Paul Walker's Daughter Sues Porsche
09-30-2015, 04:26 PM
#16
Drifting
Originally Posted by Porsche911GTS'16
Based on the police report, the driver was driving recklessly at high speed. No car is safe when driven at dangerous speeds on any street, let alone a secondary street. If she is going to sue someone, she should sue the dead driver.
09-30-2015, 04:32 PM
#17
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Was vehicle really traveling at over 100 mph at impact? I did not know that.
I looked at a copy of the complaint (attached) and one of the theories of liability is that the shoulder harness anchor point was attached in such a way that it "traveled with the rear engine compartment while the seat belt anchors remained with the passenger compartment," which broke Walker's ribs and pelvis and trapped him in the car for over a minute before the car caught fire. Sounds fishy to me, as I'd expect the passenger cell and all seat mounts and restraints to be integrated and any subframe for engine and rear suspension to be separate from passenger cell and designed so that the weakest part would separate the drivetrain mass from the passenger compartment, and find it doubtful Porsche would do otherwise. But if this allegation has any merit, then the design defect claim has some legs.
Other allegations are BS, such as that the car should have had PSM; well PW probably knew there was no PSM and decided to ride in the car anyway. That said, I can see an expert saying it as inexcusable and a jury agreeing.
While I'd take exception to the relevance of many of your points above, I do suspect the bad publicity will result in a sizable settlement. I am sure the Plaintiff's lawyer will try to parlay the VW/Audi emissions debacle into a "can't trust German manufacturers" sentiment in general.
I looked at a copy of the complaint (attached) and one of the theories of liability is that the shoulder harness anchor point was attached in such a way that it "traveled with the rear engine compartment while the seat belt anchors remained with the passenger compartment," which broke Walker's ribs and pelvis and trapped him in the car for over a minute before the car caught fire. Sounds fishy to me, as I'd expect the passenger cell and all seat mounts and restraints to be integrated and any subframe for engine and rear suspension to be separate from passenger cell and designed so that the weakest part would separate the drivetrain mass from the passenger compartment, and find it doubtful Porsche would do otherwise. But if this allegation has any merit, then the design defect claim has some legs.
Other allegations are BS, such as that the car should have had PSM; well PW probably knew there was no PSM and decided to ride in the car anyway. That said, I can see an expert saying it as inexcusable and a jury agreeing.
While I'd take exception to the relevance of many of your points above, I do suspect the bad publicity will result in a sizable settlement. I am sure the Plaintiff's lawyer will try to parlay the VW/Audi emissions debacle into a "can't trust German manufacturers" sentiment in general.
Their expert accident reconstructionist also under estimated the speed of travel. The CHP report has the car traveling at speeds between 80 and 93 MPH. Porsche will have their own accident experts who will have the speed over the CHP report.
Honestly, I don't know why they haven't sued the state or city for the construction of the road, placement of the light fixture etc. Once again, deep pockets.
I thought they hit only 1 tree, but the complaint sites 3.
09-30-2015, 04:52 PM
#18
I read about half the complaint and stopped as they were just quoting marketing materials and trying to put a spin on it being a race car. Standard practice, but will be shot down immediately.
Their expert accident reconstructionist also under estimated the speed of travel. The CHP report has the car traveling at speeds between 80 and 93 MPH. Porsche will have their own accident experts who will have the speed over the CHP report.
Honestly, I don't know why they haven't sued the state or city for the construction of the road, placement of the light fixture etc. Once again, deep pockets.
I thought they hit only 1 tree, but the complaint sites 3.
Their expert accident reconstructionist also under estimated the speed of travel. The CHP report has the car traveling at speeds between 80 and 93 MPH. Porsche will have their own accident experts who will have the speed over the CHP report.
Honestly, I don't know why they haven't sued the state or city for the construction of the road, placement of the light fixture etc. Once again, deep pockets.
I thought they hit only 1 tree, but the complaint sites 3.
09-30-2015, 04:53 PM
#19
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
He was traveling fast enough to hit three trees (one after the other) and the GT to stop 60 feet from the spot of the first hit. That's a massive crash. Obviously extremely fast for the road he was traveling.
And the fact that they kept quoting that the car is lauded as a race car doesn't mean one can drive double the speed limit and except to survive the crash. Makes no sense.
