are there any lawyers on this forum?

[23109VC]

I'm a lawyer - but I do criminal law - so I'm not much help. Unless of course in a fit of rage over your blown motor you assault your Porsche dealer and get arrested..

Seriously - I'd like to hear from some of the civil attorneys here on the forum. What I do as a criminal lawyer tends to be more focused on trial work - and not on civil litigation/discovery/motions. Those guys can speak to the strenths/weaknesses from a liability standpoint.

What I can comment on, as a trial lawyer, is that a case like this would be a tough sell to a jury. EVEN IF PORSCHE IS LEGALLY LIABLE (and I don't know that they are) - good luck getting a jury to give a rats a$$ about it.

Jurors don't just listen to a case, listen to the law, and then actually follow the law. They are supposed to - but guess what - they don't. Ever hear of a guy named OJ??? Jurors are not judges and lawyers. They are lay people, not necessarily the sharpest tool in the shed, and they are often times motivated more by emotions and lay person standards, than the actual law the judge reads to them. So even though you may have a case from a "legal" perspective, you still need to make Joe Six Pack care enough to find the other guy liable and pay you money.

A bunch of Porsche owners who are complaining that the engine was poorly designed because it broke when it was OFF warranty will not generate much sympathy.

The average joe - who will be your jurors - don't own Porsches. They think anyone who owns one is rich enough to fix anything that could go wrong with it, and they will figure if you bought a Porsche, you assumed that risk when you bought it.

Imagine Donald Trump trying to sue the manufacturer of his private jet because the engines took a dump after the warranty expired. Would you let "The Donald" collect from the maker of his Gulfstream? That's kind of how the guy in the Accord will view all the "rich" guys whining about their Porsches...

Like I said, I'm not a civil attorney - so I hope I'm wrong - I just think that if/when this case made it to a real courtroom with a real jury - no one would care - and that matters.

[KevinH1990]

I'm not a lawyer so don't consider this authoritative.

I've owned a few products that have been the subject of class action lawsuits. In the two cases I remember clearly, both were settled out of court.

One involved our Maytag Neptune washer. The initial design of the washer promoted mildew growth and it would smell very bad. Maytag developed a fix that reduced the problem, but did not eliminate it. (They replaced the door gasket and timer. They also developed a "freshen up" procedure in which I basically have to run the washer through a special cycle using bleach and dishwasher detergent every few months.) By the time the lawyers got involved, the washer was repaired to the point I could live with it.

If I recall correctly, the settlement was on a pro rata basis. People with older washers received less and people with newer washers received more. My washer was a few years old at the time, and I would receive a $100 coupon good for buying a new washer in the next two years. I also had to give Maytag another shot at fixing the washer before I could collect.

It looked to me that the people who did the best in the whole deal were the lawyers. I assume that would be the case in any class action against Porsche.

[ChrisZang]

thanks for your response, yes all your points make a lot of sense.
Well, at least I can feel like I am in the same league with "The Donald"

Originally Posted by 23109VC

What I can comment on, as a trial lawyer, is that a case like this would be a tough sell to a jury. EVEN IF PORSCHE IS LEGALLY LIABLE (and I don't know that they are) - good luck getting a jury to give a rats a$$ about it.

Jurors don't just listen to a case, listen to the law, and then actually follow the law. They are supposed to - but guess what - they don't. Ever hear of a guy named OJ??? Jurors are not judges and lawyers. They are lay people, not necessarily the sharpest tool in the shed, and they are often times motivated more by emotions and lay person standards, than the actual law the judge reads to them. So even though you may have a case from a "legal" perspective, you still need to make Joe Six Pack care enough to find the other guy liable and pay you money.

A bunch of Porsche owners who are complaining that the engine was poorly designed because it broke when it was OFF warranty will not generate much sympathy.

The average joe - who will be your jurors - don't own Porsches. They think anyone who owns one is rich enough to fix anything that could go wrong with it, and they will figure if you bought a Porsche, you assumed that risk when you bought it.

Imagine Donald Trump trying to sue the manufacturer of his private jet because the engines took a dump after the warranty expired. Would you let "The Donald" collect from the maker of his Gulfstream? That's kind of how the guy in the Accord will view all the "rich" guys whining about their Porsches...

[raddoc]

When my 2005 MB SLK 350 started using 1 quart of oil every 700 miles , MB said "oh, that's normal" . When it failed 3 oil consumption tests (after the dealer bungled the first two) they said , " maybe there's a problem". This process took 7 months. When my neighbor the lemon lawyer got involved I got $8500 and a new engine within 3 months. I dumped that car as soon as my 987S was ordered. All manufacturers will deny that any individual owner has a problem vehicle, but any lemon lawyer knows better and can solve your problem. If the car is not too far out of warranty and has spotless maintenance records , mileage under 50K and no black box documenting frequent over-revs , you may have a case.

[nola911]

http://www.porscheenginefailure.com/

[Jacques79]

I'm a lawyer here in Canada but we don't have as many class-action law suits as you guys do so I wouldn't be of much help

I am going to sell my Boxster S before my CPO warranty expires next year though...

[stephen wilson]

Wow, a 20% failure rate! If that's even close to being accurate, I won't be buying a Boxster. I'm even hesitant assuming a 1-2% failure rate, ( not due to negligence).

[Jaxonalden]

Quote;

"Imagine Donald Trump trying to sue the manufacturer of his private jet because the engines took a dump after the warranty expired. Would you let "The Donald" collect from the maker of his Gulfstream? That's kind of how the guy in the Accord will view all the "rich" guys whining about their Porsche's..."


That is a terrible correlation to our situation. Again, known manufacturing defects in a product should be addressed by the manufacturer. If they're not, the judicial system should be called upon to protect consumers. I don't remember reading "WARNING: Because of know manufacturing deficiency's, IMS failure in this automobile could happen at any time and will result in a total loss of the engine" on my window sticker.

If it did would any of you bought your cars? BTW, I love my little red devil

P.S. In the event an aircraft engine failure does occur, the engine is torn down to find the failure, determined why the failure occurred and initiation of a fix is instituted. Depending on the severity, a world wide grounding of all aircraft will happen. Gee, Porsche should follow their lead.

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by stephen wilson

Wow, a 20% failure rate! If that's even close to being accurate, I won't be buying a Boxster. I'm even hesitant assuming a 1-2% failure rate, ( not due to negligence).

I need to ammend this. The 20% seems the likely number for RMS failure not IMS failure (which is indeed usually more serious).

IMS failure rate is much lower, but still higher than one would expect for a 'normal' reject rate for a manufactured engine.

There can be catastrophic RMS failures which kill the motor, but these are pretty rare. RMS usually develops as a slow drip which increases. The big issue with RMS is the extent and expense of fixing it (with no guarantee the fix will work).

IMS on the other hand almost always takes the engine with it.