apparently the crash everyone heard about a few months back where two people died in a Porsche Carrera GT at a race track has generated this:


http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/jun2006/bw20060608_466074.htm

o great.... :rolleyes:
btw, any of those pics = ???
never saw them before...

apparently the crash everyone heard about a few months back where two people died in a Porsche Carrera GT at a race track has generated this:


http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/jun2006/bw20060608_466074.htm

The outcome of this is going to be important. Heaven forbid that we blame ourselves for our actions. Sue Porsche? Give me a break.

I'm just waiting for the day when the family of an irresponsible teenage STI driver decides to sue Subaru for making the car that killed their kid.

That's quite a list of people being sued, but expected.

Dear God, please do something to the American legal system, where a child can sue his mother for giving birth to him etc. :rolleyes:

what can one expect from crashing into a concrete wall with a non-purpouse built sports car?!

maybe I live in the North of Europe and am concidered by most Americans a yetti of some kind :D, but I don't understand - how such things can occur is such a civilized country? :)

The phrase "kill all the lawyers" comes to mind.

It looks like they figure if they make enough claims no matter how bogus some of them will have to fall in their favor.

OMG! A very powerfull, rear engine, rear drive, light weight car that is tail happy . It must be defective. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry for her loss, but that guys wife is a moron. And the lawyer is a greedy snake.

Back in the day Porsche lost a lawsuit in the same part of the country. A woman and her husband went out to dinner in their SC. They had too much to drink and the wife drove the car home. She lost control and I think her husband was killed. She was driving after drinking too much, but the prosecution found an internal Porsche memo from their engineers saying the SC had dangerous handling traits and they found Porsche negligent.
Hard to say what will happen here, but look for more understeering cars from everyone.

This will not end well.

This still sucks, but I think it's important to point out that it's not the owner/drivers wife that's bringing the suit, it's the passengers.

This thread was starting to look like it was going to go down the path of "take responsibilty for your inability to drive" like so many "wrecked my STi coz of t3h 5prinkl3r5!!!one!" threads.

In this case, I think a lawsuit is probably warranted. Dude was driving a car that he knew he was having trouble with and had lost control of recently, track should have had the barriers removed before this event, club shouldn't have had the event with barriers in place and should have had better control of cars entering the track, Ferrari driver should have been much more aware of his surroundings and situation.

Should Porsche be named as a defendant? Ridiculous.

It'll be interesting to see how this goes.

Um, CarerraGT's are new. Not 10 years old.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=19&article_id=7366

Um, CarerraGT's are new. Not 10 years old.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=19&article_id=7366
My bad.
I thought we were talking about one of these.
http://www.kwyjibo.com/ispeed/daytona98/dtn98065.jpg

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.


The Keaton Estate claim might have merit since he allegedly(!) didn't tell the passenger he'd been having trouble -- I don't know enough of the details to know for sure.

The Ferrari Owners Club and the flagman claim might have merit, simply because the lawyer claims they didn't follow their own rules, and I think it's reasonable for a participant to expect the club to follow their own rules.

Every other claim is bull****, and will hurt track days for every one. :( It sounds like the driver simply had too much car for his skills. I hate the fact they're blaming the Ferrari driver, though. He's probably guilt ridden as ****, and having a novice on a track and having to deal with them is common on track days, and is a reasonable expectation. How would this be different if he was an expert driver and suddenly had mechanical problems and suddenly slowed on the straight?

Disclaimer: I've never driven on that track, know anything about that club or driven a Carrera GT

I hate people

The Keaton Estate claim might have merit since he allegedly(!) didn't tell the passenger he'd been having trouble -- I don't know enough of the details to know for sure.
Was it really having handling issues or was it simply that it's 605BHP RWD car? When comes down to it any car can be overdriven.

The only oint that has any standing, from the very little I know, might be the track/flagman. If passengers weren't allowed then that could do it in for them. The whole thing is stupid, you sign the waiver you take the risk.

Ummm, if it was a club rule to not allow passengers, and the plaintiff's husband was at the track day with his Lambo, one would assume he would have read (and probably had to sign-off) the rules. As a result, shouldn't HE be partially responsible for even getting in the car in the first place?