And the fact that they kept quoting that the car is lauded as a race car doesn't mean one can drive double the speed limit and except to survive the crash. Makes no sense.
09-30-2015, 05:42 PM
#20
Rennlist Member
Obviously the car wasn't a race car, although Roger the driver, was a race car driver.
Unfortunate and sad on many levels.
Other interesting things regarding it online......
https://celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs/ce...0458.html?nf=1
Unfortunate and sad on many levels.
Other interesting things regarding it online......
https://celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs/ce...0458.html?nf=1
09-30-2015, 05:58 PM
#21
The crash was clearly at an excessive rate of speed for the conditions. I do however think a plausible argument can be made that a car with this performance envelope needs commensurate safety devices. If the impact happened at 70 mph or so, that is within the range of legal operation of the vehicle in the US (and certainly Europe), so presumably one can anticipate a catastrophic impact at that speed, so what reasonable design criteria are appropriate? At some point, impacts are so catastrophic that nothing can help, but it seems to me you have to do the best you can to deal with bad crashes, not just fender-benders.
To me, the allegation that I'd want to ferret out is the restraint system. If the shoulder was indeed attached to a part of the vehicle that could (and perhaps was intended to) separate in a side impact with a tree (or being t-boned in an intersection so driver blame can be eliminated), I might say that the restraint was defective and contributed to PW's injuries or death. I can't believe that is the case, as surely the passenger cell, seats and restraints were all designed to retain structural integrity even if the drivetrain and rear suspension somehow separated from the vehicle. For example, I've see the MP4-12C without bodywork and the passenger cell will remain intact even if the powertrain and rear suspension and subframe separates. I don't know how the Carrera GT Monocoque is designed, however.
But just because they were going fast is not the end of the question, as it is clear that big crashes have to be anticipated and reasonable safety measures designed in. For example, there have been multiple successful lawsuits over the Ford big cars (e.g. Crown Vic police cars) over fuel tanks that did not survive very high speed impacts and resulted in a fire.
To me, the allegation that I'd want to ferret out is the restraint system. If the shoulder was indeed attached to a part of the vehicle that could (and perhaps was intended to) separate in a side impact with a tree (or being t-boned in an intersection so driver blame can be eliminated), I might say that the restraint was defective and contributed to PW's injuries or death. I can't believe that is the case, as surely the passenger cell, seats and restraints were all designed to retain structural integrity even if the drivetrain and rear suspension somehow separated from the vehicle. For example, I've see the MP4-12C without bodywork and the passenger cell will remain intact even if the powertrain and rear suspension and subframe separates. I don't know how the Carrera GT Monocoque is designed, however.
But just because they were going fast is not the end of the question, as it is clear that big crashes have to be anticipated and reasonable safety measures designed in. For example, there have been multiple successful lawsuits over the Ford big cars (e.g. Crown Vic police cars) over fuel tanks that did not survive very high speed impacts and resulted in a fire.
09-30-2015, 06:19 PM
#22
Nordschleife Master
Porsche's position on this, at least publicly, seems to be in line with what several RL members have said; if you want to sue someone the person primarily responsible is the driver. While I'm not really in favor of Porsche throwing Roger under the bus since both Roger and Paul entered the car knowingly, it really is the only place that real liability lies in the accident.
And based on their press releases and public statements I'm not convinced that Porsche is going to roll over and settle. We will see where this goes but my guess is that it just disappears from the media with a small byline several months from now when the case is dropped.
And based on their press releases and public statements I'm not convinced that Porsche is going to roll over and settle. We will see where this goes but my guess is that it just disappears from the media with a small byline several months from now when the case is dropped.
09-30-2015, 06:47 PM
#23
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
People keep writing that Paul Walker got into the car "knowingly". Knowingly what?? Did he have prior knowledge that his friend was going to do something stupid? There's no proof of that.
Yes, the estate of the driver should be the one sued just like the case at Fontana with the CGT on track in the early 2000s but everyone was sued in that case as is. Standard procedure with these types of cases
Yes, the estate of the driver should be the one sued just like the case at Fontana with the CGT on track in the early 2000s but everyone was sued in that case as is. Standard procedure with these types of cases
09-30-2015, 06:56 PM
#24
Rennlist Member
Hi Keith,
Viking here,
How would the fact that the car had 10 year old tires factor into this in a courtroom.
