CGT crash settled at $4.5M
10-26-2007, 10:54 AM
#181
Rennlist Member
10-26-2007, 11:28 AM
#183
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
10-26-2007, 11:29 AM
#184
Burning Brakes
Infidels.
10-26-2007, 02:21 PM
#185
Addict
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Perhaps it has already been answered; but, who made the decision that PSM would have saved the day? I did not see which direction he spun, what we do know is that he swerved (changed directions) to avoid hitting the Ferrari. Did he spin from the first steering input or when he tried to correct his path. It seems to me that the PSM may not have corrected his path down the track; but may have prevented him from spinning before he hit the wall.
10-26-2007, 02:23 PM
#186
Perhaps it has already been answered; but, who made the decision that PSM would have saved the day? I did not see which direction he spun, what we do know is that he swerved (changed directions) to avoid hitting the Ferrari. Did he spin from the first steering input or when he tried to correct his path. It seems to me that the PSM may not have corrected his path down the track; but may have prevented him from spinning before he hit the wall.
There is no decision on that issue. The case was ended without decision due to a voluntary settlement.
The issue discussed in the article was that two Porsche engineers gave what seemingly is contradictory testimony regarding PSM. Anytime you get contradictory statements regarding a key issue in the case (from Porsche's perspective at least), it is good for the plaintiff, which could explain, in part, why Porsche settled.
10-26-2007, 02:30 PM
#187
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: North Bethesda, MD
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no decision on that issue. The case was ended without decision due to a voluntary settlement.
The issue discussed in the article was that two Porsche engineers gave what seemingly is contradictory testimony regarding PSM. Anytime you get contradictory statements regarding a key issue in the case (from Porsche's perspective at least), it is good for the plaintiff, which could explain, in part, why Porsche settled.
The issue discussed in the article was that two Porsche engineers gave what seemingly is contradictory testimony regarding PSM. Anytime you get contradictory statements regarding a key issue in the case (from Porsche's perspective at least), it is good for the plaintiff, which could explain, in part, why Porsche settled.
10-26-2007, 04:20 PM
#188
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Fla
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having merely skimmed some of this thread, I thought I'd chime in as "slick" personal injury lawyer with my (according to many on this forum) overwhelming powers of persuasion. The sky is not falling, the end of civilization is not on the horizon, and DE programs will continue. I truly believe our civil justice system, while flawed, separates us from the rest of the world by making our society safer and more humane, while (my libertarian mates) minimizing the need for an intrusive state bureaucracy.
Regarding the more specific issue of waivers or exculpatory agreements: they are often closely scrutinized by the courts (depending on the jurisdiction) and may be held invalid if they violate public policy. To contract in advance to release liability resulting from reckless conduct would be deemed to violate public policy, but it becomes a very fact sensitive analysis.
Regarding the more specific issue of waivers or exculpatory agreements: they are often closely scrutinized by the courts (depending on the jurisdiction) and may be held invalid if they violate public policy. To contract in advance to release liability resulting from reckless conduct would be deemed to violate public policy, but it becomes a very fact sensitive analysis.
The bottom line in my opinion is that you are giving too much credit to the "power" of so-called "slick attorneys."
This case involved a very unusual situation and, frankly, some pretty stupid choices on the part of numerous parties. The wreck also involved a driver and a passenger who were both high-worth, or potentially high-worth, individuals. All of this matters. Finally, although 4.5 million sounds like a lot, the portion that Porsche and the other parties agreed to pay is NOT keeping any of them up at night. If I were you, I would not read too much into the fact that this particular lawsuit settled.
This case involved a very unusual situation and, frankly, some pretty stupid choices on the part of numerous parties. The wreck also involved a driver and a passenger who were both high-worth, or potentially high-worth, individuals. All of this matters. Finally, although 4.5 million sounds like a lot, the portion that Porsche and the other parties agreed to pay is NOT keeping any of them up at night. If I were you, I would not read too much into the fact that this particular lawsuit settled.
My feeling is quite the contrary concerning the power of Slick Attorneys,
or any attorney. I accept the fact that they are hired to do a job and fight for their clients. Their job is to sway judges and juries. To me, that is very powerful. The fact there was a basis for a suit at all against the Porsche driver is what I'm having trouble with given the fact wavers were signed. The last paragraph in Mikes post drives home my point. Mikes statement about a waver not violating public policy makes perfect sense. How can you expect to have it both ways? If there is a chance the waver will not be honored, then why have it? Should not someone review the waver BEFORE the event to make sure it will stick?And neither of you are the first to accuse me of my "the sky is falling" point of view...