Steve

"*** u pay me"

Corey Rudl's wife

BIGELM EDIT: DODGING THE SWEAR FILTER GIVES YOU POINTS... ENJOY!!!

I heard about this a week or so ago from one of my customers (in some Porsche club)

I only got what he was telling me, and couldn't believe what he was saying. So if i overdrive my car at the track and wreck, i can sue subaru :rolleyes:

*Disclaimer* I will never do this, purely example.

Someone once told me at a track day (MINI club...my former car), 'only drive as hard as your wallet will allow'.

Steve

who would have thought....

going to a race track, and driving over 100mph, could possibly have some risk involved. :eek:

Being a HPDE/TT event organizer and competition group we are following this one closely. If they do manage to win, it may spell the end of club level HPDE as we know it. Event Insurance may go the way of Malpractice and price all of us smaller organizations out of the Market, and price the remainders so that only the affluent can afford them. And they are the ones who keep making these types of mistakes and filing the lawsuits.

this is ridiculous.

I've never heard of a Porsche being tail happy; must be some manufacturer's defect.

Wasn't there some release they had to sign at the event, or was this one too upscale to bother with bits of paper?

I've never heard of a Porsche being tail happy; must be some manufacturer's defect.
Before the 996, the Carreras were famous for their massive and sudden oversteer. I've never met a 911 owner who hasn't swapped ends at some point.

The Carrera GT is a completely different animal though. It is a mid-engined supercar... not a 'refined understeer for the lowest common denominator' sportscar like the newer 911s.

The phrase "kill all the lawyers" comes to mind.

It looks like they figure if they make enough claims no matter how bogus some of them will have to fall in their favor.

OMG! A very powerfull, rear engine, rear drive, light weight car that is tail happy . It must be defective. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry for her loss, but that guys wife is a moron. And the lawyer is a greedy snake.

Remember, they will need to convince a jury of this, unless the defendants decide to settle out of court. That is probably what they are hoping for.

Before the 996, the Carreras were famous for their massive and sudden oversteer. I've never met a 911 owner who hasn't swapped ends at some point.



I think he was being sarcastic. ;)

The passenger is an idiot for getting into the car when he doesn't even know the driver. The wifey should just sell the broken down Lambo and call it a day instead.

I think he was being sarcastic. ;)
Moi? never!

A judge with a lick of knowledge about cars should throw this out immediately. :huh:

the carrera gt does snap oversteer like biotch though. or so top gear would have you believe.

the stig had a hell of a time with the car.

The only ones responsible are dead as I see this... The driver thought his car was tail happy but drove at excessive speeds anyway with a passanger. Each of us are responsible for our actions.

the carrera gt does snap oversteer like biotch though. or so top gear would have you believe.

the stig had a hell of a time with the car.


anyone see the show with leno trying to do the top speed runs with the car? he had a nice little spin in the car. face it its a race car that can drive on the street.

unfortunaly that DB lawer is from San Diego.

The only ones responsible are dead as I see this... The driver thought his car was tail happy but drove at excessive speeds anyway with a passanger. Each of us are responsible for our actions.
Exactly... did Porsche force him to buy the car? No. Did Porshe make him go drive it at dangerous speeds at the race track? No.

-Matt

Everyone keeps attacking lawyers and the legal system but there is a simple solution to this problem. If we were to make the legal system a "you lose, you pay" system, then people would have to think twice about bringing lawsuits, frivilous or not. Imagine you are suing McDonald's because you ate too many big macs and got fat. Then you file a lawsuit and a jury finds in McDonald's favor. The person/attorney bringing the lawsuit would have to pay all the attorney fees for McDonald's. Easily millions. Simple and effective solution.

Sorry to be OT, but what the hell is there a child play area next to a RACETRACK for!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

Me too! Oh, wait...

F...n pu...ies You go to the track... You take a risk. If you dont want to take that risk... Dont play...

They signed wavers.. Should see how well that stands in court this time. Sounds like the bitch doesnt know how to get a job and work for a living. So now that her check book is gone. Shes trying to still get paid....

Get a life people...

