretti, Elford and Gurney, at the small but real risk of becoming another Clark, Bandini, or Donohue (praying, worse case, to be like Moss) - yet we have talent closer to Walter Mitty. And how does the "system" respond to this new Golden Age - an era of democracy in hi-perf & competition?

Well, in an exceptional case, when there is a $ to me made on the sidelines, the legal system in all its wisdom jumps in to achieve "justice". Instead of a creative approach, like having an NTSB-type entity for the study & explanation of track incidents. Not a big $ payoff there. Instead, the judicial process will result in opportunities to drive on tracks for all of us rarer, more restricted & yet more expensive.

Call me a cynic (or a modified economic determinist), but not prejudiced or insensitive. Thanks again for the opportunity to make my opinion explicit.

1AS

Interestingly, we largely agree. I have noted repeatedly that modern supercars are good enough to have flat out won races in the 60's like Lemans, Sebring, or even Can Am. But, no novice would have tried the cars at speed, only experienced professionals. My concern is that the extreme skill necessary to drive these cars as designed far exceeds the skill of the usual buyer, and fast driving gets to the driver's limits before he knows he's exceeded them.
Neither of us is going to change the legal system, human greed, opportunism, parasitism, or how ever one characterizes our legal environment. Nick gets skinned because he points out that the process may also teach us something. He's a little tough-minded, but not nuts.
By the way, Gurney, Clark, and Andretti were my heros. Most of my race cars bear "48" as their number, autographed photos of Mario grace my home(and the rear wheels of one of his Indy rides are coffee tables in my son's home). I have actually ridden with Elford at racing speeds on a local track. He, either consciously or unconsiously blips the throttle on a downshift when driving a tiptronic. Gilles Villeneuve gets added to my list. AS

ked

"Nick gets skinned because he points out that the process may also teach us something."
Yes it might, but I feel the lesson has long been learned and it isn't one that supports putting our faith in the judicial process in an extreme case like this tragic one. At least, no more than the lesson that being a successful lawyer in the deep pocket / negligence sector is a viable path to wealth.

Anyway, I must also agree w/ you on Gilles.
I sat in the pouring rain at WG in practice one year ('79?), watching him do 1:30s while the next best time was around 2:00 - & only a few brave souls out there at that. It was all without purpose, since Sat qualifying was sure to be dry. I have never witnessed a greater display of car control (rain or no) in my life. Smooth, clean and FAST - across rivers of water into & out of the corners, the V12 screaming over the storm. My heart was pounding, I was alone, soaked... and exhilarated. We are fortunate that such people have lived - they inspire us all to pursue our potential. Cheers.

ked

good, Jeff, I hope I've made my own point-of-view more easily seen, sorry to have not done so sooner.

On Vic, I am not suprised by his Tip technique - I believe he raced a 911 Sporto in the Monte Carlo Rallye. Muscle memory can stay with us a long time - & it worked for him! I've always been amazed by his ability to turn a VERY hot lap when circumstances dictated - one of the last of the great all-around drivers.

1AS

Re Elford: Today, he could beat the Japanese in Formula D. He is not known here for his rally driving, but that was his true forte. He remained a true fan, watching F1 on tv and getting excited about it. He's the one who explained the "countersteer" drift to me- ie turning out under braking before you turn in. He could actually enter a corner with the rear of the car leading the way.
While we see a lot of Dan and Mario I've lost track of what has become of Elford. Any clues? AS

ked

yeah, he lives in Fl & remains active in the sport.
check out his website...
http://www.vicelford.com/now.html
he was very gracious in conversation at Rennsport Reunion / Lime Rock - we talked about his drive in the Chapparal vacuum car at Road Atlanta where he blew away (padon the pun) the field during qualifying & the first few laps, to the consternation of all his fellow Euro drivers. I was thrilled watching that demonstration of skill, too. he very kindly wrote a note to my brother in a book covering his exploits at the Targa - "The Porsche Years". great driver, great person.

ps: his book, Porsche High Perf Driving Handbook, is a must read for all "old school" Porsche drivers - he explains the countersteering and tail-first techniques very well. I was reminded when I first watched the Yellowbird @ the 'Ring video...