In my mind it would kind of make mute points of car safety and driver talent and would put blame with whomever maintained the car which in this case was owned by Paul and Roger's company at least from what I understand.
Sure, speed was a factor that helped lose control mid corner, but 10 year old tires ???
Viking here,
How would the fact that the car had 10 year old tires factor into this in a courtroom.
In my mind it would kind of make mute points of car safety and driver talent and would put blame with whomever maintained the car which in this case was owned by Paul and Roger's company at least from what I understand.
Sure, speed was a factor that helped lose control mid corner, but 10 year old tires ???
The crash was clearly at an excessive rate of speed for the conditions. I do however think a plausible argument can be made that a car with this performance envelope needs commensurate safety devices. If the impact happened at 70 mph or so, that is within the range of legal operation of the vehicle in the US (and certainly Europe), so presumably one can anticipate a catastrophic impact at that speed, so what reasonable design criteria are appropriate? At some point, impacts are so catastrophic that nothing can help, but it seems to me you have to do the best you can to deal with bad crashes, not just fender-benders.
To me, the allegation that I'd want to ferret out is the restraint system. If the shoulder was indeed attached to a part of the vehicle that could (and perhaps was intended to) separate in a side impact with a tree (or being t-boned in an intersection so driver blame can be eliminated), I might say that the restraint was defective and contributed to PW's injuries or death. I can't believe that is the case, as surely the passenger cell, seats and restraints were all designed to retain structural integrity even if the drivetrain and rear suspension somehow separated from the vehicle. For example, I've see the MP4-12C without bodywork and the passenger cell will remain intact even if the powertrain and rear suspension and subframe separates. I don't know how the Carrera GT Monocoque is designed, however.
But just because they were going fast is not the end of the question, as it is clear that big crashes have to be anticipated and reasonable safety measures designed in. For example, there have been multiple successful lawsuits over the Ford big cars (e.g. Crown Vic police cars) over fuel tanks that did not survive very high speed impacts and resulted in a fire.
To me, the allegation that I'd want to ferret out is the restraint system. If the shoulder was indeed attached to a part of the vehicle that could (and perhaps was intended to) separate in a side impact with a tree (or being t-boned in an intersection so driver blame can be eliminated), I might say that the restraint was defective and contributed to PW's injuries or death. I can't believe that is the case, as surely the passenger cell, seats and restraints were all designed to retain structural integrity even if the drivetrain and rear suspension somehow separated from the vehicle. For example, I've see the MP4-12C without bodywork and the passenger cell will remain intact even if the powertrain and rear suspension and subframe separates. I don't know how the Carrera GT Monocoque is designed, however.
But just because they were going fast is not the end of the question, as it is clear that big crashes have to be anticipated and reasonable safety measures designed in. For example, there have been multiple successful lawsuits over the Ford big cars (e.g. Crown Vic police cars) over fuel tanks that did not survive very high speed impacts and resulted in a fire.
09-30-2015, 07:11 PM
#25
Rennlist Member
09-30-2015, 07:30 PM
#26
Hi Keith,
Viking here,
How would the fact that the car had 10 year old tires factor into this in a courtroom.
In my mind it would kind of make mute points of car safety and driver talent and would put blame with whomever maintained the car which in this case was owned by Paul and Roger's company at least from what I understand.
Sure, speed was a factor that helped lose control mid corner, but 10 year old tires ???
Viking here,
How would the fact that the car had 10 year old tires factor into this in a courtroom.
In my mind it would kind of make mute points of car safety and driver talent and would put blame with whomever maintained the car which in this case was owned by Paul and Roger's company at least from what I understand.
Sure, speed was a factor that helped lose control mid corner, but 10 year old tires ???
I actually looked at some photos of the Carrera GT chassis and it sure looks to me like the passenger cell is designed to remain intact; and clearly some crashes are too catastrophic to survive. But there are allegations that the car was not reasonably safe and IMO it is wrong to say just because someone crashes they deserve every injury they get.