I wish I could sue for driver error... Sue the dealer for selling the car to him. Not anyone else. Hell sue yourself for letting him go to it.

Someone should sue the wife for allowing her husband to buy the car in the first place. I know my wife would kill me and then take the car if I came home with that without her consent.

Man that is a RIDICULOUS lawsuit! :mad:

Someone should sue the wife for allowing her husband to buy the car in the first place. I know my wife would kill me and then take the car if I came home with that without her consent.


A wife consent check box on sales contract....lol

I think most of us would be walking though...lol


I am a firm beliver of three tier lic. Class 1: 50cc to 1400cc then Class 2: 1401cc to 3500cc then class 3 3501 and up. Or do it based on the speed ratings like tires.

Then transfer all this ratings into what lane you can travel in down the highway.
But anyway you look at it, She should also be sueing the state for the ****ty driving schools they offer people nowdays to get your lic.
I think that Gt's only problem was that the fool had a twichy right foot.

from the linked car and driver article:

"The Carrera GT offers no electronic stability-control system because, as Porsche explains, "the driving behavior is very good, and there is, therefore, no need for it." Theoretically, this is true. Unfortunately, at issue is the driving behavior of the pilot. For instance, we'd bet that the French reporter who ran a GT into an unmoving roadside object at considerable speed might have found ESP quite helpful."

Simply put the driver of the car was way out of his league and should have realized it the first time he spun the car.

If the particular car he was driving actually had some defects that caused it to handle poorly, then he should have taken the car into the dealership to get it looked into. Knowone buys a $440,000 car and doesn't take it to the dealership for absolutely everything and anything. Even IF his car was defective how would porsche know???? They don't come to everyones houses after they buy the car for a quality survey. The idea is that people bring their car in to have it serviced if something is wrong with it, that is the way it works. Therefore porsche could not possibly be at fault in this instance.

More importantly any car can be spun --well atleast any car without stability control, maybe you can still spin one of these with liberal use of the hand brake + hard turning+ wet/ icy roads?. The point is that a porsche is not unique in this sense. He could have driven a toyota corolla to the event, accidently spun it (accidents DO happen) and hits a wall and dies. Does toyota make an "unsafe car"? NO!!!! The driver simply doesn't know what he is doing.

It is stupid things like this that dont let us have launch control in Ferrari's and stability control that cannot be fully disabled in Lexus' etc.

-Nick

this is dumb, only in america

if you're stupid enough you can sue and make money off of anything, I got fat at Mcdonalds (try cooking) so give me money, I burnt myself with HOT coffee that was in my lap while driving (yo stupid thats what a cup holder is for) give me money, I tripped on a caution sign and because I couldn't read the language dispite the images (it's yellow and has a guy tripping on it) give me money

this is a big problem though there have been so many people getting cars too much for them to handle getting into wrecks and sueing anyone that they can, when it's their own fualt

Before the 996, the Carreras were famous for their massive and sudden oversteer. I've never met a 911 owner who hasn't swapped ends at some point.


How the they get rid of snap over-steer? I always thought this had to do with the physics of a rear-engined car?

Anyway, as much as this could be a terrible thing if Porsche is found liable (I certainly hope not), cars today are much too capable for 90% of drivers and that is a problem.

Personally, I think states around the country should revise the requirements to receive a driver's license to compensate for this occurrence, because lets face it, a WRX is much too capable without some sort of racing school, let alone the STi. Suing companies will only take the fun out of the capable driver's with little or no drop in the rate of driver induced accidents.

Are waivers not good for this sort of thing anymore?

Mike

I'm pretty sure the waiver only released the track and the organization putting on the event. So that still leaves the gas station/oil company he filled up at, because if they didn't sell him the fuel he would have never made it to the track. Mapquest will also get sued because that's where he got the directions to get to the track. And 7-11 and Coke aren't safe either for selling him the Big Gulp with extra caffiene that made his right foot twitch in the corner. :rolleyes:

This country is pretty lame when it comes to lawsuits. You can sue anyone and everyone for anything and chances are you will win. Pretty sad... :furious:

~REVNU

The outcome of this is going to be important. Heaven forbid that we blame ourselves for our actions. Sue Porsche? Give me a break.