PogueMoHone

[QUOTE= He's the one who explained the "countersteer" drift to me- ie turning out under braking before you turn in.QUOTE]

It's called the "Scandanavian Flick", invented by Rauno Altinen (SP?) the orginal Flying Finn.

Anir

I was encouraged to see so many posters express disgust at this lawsuit. It's not an exagerration to say that the direct and indirect costs associated with these lawsuits are destroying our ability to function as a society and to compete in the global marketplace.

In the past 3 years, we've experienced a net loss of 137 obstetricians in Kentucky. Many ob-gyns pay $200,000 / year for malpractice insurance. An ob-gyn gets paid about $2,000 / pregnancy, including prenatal care and the delivery, so he/she has to deliver 100 babies per year just to pay the malpractice insurance. Of course, there are many other expenses associated with a practice (as with any business), so pretty soon it's not worth it anymore. At the rate at which malpractice insurance is climbing, it's no surprise that physicians are leaving the field in droves and refusing to accept high-risk cases.

In fact, my 49-year-old internist just left his practice to accept an administrative hospital role and pursue a career in banking. I know two other docs, one aged 47 and another 54, who just quit. In the old days, docs worked well into their 60's, 70's, and 80's. Now, there's simply too much liability exposure to justify losing your nest egg with a single lawsuit.

And, it's not just physicians. It's Ben. It's teachers who hug a child and get accused of inappropriate behavior. It's police officers who get charged with excessive force for trying to subdue a dangerous, deranged thug who won't comply with orders.

There are many reasons why American companies are moving operations overseas, but product liability concerns and litigation costs are certainly a factor. It's a sad period in our history as a nation.

Les Quam

I agree that this thread needs to disappear but I also agree with the points so eloquently expressed by Anir. I am fifty years old and have never been so disappointed with our American government. I have lived through the administarations of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford but never in all that time have I felt that our elected leaders were so out of touch with the needs and priority's of America.

This country needs to stop the rampant fraud and legalized extortion found in the personal injury legal industry.(And I am an attorney so as an insider I know what I am talking about)

We need to stop the oil companies from gouging us.
We need to get control of the rising cost of utilities.
We need to find a way to control health costs and provide all Americans some form of health insurance.
We need to bring our troops home from Iraq ASAP.
We need to prevent Iran from gaining nukes.
We need to really try to stop the profileration of gang related crime and the flow of drugs into this country.
We need to figure out how to help the 15 million illegal immigrants without sending them home in some form of mass deporation unheard of in world history.
We need to do a lot of imortant things.
BUT
What are our elected leaders fixated on? Banning gay marriage? Of all the things that need to be done that is what they think is the top priority? How much more out of touch can an electorate be with the needs of it's citizens? For crying out loud if they want to get married let them and worry about it when we have addressed all the other things I mentioned IMHO.

Anir

Les,

I agree with you on all points. It's really about common sense, which most individuals possess but our leadership seems to collectively lack. With respect to the immigrant situation, we need to bring them into the fold, and make them responsbile and visible citizens (i.e. pay taxes). Our agricultural, construction, and janitorial industries would be dead in the water without illegal immigrant labor, because most of the 4.7% of unemployed citizens would not do these jobs.

Icon,

My bad. I'm a relatively infrequent visitor, so I didn't realize this thread had played itself out for some of you. BTW, I used to live in Birmingham. Great town. I still buy my nicer duds from Shaia's in Homewood.

Mikey

I don't know if this was posted it already (from Business week) and Craig McClellan, representing the Rudl state.
----------------------------------------------------------------

THE REAL STORY

There were many versions of the story broadcast on the Internet, all at least partially true. According to McClellan, here's what really happened. Keaton had told several people that he had been having handling problems with the Carrera GT. Apparently, it was tail-happy. He decided to take it to the Ferrari Owners Club track day and see if he could work things out. Rudl had taken his Lamborghini to the track day, but it suffered from overheating. He was telling friends that he should sell it and get something else. Keaton, who did not know Rudl, suggested a Carrera GT and offered to give him a ride and show him what the Porsche was like.