Finally, a knee-jerk "sue everybody" approach is clearly wrong, but product liability litigation has done some good. No one really wants to go back to cars with sharp metal dashboards, lap belts (or no belts), vulnerable fuel tanks with sharp parts nearby and more, and if you think government rules are enough, see how much good that did with the VW emissions controls.
I just think the flippant comments about how this case can't possibly have merit are not thought out.
09-30-2015, 07:54 PM
#27
Rennlist Member
It's not whether it has merit. Only a judge and or jury will determine that.
It's simply distasteful. At best .
It's simply distasteful. At best .
09-30-2015, 08:50 PM
#28
Intermediate
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that the US is becoming way too litigious, at the cost of personal accountability.
It's blurring too many lines and diluting when there are REAL reasons to use the civil courts to achieve justice...tort reform is another thing our government has failed to do. But enough politics commentary
In this Walker case, a few thoughts
1) I agree, ten year old tires? They were probably hard as rocks, and next to useless on a car like a CGT. The driver should have known better. Question I have is whether Porsche actually recommends a "time out" requirement on tires? I actually might look at the manuals on my cars....
2) The CGT passed all relevant DOT/EPA/NHTSA requirements for safety at the time it was built and sold. Assuming their were no defects (manufacturing) or pre-existing design flaws, I'm not sure ANY road car would effectively "survive" a sideways hit at 80mph into a fixed object, particularly a narrow one like a tree (i.e. maximum force in a small area). I could imagine the tub itself being torn as it probably took a shot well beyond its design limits and any extra safety factors.
3) we all realize that driving at 80-90mph on a side street has consequences - stupid mistakes sometimes result in tragedy. For someone "credentialed" as a driver, it was horrible judgment.
4) I have not seen any of the images or the dynamics of the accident, but I think we've all seen incidents of cars hitting trees sideways, right where the fuel tank is, at high speed - resulting in apparent ruptured fuel tanks. This happened to two 458's in the northeast last year, one was fatal, the other burned 2 occupants pretty badly. (No 458 jokes please). Both were due to excessive speed, followed by a loss of control. (at least, to the best of my recollection)
It's blurring too many lines and diluting when there are REAL reasons to use the civil courts to achieve justice...tort reform is another thing our government has failed to do. But enough politics commentary
In this Walker case, a few thoughts
1) I agree, ten year old tires? They were probably hard as rocks, and next to useless on a car like a CGT. The driver should have known better. Question I have is whether Porsche actually recommends a "time out" requirement on tires? I actually might look at the manuals on my cars....
2) The CGT passed all relevant DOT/EPA/NHTSA requirements for safety at the time it was built and sold. Assuming their were no defects (manufacturing) or pre-existing design flaws, I'm not sure ANY road car would effectively "survive" a sideways hit at 80mph into a fixed object, particularly a narrow one like a tree (i.e. maximum force in a small area). I could imagine the tub itself being torn as it probably took a shot well beyond its design limits and any extra safety factors.
3) we all realize that driving at 80-90mph on a side street has consequences - stupid mistakes sometimes result in tragedy. For someone "credentialed" as a driver, it was horrible judgment.
4) I have not seen any of the images or the dynamics of the accident, but I think we've all seen incidents of cars hitting trees sideways, right where the fuel tank is, at high speed - resulting in apparent ruptured fuel tanks. This happened to two 458's in the northeast last year, one was fatal, the other burned 2 occupants pretty badly. (No 458 jokes please). Both were due to excessive speed, followed by a loss of control. (at least, to the best of my recollection)
09-30-2015, 09:24 PM
#29
Rennlist Member
And add to that it was multiple impacts, a few trees in line and a street sign pole I believe.
I agree that the US is becoming way too litigious, at the cost of personal accountability.
It's blurring too many lines and diluting when there are REAL reasons to use the civil courts to achieve justice...tort reform is another thing our government has failed to do. But enough politics commentary
In this Walker case, a few thoughts
1) I agree, ten year old tires? They were probably hard as rocks, and next to useless on a car like a CGT. The driver should have known better. Question I have is whether Porsche actually recommends a "time out" requirement on tires? I actually might look at the manuals on my cars....