I'm just waiting for the day when the family of an irresponsible teenage STI driver decides to sue Subaru for making the car that killed their kid.

Years ago now, and I don't remember any of the details anymore there was an accident involving a Pontiac Trans Am. It had a teenage driver and 3 or 4 passengers. The driver lost control of the car at a high rate of speed (over 100 mph), the car rolled and hit a tree. Everyone was killed. The parents sued GM and won. As I said I don't recall the specifics anymore............but these types of lawsuits do, and will continue to happen as long as lawyers have their way.

There have been some judges in the past that have slapped these people in the face,
I hope thet get one of these guys. Also you can write to your local congress man/women to get this crap changed and make this witch hunt style sueing illegal.
All it is, is extortion, and a big scam.

post up that lawyers phone number. lets give it to the OT and let them start calling to complain..

"*** u pay me"

Corey Rudl's wife

BIGELM EDIT: DODGING THE SWEAR FILTER GIVES YOU POINTS... ENJOY!!!

That’s ridiculous. This is why i hate Nasioc sometimes.

I recently read an article that talked about how GM might start make buyers of the Z06 take some form of drivers training. I wonder if the news of this lawsuit has anything to do with it.

Hello,

Someone asked about a pic:
http://www.remembercorey.com/carcrash.gif

I also heard that this Corey Rudl is the same one who paid for a seat driving a Steeda Mustang in Grand Am in 2004 and was able to qualify in second place - so it's not like he was a total noob. He knew something about driving. See this mention of him:
http://www.theracesite.com/index.cfm?pagetype=2&form_article=7079

Given what I know about track events, and in fact having been an instructor at track events, I wouldn't doubt that Rudl offered to sit with Ben Keaton to help Ben figure out his handling problems. It's what people do at track events. Someone asks me to analyze their driving and I _used to_ hop in and give them an analysis. Ever seen an instructor say "No" to a student?

I've said "No" before - I actually asked the student to pull over right where we were on the track and let me off if he wasn't going to listen to my instructions. He was so arrogant and crazy that he thought his absolutely stupid driving was "awesome" or something. We pulled into the pits and that was the last time I decided to trust my life to a noob on the track. (I also made sure that the student be carefully watched from that point on and I made sure that his request to move out of the beginner group was absolutely not granted).

As for the law suit... here's an email I received on that subject:
I was going to post that this argument is nothing new, having been made in the '70's in a lawsuit against Porsche on the 930 Turbo, but it turns out that Rudl's wife hired the very same lawyer (Craig McClellan in San Diego) who litigated that case.
Don't kill the lawyers, kill the idiots who hire the lawyers. And teach some responsibility to Americans.

In this particular case, however, if a jury determines that it was unsafe to leave the wall moved closer to the track, then perhaps the track should be held liable for not moving it back. The folks who rent tracks are in the business of renting tracks and filling spaces with paying customers. They are not in a position to evaluate the safety of a track - they're car enthusiasts and business people, not vehicular and track dynamics specialists. The track should supply that expertise.

The waiver that you sign says that you understand you're in a dangerous sport and you might die. I think we'd all agree that if, while you were driving at the track, the track officials dropped a concrete barrier directly in front of you while you were at speed (say, off a crane or something), that you would find the track liable for your injuries. OTOH, we can all probably agree that if you had a solo spin-out and you rolled and died, all while on the track surface, that the track is not liable. This is in-between those extremes: the track made conditions unsafe in a way that the untrained eye (you, me, etc), wouldn't realize that the track was unsafe. I assume that high speed crash zones have tires or Styrofoam or sand or gravel or something to keep me from hitting a wall at 100+ mph. If the track was built that way, but then a wall was moved, I'm not sure that most of us would spot that unsafe condition.

As for everyone else being held liable, that's ridiculous. Everything that happened was "normal" and within the realm of what you should expect when you're on track with folks who don't have race licenses. I absolutely hate having to use track days for race car testing... in HPDE group 4 there are always idiots who have fast cars and who don't really belong in an open-passing session. Our test sessions are less useful when we test during HPDEs because we have to drive much more conservatively because we expect drivers to make stupid mistakes like swinging into our line at random times, etc.