As the Porsche was completing a lap, the flagman sent a Ferrari onto the front straight. The driver hesitated, then started late and slow. The flagman saw the Porsche come onto the straight and tried to stop the Ferrari, but it was passing him by then, and neither the driver nor passenger noticed his waving arms or heard his shouts.

The Ferrari continued onto the straight at a relatively slow speed, just as the Carrera GT caught it. Keaton swerved to avoid contact, the Porsche's rear came around, and it skidded into a concrete barrier wall. The wall had been placed closer to the track than its original position in order to enlarge the area behind it for use as a children's play area during an earlier NASCAR race. The end result was the fatal crash.

THE CLAIMS

The lawsuit asserts a number of claims against several defendants. The more significant are:

• Keaton Estate - Failure to inform Rudl that he had been having handling problems with the Porsche, and that he had a recent incident where he lost control of the car.
• Racetrack owners and operators - Maintaining an unsafe racetrack as a result of inadequate maintenance, signage, and safety controls, and not moving back the concrete barriers after creating the children's play area.
• Ferrari Owners Club and the flagman - Negligently operating the track day by sending the Ferrari onto the track at the wrong time, violating their own rules by allowing passengers in the cars, failing to disclose Keaton's dangerous driving propensities, and allowing the track day to occur without moving the concrete barriers back to where they belonged.
• Ferrari driver - Not paying attention to the flagman, entering the track improperly, driving too slowly, and moving directly into the path of the Porsche.
• Porsche - Product liability for selling an unsafe car. This falls into three levels of defect.
1. There was some mechanical problem with this particular car that made it handle badly.
2. There are design defects with the Carrera GT that make it a poor-handling car, mainly tail-happy.
3. Third: The Carrera GT is too difficult a car to handle at high speeds for the average driver without instruction.


WHAT ABOUT THE RELEASE?

"Legal Files" recently addressed the enforceability of releases given by track participants and concluded that they are generally enforceable if the injuries are sustained by hazards that are contemplated at the time the release is given. This case tests the effect of the release signed by Rudl in two ways. One is that it alleges that the track owner and operators managed it in an unsafe manner and contrary to established safety standards for racetracks. In other words, they didn't have to make it as safe as the street, but they did have to make it safe as racetracks go. The other is that it alleges that numerous pertinent facts were concealed from Rudl, and he therefore did not give an informed consent.

CLAIMS ABOUT THE CAR

The claims about the Carrera GT itself are likely of most interest to us. Whether there was a mechanical issue with this particular car, or whether the Carrera GT design is inherently unstable, are matters that are best left to the engineers to debate.

But the claim that the Carrera GT is too hot to handle is something that all of us can think about. And this isn't just Porsche's problem. Clearly, the same claims can be made against other supercars, such as the Ford GT, the Enzo, and a host of others. A quick Internet search will locate sites whose function is to display photos of wrecked supercars, typified by www.wreckedexotics.com. It isn't hard to conclude that many of these cars are sold to owners who have far more cash than driving skill. And it's probably realistic to assume that these owners are not going to recognize their limitations and will succumb to the desire to drive these cars "the way they were meant to be driven," sometimes with disastrous consequences for themselves and others.

Should the manufacturers be required to qualify owners before selling these cars to them? How are they supposed to determine qualifications? And should they automatically be held liable when they sell supercars to owners who can't handle them?

McClellan says, "No, Porsche should only be liable because this car was defective." But then he adds, "It is defective, however, if the risks of its design outweigh the benefits. If its power and handling characteristics make it too dangerous for the average driver without training or instruction, then it is defective. Porsche should be liable because it sold a defective vehicle to Ben Keaton."

I certainly can't profess to have the answers to all of these questions, but I think this case is going to answer some of them after it works its way through the legal system. We'll keep you informed.

http://www.businessweek.com/print/au...608_466074.htm