2) The CGT passed all relevant DOT/EPA/NHTSA requirements for safety at the time it was built and sold. Assuming their were no defects (manufacturing) or pre-existing design flaws, I'm not sure ANY road car would effectively "survive" a sideways hit at 80mph into a fixed object, particularly a narrow one like a tree (i.e. maximum force in a small area). I could imagine the tub itself being torn as it probably took a shot well beyond its design limits and any extra safety factors.
3) we all realize that driving at 80-90mph on a side street has consequences - stupid mistakes sometimes result in tragedy. For someone "credentialed" as a driver, it was horrible judgment.
4) I have not seen any of the images or the dynamics of the accident, but I think we've all seen incidents of cars hitting trees sideways, right where the fuel tank is, at high speed - resulting in apparent ruptured fuel tanks. This happened to two 458's in the northeast last year, one was fatal, the other burned 2 occupants pretty badly. (No 458 jokes please). Both were due to excessive speed, followed by a loss of control. (at least, to the best of my recollection)
It's blurring too many lines and diluting when there are REAL reasons to use the civil courts to achieve justice...tort reform is another thing our government has failed to do. But enough politics commentary
In this Walker case, a few thoughts
1) I agree, ten year old tires? They were probably hard as rocks, and next to useless on a car like a CGT. The driver should have known better. Question I have is whether Porsche actually recommends a "time out" requirement on tires? I actually might look at the manuals on my cars....
2) The CGT passed all relevant DOT/EPA/NHTSA requirements for safety at the time it was built and sold. Assuming their were no defects (manufacturing) or pre-existing design flaws, I'm not sure ANY road car would effectively "survive" a sideways hit at 80mph into a fixed object, particularly a narrow one like a tree (i.e. maximum force in a small area). I could imagine the tub itself being torn as it probably took a shot well beyond its design limits and any extra safety factors.
3) we all realize that driving at 80-90mph on a side street has consequences - stupid mistakes sometimes result in tragedy. For someone "credentialed" as a driver, it was horrible judgment.
4) I have not seen any of the images or the dynamics of the accident, but I think we've all seen incidents of cars hitting trees sideways, right where the fuel tank is, at high speed - resulting in apparent ruptured fuel tanks. This happened to two 458's in the northeast last year, one was fatal, the other burned 2 occupants pretty badly. (No 458 jokes please). Both were due to excessive speed, followed by a loss of control. (at least, to the best of my recollection)
09-30-2015, 09:28 PM
#30
Rennlist Member
I'm presuming as the car was US DOT and certified that it was crash tested and worthy of the accepted official standards.
If made to different standards then yes That's an issue, but I doubt that's the case.
If made to different standards then yes That's an issue, but I doubt that's the case.
It's a crashworthiness question; every car has to be designed knowing that it can crash, so what is reasonable? It's obvious that a car lined with razor blades and broken glass is unsafe. Was the Carrera GT adequately designed for crash safety? The German concept that you deserve everything you get if you are at fault in a crash won't play. Look at the drunks crashing GM cars with faulty ignition switches so airbag did not deploy. Their survivors had viable claims even though the crash was perhaps 100% their fault.
I actually looked at some photos of the Carrera GT chassis and it sure looks to me like the passenger cell is designed to remain intact; and clearly some crashes are too catastrophic to survive. But there are allegations that the car was not reasonably safe and IMO it is wrong to say just because someone crashes they deserve every injury they get.
Finally, a knee-jerk "sue everybody" approach is clearly wrong, but product liability litigation has done some good. No one really wants to go back to cars with sharp metal dashboards, lap belts (or no belts), vulnerable fuel tanks with sharp parts nearby and more, and if you think government rules are enough, see how much good that did with the VW emissions controls.
I just think the flippant comments about how this case can't possibly have merit are not thought out.
I actually looked at some photos of the Carrera GT chassis and it sure looks to me like the passenger cell is designed to remain intact; and clearly some crashes are too catastrophic to survive. But there are allegations that the car was not reasonably safe and IMO it is wrong to say just because someone crashes they deserve every injury they get.
Finally, a knee-jerk "sue everybody" approach is clearly wrong, but product liability litigation has done some good. No one really wants to go back to cars with sharp metal dashboards, lap belts (or no belts), vulnerable fuel tanks with sharp parts nearby and more, and if you think government rules are enough, see how much good that did with the VW emissions controls.
I just think the flippant comments about how this case can't possibly have merit are not thought out.