Anyway, those are my thoughts...

Joel

People suck.

You go to the track, you sign a waiver, you know the risks. End of story. There is NO WAY that Porsche should not sell that car to un-trained drivers. That is so un-American. In this country, if you have enough money, you can buy just about anything.

She should clean the sand out..... :rolleyes:

Nothing to see here.

Rules are rules... you agreed when you signed up. If you have a problem with it, don't let the door hit you. There are other less obvious ways of doing things... you choose to dodge them, you'll get points, period. Stay with the thread or don't post!

At one time there were pictures of the wrecked Carrera GT at the wreckedexotics web site. However, I don't see them now. Maybe they were pulled because of the lawsuit?

I hate people
:lol: well said!

I was gonna say the same. You go to the track, you sign a waiver. And then your wife sues everyone possible? Well, one thing well know, everyone on the wait list for the GT is gonna kick her ass.

If anything, allowing passengers on a race track is dangerous, its not negligence on the tracks part if that person that hops in the car looks like an instructor but isn't. This **** gets pulled off all the time. If the husband made the decision to sit in the car, there is no reason to sue everyone on that list, esp. the driver of the ferrari. The GT driver should be more aware of his surroundings.

People suck.

You go to the track, you sign a waiver, you know the risks. End of story. There is NO WAY that Porsche should not sell that car to un-trained drivers. That is so un-American. In this country, if you have enough money, you can buy just about anything.

She should clean the sand out..... :rolleyes:

I was gonna say the same. You go to the track, you sign a waiver. And then your wife sues everyone possible? Well, one thing well know, everyone on the wait list for the GT is gonna kick her ass.

If anything, allowing passengers on a race track is dangerous, its not negligence on the tracks part if that person that hops in the car looks like an instructor but isn't. This **** gets pulled off all the time. If the husband made the decision to sit in the car, there is no reason to sue everyone on that list, esp. the driver of the ferrari. The GT driver should be more aware of his surroundings.
I think the tracks negligence was in leaving the barriers that they ended up crashing into in an unsafe place.

Rules are rules... you agreed when you signed up. If you have a problem with it, don't let the door hit you. There are other less obvious ways of doing things... you choose to dodge them, you'll get points, period. Stay with the thread or don't post!

Jeez seriously. You want to be a little nicer. You sound like my mother. I did not intestinally write that. Kind of like if I spelled douche bad doche bag. My bad whatever.

I did not intestinally write that.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

I misspelled it without a U? So the almighty swear filter did not catch it. Anyways im unsubscribing from this thread.

I think the tracks negligence was in leaving the barriers that they ended up crashing into in an unsafe place.


you forget the size of those things.... Next you forget somethig he forgot while driving..... BRAKES!!!!!!!! use them. They use them all the time in racing.... makes them faster!!!

We run that track with them and we are on motorcycles.... Simply put.

He was ghey and playing grab as down the track like it was malibu canyon rd. I am thankful he did this at the track and not down the road or freeway. Where others could have been killed. Because if you cant handle 650hp and blaming it on a car flaw. Then you were having the same problems on the street... Which could have killed anyone of us, As the CHP just found out..
Maybe they should share lawyers... They might sue god for being at fault for inventing newtons law and the genral law physics on earth.... Or maybe we should sue god for inventing Dumb people. Or do we sue darwin?

Everyone keeps attacking lawyers and the legal system but there is a simple solution to this problem. If we were to make the legal system a "you lose, you pay" system, then people would have to think twice about bringing lawsuits, frivilous or not. Imagine you are suing McDonald's because you ate too many big macs and got fat. Then you file a lawsuit and a jury finds in McDonald's favor. The person/attorney bringing the lawsuit would have to pay all the attorney fees for McDonald's. Easily millions. Simple and effective solution.

That is the way things were back in England.... As a result, lawsuits did not fly around left, center and right over there....

I think the tracks negligence was in leaving the barriers that they ended up crashing into in an unsafe place.