I'm sure the world will not end due to this and DE will go on, but to my simple way of thinking, there is now a chance our families could pay a penalty if something happens on the track. That is just fundamentally wrong.
Dan.
10-26-2007, 04:36 PM
#189
Attorneys are your best friend when you use them as needed. I think we can all agree that this situation is the pitts! What can our attorney friends on rennlist who share a similar passion for speed tell us about keeping our finances safe? What protects us from another attorney doing his job? Homeowner's excess liability umbrellas?, excess personal liability policies?, family limited partnerships? LLC's? Family trusts? Asset protection trusts? Retirement accounts? What should the average Porsche driver with incomes say $100k-$500k/yr. be doing? These numbers too high? O.K....75k to 250k/yr.
10-26-2007, 05:05 PM
#190
Ask OJ's attorneys. They did a bangup job.
Out of all seriousness though, as I mentioned before, this particular settlement probably has little impact on overall risk.
The risk existed before, and it will exist tomorrow.
The only thing different about events like this is that it reminds us that the risk we have been ignoring is still there.
I view it like lighting. Lightening is real. The chances we will get struck are extremely low. You can't stop living out of fear of lightening, but you certainly can take steps to minimize the problem, like not walking around a rainstorm with tinfoil hats.
We humans are quite silly because we live in a world full of risk, yet we focus on the risks that likely will not harm us and ignore what could well kill us. I am far more likely to die as a result of driving around DC or eating a double-bacon cheesburger than I am driving on the track. Getting sued is somewhat similar.
You owe it to yourself to contact a good attorney regarding estate planning. Everybody's estate is different, and I am not an estate attorney. Trusts are not a bad idea at all, though, for many . . .
In the end, though, exercising common sense and being decent is your best bet in reducing risk, at least on the track. It will not insulate you, but it is a great first step.
Out of all seriousness though, as I mentioned before, this particular settlement probably has little impact on overall risk.
The risk existed before, and it will exist tomorrow.
The only thing different about events like this is that it reminds us that the risk we have been ignoring is still there.
I view it like lighting. Lightening is real. The chances we will get struck are extremely low. You can't stop living out of fear of lightening, but you certainly can take steps to minimize the problem, like not walking around a rainstorm with tinfoil hats.
We humans are quite silly because we live in a world full of risk, yet we focus on the risks that likely will not harm us and ignore what could well kill us. I am far more likely to die as a result of driving around DC or eating a double-bacon cheesburger than I am driving on the track. Getting sued is somewhat similar.
You owe it to yourself to contact a good attorney regarding estate planning. Everybody's estate is different, and I am not an estate attorney. Trusts are not a bad idea at all, though, for many . . .
In the end, though, exercising common sense and being decent is your best bet in reducing risk, at least on the track. It will not insulate you, but it is a great first step.
10-26-2007, 08:13 PM
#191
Pro
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Levis, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm late to the party ! My point of view as a racer for years, event organizer and club president : we all sign waivers when going to races or lapping sessions, and we go to these events because we're a bunch of passionates. We all know something wrong can happen, we all know that an idiot can lose it in front of us and cost us our car or worst....we know we can be the idiot one of these days but we still do it 'cause this is what we live for (at least for a while...) and we sign these waivers time after time...So please tell your relatives that if something bad happen, you can't put the fault on the car manufacturer or anybody else, cause if we weren't willing to accept the risks we would play golf or bowling...Period.
10-26-2007, 08:39 PM
#192
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tampa
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRAVO but you live in sunny canada; down here, when presented with a grieving widow and/or sorrowful orphan, a jury of Porsche's peers (just who are Porsche's peers is another question altogether) response to such a tragedy is often very simple: CHECK PLEASE (the more zeros, the better)
jack
jack
10-26-2007, 10:02 PM
#193
Advanced
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fatbillybob - As TD stated and making clear that this is not legal advice, you should consult with an estate attorney or experienced financial planner at some point in your life regardless of whether you're on the track. Re: DE events, your regular auto carrier should provide liability coverage for an unfortunate event on the track in the very unlikely chance that it arises. Certain policies, such as some written by State Farm, however, have disclaimers and you need to check your policy.
