CGT crash settled at $4.5M
10-23-2007, 06:28 PM
#91
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. I was quoting the article...
10-23-2007, 07:11 PM
#92
Moderator
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
It's too easy to say things like "at that speed, PSM wouldn't have helped" without knowing all the facts. Looks to me like all parties involved felt that although PSM would have helped, Porsche has no obligation to provide such a device, and so they settled for a small percentage of the total award.
10-23-2007, 07:16 PM
#93
Drifting
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cars required to cross the track for T1 as they exited pit out? That is a stupid rule and suggestion IMO.
I haven't seen anyone question why Ben was already finishing a hot lap when a car was starting his session. Was the Ferrari late to the grid? It was rumored that Ben blew the checker and was doing a hot lap instead of pitting at the end of the session. That would make sense to me as the Ferrari and the pit out guy didn't think a car would be approaching and sent him out right into Ben's path.
And if Ben had spun his car 3 times that day why was he allowed to continue driving? Something was either wrong with the car or with him.
I haven't seen anyone question why Ben was already finishing a hot lap when a car was starting his session. Was the Ferrari late to the grid? It was rumored that Ben blew the checker and was doing a hot lap instead of pitting at the end of the session. That would make sense to me as the Ferrari and the pit out guy didn't think a car would be approaching and sent him out right into Ben's path.
And if Ben had spun his car 3 times that day why was he allowed to continue driving? Something was either wrong with the car or with him.
10-23-2007, 07:19 PM
#94
Rennlist Member
He also has a car which barely uses the brakes, so he really has nothing to cool.
IMO, a cool down lap is just that--cool the car & collect your thoughts on your strengths & weaknesses from the session ending.
IMO, a cool down lap is just that--cool the car & collect your thoughts on your strengths & weaknesses from the session ending.
10-23-2007, 07:36 PM
#95
Rennlist Member
Personally, I think all the defendants got off easy.
First Porsche: The CGT is a huge handful for the amateur. The car has an adjustable rear roll bar. Why not deliver it on full soft? (I understand it was delivered on full hard). Regarding skid control- Ihave raced a 600+ hp mid-engined car (Lola T163 Can Am) and will tell you that with a huge wing and 17 inch rear slicks, it is managable. The CGT has a small wing, and relatively small contact patch for this application. If ever a car needed skid controls, this is the one. Porsche cheaped-out on a $400K car, and the occupants paid.
Second Ben: After you have spun out a few times, a light should go on. "I'm not doing so well, so maybe I ought to cool it". But not Ben. He wanted to sell the car, it has been said on the CGT board. If you want to go fast and take risks, do it alone. He seemed to have broken track rules just about every way you can. That is getting to reckless, in my humble opinion.
Third: The track. Who can defend that configuration? They are professionals. If they had just restored the wall configuration, there would be no problem. I don't think any entrant expects to be able to spin head on into that type of obstacle
Finally the Ferrari driver: Super lucky on this settlement. He got off for a fraction of the cost of the defense. I wasn't there, but it seems his conduct wasn't that great either. But, I will grant you, his is the most questionable case. You could say "wrong place, wrong time", but so what?
A guy who just wanted a ride got killed by a guy who just wanted to sell a car, a car that is more than 99.99% of drivers can handle without the assists found on a Kia, a track configuration set up by morons, and a club that didn't enforce its own rules. This is a Darwin Award in the making.
(Yes, I race, attend DE's and test dates, and want the sport to continue. But, you've got to admit, we attract our share of flakes)AS
(yes, I race, enjoy DE's, an want the sport ot continue- but these were all bad actors)
First Porsche: The CGT is a huge handful for the amateur. The car has an adjustable rear roll bar. Why not deliver it on full soft? (I understand it was delivered on full hard). Regarding skid control- Ihave raced a 600+ hp mid-engined car (Lola T163 Can Am) and will tell you that with a huge wing and 17 inch rear slicks, it is managable. The CGT has a small wing, and relatively small contact patch for this application. If ever a car needed skid controls, this is the one. Porsche cheaped-out on a $400K car, and the occupants paid.
Second Ben: After you have spun out a few times, a light should go on. "I'm not doing so well, so maybe I ought to cool it". But not Ben. He wanted to sell the car, it has been said on the CGT board. If you want to go fast and take risks, do it alone. He seemed to have broken track rules just about every way you can. That is getting to reckless, in my humble opinion.
Third: The track. Who can defend that configuration? They are professionals. If they had just restored the wall configuration, there would be no problem. I don't think any entrant expects to be able to spin head on into that type of obstacle
Finally the Ferrari driver: Super lucky on this settlement. He got off for a fraction of the cost of the defense. I wasn't there, but it seems his conduct wasn't that great either. But, I will grant you, his is the most questionable case. You could say "wrong place, wrong time", but so what?
A guy who just wanted a ride got killed by a guy who just wanted to sell a car, a car that is more than 99.99% of drivers can handle without the assists found on a Kia, a track configuration set up by morons, and a club that didn't enforce its own rules. This is a Darwin Award in the making.
(Yes, I race, attend DE's and test dates, and want the sport to continue. But, you've got to admit, we attract our share of flakes)AS
(yes, I race, enjoy DE's, an want the sport ot continue- but these were all bad actors)
10-23-2007, 07:49 PM
#97
The Rebel
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
As I stated earlier in the thread...and I'll add Porsche should bear ZERO responsibility in this.