I am sure that no matter how far back they were, the lawsuit would still exist, and the the track wouls still be blamed...

I am sure that no matter how far back they were, the lawsuit would still exist, and the the track wouls still be blamed...
I didn't say I agreed with it, I was just pointing out where the tracks liability was.

This is all BS, they knew the dangers of driving a car for the sole purpose of pushing its limits. Didn't the track have them sign something so they could not pull this kind of crap.

This is all BS, they knew the dangers of driving a car for the sole purpose of pushing its limits. Didn't the track have them sign something so they could not pull this kind of crap.
That doesn't mean you can't bring a lawsuit, just that you might have a hard time winning.

You can sue anyone for anything. How far you get will vary.

I misspelled it without a U? So the almighty swear filter did not catch it. Anyways im unsubscribing from this thread.


holy crap man, you wrote INTESTINALLY....i wasnt referring to some swear filter.

I did not intestinally write that.

wt f does that mean? (hence the :confused: )

America, the land of the free... where you can blame your own acts to stupidity to anyone, rather than yourself...

"The Carrera GT is too hard of a car to drive for inexperienced drivers"

Who the **** cares? :rolleyes: If you buy it, and you crash and die, it's your own goddamn problem, not Porsche's...

Money >>> brains ... all the time ..

Jeez seriously. You want to be a little nicer. You sound like my mother. I did not intestinally write that. Kind of like if I spelled douche bad doche bag. My bad whatever.

Dude, use a spell check next time. Obviously you like eating letters when you type; save yourself and everyone else the trouble of trying to understand your posts.

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."

2 drivers in the car, supposedly both experienced, were blind to the flagman waving his arms? Did they need firecrackers or neon lights?

And the argument about the barrier? That has slippery slope written all over it-

A) He died when he hit the tire wall at 180mph : They should have covered the tirewall with puppies and kittens to shield the impact and have an automatic airbag for every conceivable impact point.

B) He died when he skidded out and flipped over at 40mph : The track should be responsible for building and activating the dome covering the track, so that when it rains or snows and the conditions change, the pavement is EXACTLY the same, otherwise, it's the fault of the track.

C) He died when his Honda Accord suffered "terminal understeer" while entering into a corner at 120mph and turning the wheel while his foot was on the accelerator. Of course, the car is prone to DANGEROUS amounts of understeer which was DANGEROUSLY implemented from at factory, internal memos by the test drivers cite, "Car oversteers a little bit, add more understeer..." show that Honda was OBVIOUSLY negligent and looking to kill people and cover up their evil ways.

absolutely ridiculous

Craig McClennan should be dragged out and shot in the face for just accepting this client.

I understand that is what he gets paid to do, but where is the personal responsibility here folks? Sue Porsche for a "tail happy" car? WTF is that? I'm pretty sure that waiver you sign when you go into the track negates any and EVERY one of his claims.

jackass.

Craig McClennan should be dragged out and shot in the face for just accepting this client.

I understand that is what he gets paid to do, but where is the personal responsibility here folks? Sue Porsche for a "tail happy" car? WTF is that? I'm pretty sure that waiver you sign when you go into the track negates any and EVERY one of his claims.

jackass.
It doesn't do anything to the claim against the owner/drivers estate.

The dude knew that he was having handling problems with the car, he knew that he had recently lost control and spun the car, but he invited the guy to go for a ride during which he drove above his capabilities.

I get the impression that a lot of you think that it's the driver's wife thats suing. It's not, it's the passenger's. I think she might just have a case, at least against this other dudes estate. The rest of it is probably just throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks.

And I mean that intestinally. :lol:

I didn't say I agreed with it, I was just pointing out where the tracks liability was.

Yeh, I was not commenting or attacking you as to whether you agreed or did not agree with it... I was just speculating, as the whole thing seems like a bit of a cash grab to me imo.

I am thinking that even if the barriers were where they normally were, the lawsuit will still imply that they were not where they should have been to prevent death.

As far as handling problems with the car, is there any car out there that doesn't get a little rough around the edges when you push it to the limits? I don't know of any rwd car with as much power as the CGT has that won't appear to be a twitchy car to drive, or even threaten to bite if not respected.