I chuckle at the public perception that I could sue everybody for anything and make millions. Many of the individuals whom I represent are severely injured and disabled and would do anything to go back in time to change the events that turned their lives upside down. All of those cases are fought tooth and nail by insurance carriers who typically deny everything (coverage, liability, damages, etc.). After battling them for years and putting up with their delay tactics, cases are often settled for a fraction of their value dues to limited insurance coverage. To the insurance industry's credit, they have done a tremendous job in P.R. in portraying a crisis that doesn't exist.
I chuckle at the public perception that I could sue everybody for anything and make millions. Many of the individuals whom I represent are severely injured and disabled and would do anything to go back in time to change the events that turned their lives upside down. All of those cases are fought tooth and nail by insurance carriers who typically deny everything (coverage, liability, damages, etc.). After battling them for years and putting up with their delay tactics, cases are often settled for a fraction of their value dues to limited insurance coverage. To the insurance industry's credit, they have done a tremendous job in P.R. in portraying a crisis that doesn't exist.
10-26-2007, 10:55 PM
#194
fatbillybob - As TD stated and making clear that this is not legal advice, you should consult with an estate attorney or experienced financial planner at some point in your life regardless of whether you're on the track. ...snip...., they have done a tremendous job in P.R. in portraying a crisis that doesn't exist.
Mike,
Been there done that. I totally agree with you. The reason for the my statements are that even professionals get wrapped up in their own ways and sometimes do not keep up with technology and the layperson who uses them sometimes never finds this out. As you know the law is a moving target. You need to be ever vigilant leaving no stone unturned to navigate your life successfully. You never know when a good suggestion bares checking out even if you find it not applicable at this time. Here is a classic ridiculously simple example: I have a tire changer. I change my own race tires since I eat tires like crazy. Soapy water is used, as standard in the industry, to help fit tires on wheels leaves water and water vapor in the tires. water helps to alter the pressure more as tire temps rise. So even if you use nitrogen instead of air you still don't have stable tire pressures because of the water. I tried waterless soap and even wd-40 but those agents can allow more tire slipping on wheels under heavy braking because they never really dry or take a really long time to dry. Once someone right here on rennlist quietly suggested using cheap hairspray! OMG it is the best stuff since mother's milk. It is volitle and drys clear, residue cleans with water, It sticks when dry so tires do not slip, It is slippery as hell when wet. It is the perfect tire mounting aid. Combine cheap hairspray and nitrogen for really nice stable tire pressures. These are the kinds of things that pop up on rennlist. The knowledge base for all things is deep on rennlist. When you shake a tree here lots of good stuff falls down.
10-26-2007, 11:14 PM
#195
[QUOTE=
I chuckle at the public perception that I could sue everybody for anything and make millions. Many of the individuals whom I represent are severely injured and disabled and would do anything to go back in time to change the events that turned their lives upside down. All of those cases are fought tooth and nail by insurance carriers who typically deny everything (coverage, liability, damages, etc.). After battling them for years and putting up with their delay tactics, cases are often settled for a fraction of their value dues to limited insurance coverage. To the insurance industry's credit, they have done a tremendous job in P.R. in portraying a crisis that doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
+1. For those who buy the insurance company PR, ask those of us who do Bad Faith litigation about just how well insurance companies "take care" of claimants. As for this case, I agree with TD, this is not the end of our track fun. It was one settlement coming out of a set of very unique and unfortunate facts. It will hopefully cause some positive changes in the nature of safety procedures and track design.
I chuckle at the public perception that I could sue everybody for anything and make millions. Many of the individuals whom I represent are severely injured and disabled and would do anything to go back in time to change the events that turned their lives upside down. All of those cases are fought tooth and nail by insurance carriers who typically deny everything (coverage, liability, damages, etc.). After battling them for years and putting up with their delay tactics, cases are often settled for a fraction of their value dues to limited insurance coverage. To the insurance industry's credit, they have done a tremendous job in P.R. in portraying a crisis that doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
+1. For those who buy the insurance company PR, ask those of us who do Bad Faith litigation about just how well insurance companies "take care" of claimants. As for this case, I agree with TD, this is not the end of our track fun. It was one settlement coming out of a set of very unique and unfortunate facts. It will hopefully cause some positive changes in the nature of safety procedures and track design.