...There are no winners in this situation and that's an unchangeable fact since the incident occured.
They signed waivers and did so while being of able mind and body under no pressure/coertion from anyone. That should be the end of it.
Why weren't there any tyres in front of that wall as it was almost perpindicular to the direction in which the vehicles on the track travel. Why was he (Ben) allowed on the track if he failed tech? And if the report is true, why was he allowed to continue to run after "4-5" spins?
While I don't usually subscribe to the "the sky is failing-type-arguments/reactions", I do tend to believe that if nothing else there will be more regulations to deal with at events.
As for PAG/PCNA bringing all cars to the good ol' US of A with PSM, well hadn't Porsche already filed with the NHSTA/EPA that they would do so by 1st September 2008?
RIP Ben and Mr. Rudl
They signed waivers and did so while being of able mind and body under no pressure/coertion from anyone. That should be the end of it.
Why weren't there any tyres in front of that wall as it was almost perpindicular to the direction in which the vehicles on the track travel. Why was he (Ben) allowed on the track if he failed tech? And if the report is true, why was he allowed to continue to run after "4-5" spins?
While I don't usually subscribe to the "the sky is failing-type-arguments/reactions", I do tend to believe that if nothing else there will be more regulations to deal with at events.
As for PAG/PCNA bringing all cars to the good ol' US of A with PSM, well hadn't Porsche already filed with the NHSTA/EPA that they would do so by 1st September 2008?
RIP Ben and Mr. Rudl
10-23-2007, 08:16 PM
#100
Rennlist Member
10-23-2007, 08:47 PM
#102
Rennlist Member
I think you missed my point. Large earning potential is probably the largest factor in the settlement value of a wrongful death action. If Corey had been a teller at a bank the settlement value would have been low enough that the case might never have been filed. It helps that Ben's estate had assets, too. That the settlement was just $4.5 million suggests to me that the case was not that strong, hence it is not as threatening to our hobby as it could be. (Looking for the silver lining.)
10-23-2007, 09:19 PM
#103
Still plays with cars.
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
A few comments please:
1) PCA insurance covers organizers, instructors, volunteers etc. at PCA events. You can read the policy yourself on the PCA web site.
2) Several states have provisions which prevent waiving Gross Negligence. So des Canada. The question is was Gross Negligence involved. Clearly the attorney for the Plaintiff suggested that is was. No court ruled on this aspect (settled before trial) mind you,Was he competent to drive his car? At a PCA event he woud have been sent out with an instructor after the first spin!
3) Ben admitted losing control of his car while on track here on Rennlist several times. This was before the accident. This made me wonder if he needed more instruction.
4) I cannot speak specifically to a C-GT but at Ground School on a huge skidpad, I took a 996TT and at about 60 MPH lifted and wrenched the wheel abrupty. PSM was on. The car spun. Ask yourself how apply the brake to one wheel can stabilize a car that has been thrown into a spin by two wheels and forward weight transfer. At low speeds it can, but as someone else said physica cannot be overcome by electronic controls. I really doubt tha PSM would have saved the car when the wheel was jerked at 130 MPH. Moreover an experienced driver would not try to make a gross adjustment at that speed.
Had the driver told the passenger that he had a tendency to lose control of his car> If he had would the victim have gotten in the car?
Lost of issues here...!
Best,
1) PCA insurance covers organizers, instructors, volunteers etc. at PCA events. You can read the policy yourself on the PCA web site.
2) Several states have provisions which prevent waiving Gross Negligence. So des Canada. The question is was Gross Negligence involved. Clearly the attorney for the Plaintiff suggested that is was. No court ruled on this aspect (settled before trial) mind you,Was he competent to drive his car? At a PCA event he woud have been sent out with an instructor after the first spin!
3) Ben admitted losing control of his car while on track here on Rennlist several times. This was before the accident. This made me wonder if he needed more instruction.
4) I cannot speak specifically to a C-GT but at Ground School on a huge skidpad, I took a 996TT and at about 60 MPH lifted and wrenched the wheel abrupty. PSM was on. The car spun. Ask yourself how apply the brake to one wheel can stabilize a car that has been thrown into a spin by two wheels and forward weight transfer. At low speeds it can, but as someone else said physica cannot be overcome by electronic controls. I really doubt tha PSM would have saved the car when the wheel was jerked at 130 MPH. Moreover an experienced driver would not try to make a gross adjustment at that speed.
Had the driver told the passenger that he had a tendency to lose control of his car> If he had would the victim have gotten in the car?
Lost of issues here...!
Best,
10-23-2007, 09:34 PM
#104
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
When we get in the passenger seat of another person's car, we consciously or not, make certain assumptions about the safety of the car and the abilities of the driver. For example, if you get into an instructor's or advanced student's car, you have accepted that the car was thoroughly inspected prior to the event and properly set up for the environment it is going to run. You probably assumed that if the driver was having problems with the car, he/she would have informed you. Finally, you likely have developed the belief that the driver possesses certain skills and knowledge about his car and the track.
In the end, a driver that takes a passenger is accepting responsibility for the safety of that passenger. IMHO, this is why Ben's estate has the greatest share of the settlement.
In the end, a driver that takes a passenger is accepting responsibility for the safety of that passenger. IMHO, this is why Ben's estate has the greatest share of the settlement.