I get the impression that they are trying to make the CGT the modern day Corvair.... unsafe at any speed...

**** that money-hungry-gold-digging-chicken-head of a wife. Where to place the blame? Her husbands leadfooted friend.... who already got his because he couldnt control his car and/or had an unfortunate circumstance... there is no one to sue here, honestly.... :rolleyes:

**** that money-hungry-gold-digging-chicken-head of a wife. Where to place the blame? Her leadfooted husband. :rolleyes:

As mentioned a couple of posts up, it is the wife of the passenger that initiated the lawsuit

Maybe she should consider sueing (sp?) the tool driver.

Maybe she should consider sueing (sp?) the tool driver.
She probably would if he wasn't dead. They both were killed in the crash. That's why she's suing his estate.

Maybe she should consider sueing (sp?) the tool driver.

The driver for Snap-On? Sounds like she'll find a way to link it to him lol :lol:

She probably would if he wasn't dead. They both were killed in the crash. That's why she's suing his estate.
I thought so, sorry, drunken posting FTL.

Still, she can sue him probably, he still has family... :rolleyes: :(

I hate to say it, but in a legal sense, some of the points brought up by the case appear to have merit. That means this case will not get summarily dismissed, but will most likely be drug out over a long period of time costing both parties money, and eventually coming to a conclusion that will leave nobody but the plaintiffs lawyer happy. I think the biggest factor will be the violations of rules by both the club, and the track that "obviously" impaired the safety of those involved. Those will be the issues that get legs and run this case.

Porsche better hope that they do not get lumped in together with whatever judgment gets served, as they will end up majority of it as they have the biggest pockets (There is a legal term for this, and I can't for the life of me remember it...help me out?) I'm not saying I approve, but this case is far from a cut and dry summary dismissal we could hope for.

something something, Holiday Inn, something something.

Welcome to the land of the free... Where we reward stupidity with money!

EDIT: Beaten to the response already..... :)

The "tool driver" is 6 feet under right now, and won't be unavailable to personally answer to the lawsuit... Although what is left of his estate will be....
Yea, see my post above. I will say, i do not like to desecrate (sp?) the dead. Its a sad thing to see, but the story that i heard (fellow porsche club member) that he may have been driving past his ability (i know, possibly pure rumor).

Edit* oops :p

This is the first I've heard of this and the article posted on page 1 is retarded. How could they even suggest the Carrera GT is inherently stable? Or that performance car manufacturers must approve buyers based on their driving ability. Totally ludicrous.

A couple guys died in a car crash. This happens every single day.

• Porsche - Product liability for selling an unsafe car. This falls into three levels of defect.
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.

This is incredibly infuriating..

I thought so, sorry, drunken posting FTL.

Still, she can sue him probably, he still has family... :rolleyes: :(
That's what his estate is.

When you die your money and property are considered your "estate". Basically it means that instead of your family getting your dough, you've got to pay the lawsuit first, even though your dead.

the carrera gt does snap oversteer like biotch though. or so top gear would have you believe.

the stig had a hell of a time with the car.
Yeah, I mean come on, just think about the physics of it. And I think any car would have oversteared in the situation if it went down at all how I picture it. Any car will overstear if you're going that fast and quickly snap the stearing wheel to one direction and then back. It sounds to me like the accident was pretty much caused by driver in-expierience. I'm sorry that 2 people had to die, but no amount of money is going to bring them back. And suing the track for not moving the wall is fine, but should they really have to pay millions and millions of dollers? I got into a car with a guy at a track day once, and I knew I was taking a big risk. But I had watched the guy drive all day and heard many regulars talk about how good this driver was, so when he asked if I wanted to ride, I said of course. And we asked and got the Ok from track mangement before we did it. I hope that the outcome of this doesn't ruin too much for those of us who enjoy track days and events like that. But knowing how our legal system works, we're pretty much screwed.

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."

2 drivers in the car, supposedly both experienced, were blind to the flagman waving his arms? Did they need firecrackers or neon lights?

And the argument about the barrier? That has slippery slope written all over it-

A) He died when he hit the tire wall at 180mph : They should have covered the tirewall with puppies and kittens to shield the impact and have an automatic airbag for every conceivable impact point.

B) He died when he skidded out and flipped over at 40mph : The track should be responsible for building and activating the dome covering the track, so that when it rains or snows and the conditions change, the pavement is EXACTLY the same, otherwise, it's the fault of the track.

C) He died when his Honda Accord suffered "terminal understeer" while entering into a corner at 120mph and turning the wheel while his foot was on the accelerator. Of course, the car is prone to DANGEROUS amounts of understeer which was DANGEROUSLY implemented from at factory, internal memos by the test drivers cite, "Car oversteers a little bit, add more understeer..." show that Honda was OBVIOUSLY negligent and looking to kill people and cover up their evil ways.

absolutely ridiculous
Well put! It will be interesting to see if they can prove that something was actually wrong with the handling or if the driver just didn't know how to handle the car. Something else I find curious, if the Ferrari was going so slow and the Porsche was going so fast... shouldn't the Porsche driver have noticed that he was closing on the Ferrari at a very high rate? I mean, I don't know the race course and I don't know where the accident happened, but it sounded to me like it would have happened at the end of pit road, which would be at the end of a long straight most likely which means the Porsche should have been able to see the traffic and move to avoid it. Again, sounds to me like it was all down to driver in-experience.

I thought so, sorry, drunken posting FTL.

Still, she can sue him probably, he still has family... :rolleyes: :(

drunk on a monday night eh? You doin alright buddy? :D

but yea, i can MAYBE see suing the track because it is their responsibi8lity to make sure it is safe....ppl arent track experts and shouldnt be expected to know if a barrier is dangerous or not. Even that arguement seems semi fake to me though. If you cant handle the car at that speed slow down man.

Welcome to the land of the free... Where we reward stupidity with money!

Where's my damn money then? :lol:

drunk on a monday night eh? You doin alright buddy? :D

haha, monday night is my drinking night. :D

So I have a ~400BHP RWD car. I can't imagine what a ~600BHP RWD car is like.

If my car didn't have a stability system it would have "handling problems" every time I put my foot down. Seriously though, that's a lot of car to handle.

The driver and the passenger certainly accepted some risk in the situation, but they also probably didn't think the flag guy would flag a Ferrari out in front of them either. This is always the single biggest riskiest place on a track, the pit exit.

So I call:

Suing Porsche: lame (until proven otherwise)
Suing the driver's estate: lame (there appear to be other more likely causes)
Suing the Ferrari driver: lame (a lot of tracks you can't see the track traffic and have to trust the pit flagman)
Suing the Racetrack operators: lame (not clear how it contributed to accident other than wrong place wrong time)

Suing the Ferrari club: I think this is the least lame piece of the suit. It looks like they caused the event that triggered the accident.

So I have a ~400BHP RWD car. I can't imagine what a ~600BHP RWD car is like.



You go boy... Glenn flossin' a Maserati.. good for you!

Gotta love the shotgun method..

How the they get rid of snap over-steer? I always thought this had to do with the physics of a rear-engined car?Years of careful suspension tuning. From everything I've read/seen/witnessed, the modern 911s have all the tail-out attitude of the originals without any tendancies to bite like the old ones.

Years of careful suspension tuning. From everything I've read/seen/witnessed, the modern 911s have all the tail-out attitude of the originals without any tendancies to bite like the old ones.

To fix the tail problem, prosche installed awd system, But lthey wanted lower weight so prosche didn't put it in the Carrera GT.

And it was definately his fault and the driver should be sue for murdering the passenger.

If the dude knew where the brake pedal was... Would we be all chatting about this right now????

Simple... Anyone ever been to fontana? When someone pulls out .... there is alot of brake room. When someone pulls into the track you can see them clean back into riverside.. unless its a smoggy day....
fontana is going to have to install spike strips at the pit exit and every car will have to get a installed ign kill.... just like the go kart track...


The 911 is the orignal drift car... But the cgt was mid engine. So it doesnt ride the same way...
Now my AW11 likes to step out, Thats fun.. But if your not up to speed with your skilzz your going to get schooled fast.....