RIP Paul Walker - killed in a CGT's passenger seat

[Tucker2]

Originally Posted by Timco

Autopsy blames impact and fire for actor Paul Walker's death - CNN.com

Bottom corner under more video....

No....not that. I've seen that one. It's not a security camera view like the first couple videos I have personally seen. This is something hand-held supposedly. I am not trying to be a Troll...it's just that this co-worker is one of those encyclopedia types that tends to know about stuff a day before you hear about it and I was interested to see if anyone else had heard anything. The other comment about TMZ vid may be what he was talking about.

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Tucker2

No....not that. I've seen that one. It's not a security camera view like the first couple videos I have personally seen. This is something hand-held supposedly. I am not trying to be a Troll...it's just that this co-worker is one of those encyclopedia types that tends to know about stuff a day before you hear about it and I was interested to see if anyone else had heard anything. The other comment about TMZ vid may be what he was talking about.

The one shot by the occupants of the blue car with fart can exhaust?

[southernstar]

I agree with all who suggest that we should await some concrete evidence before jumping to conclusions. We should also understand that there is a very strong prospect of litigaton by the families of both of these men - and that as Porsche will have much deeper 'pockets', I suspect that there will be a strong motivation to find some way to blame the manufacturer. Remember the Audi 5000'sudden acceleration' fairy tail? It led to inflammatory coverage on 60 minutes and at least one successful lawsuit, even though the 'science' was a joke. Stand by folks.....

Brad

[trimer]

Originally Posted by southernstar

I agree with all who suggest that we should await some concrete evidence before jumping to conclusions. We should also understand that there is a very strong prospect of litigaton by the families of both of these men - and that as Porsche will have much deeper 'pockets', I suspect that there will be a strong motivation to find some way to blame the manufacturer. Remember the Audi 5000'sudden acceleration' fairy tail? It led to inflammatory coverage on 60 minutes and at least one successful lawsuit, even though the 'science' was a joke. Stand by folks.....

Brad

What kind of litigation could these family proceed with? Suing for driving a car? Im not trying to be a smart as% and this is not an attack on your post but in all seriousness, what possibly could they sue for? A blown tire? sue for the fact that they were driving a 600 plus horsepower car and Porsche shouldnt build that fast of a car? THis will be interesting to see.

[coreseller]

Litigation on this without a doubt will occur.

Another CGT crashed in 2006 at a track day event at California Speedway, the settlement was for $4.5 Million. The contributions to the settlement were about 49% from the estate of the driver, 41% from the track owners and the event organizers, 8% from Porsche, and 2% from the driver of the Ferrari that was claimed to have triggered the crash.

Tracy Rudl filed the lawsuit alleging the wrongful death of her husband, Corey Rudl, who was a passenger in the CGT owned and driven by Ben Keaton at the Ferrari Owners Club track day. Rudl was represented by attorney Craig McClellan, a former racer and a successful plaintiffs’ attorney from San Diego. As the CGT was traveling at about 130 mph on the straightaway, a Ferrari entered the track at a relatively slow speed. Keaton swerved to avoid it and the Porsche skidded into a concrete barrier wall, killing both men. The wall had been placed closer to the track than its original position, in order to enlarge the area behind it for use as a children’s play area during an earlier NASCAR race.

Discovery goes on and on but in the end it's going to get very ugly. It all makes you wonder why any car company would embark on selling such a vehicle.

[stephen wilson]

I'm a believer in personal accountability. If you choose to buy a "dangerous" car, without stability controls, that's on you, not the manufacturer.

I don't undeerstand how people get large payouts for on-track accidents of any sort. When you enter any such event, you assume responsibility, even for other driver's boneheaded moves.

[southernstar]

I am confident that there will be litigation and that, amongst other things, the plaintiffs will allege that the car was inherently unsafe for sale/use as a street vehicle; that the two segments of the tub were inadequately constructed; that the fire was due to negligent design/construction; that there was inadequate crush space, etc., etc. I suspect that they will also have little difficulty finding some 'experts' to support these propositions.

Even if the accident reconstruction reports clearly show that the vehicle was driven negligently and at a speed inappropriate for the road it was on, you will likely find a jury in the US that will feel sympathetic for two such nice young men and award millions. Afterall, a US jury awarded $2 million (as I recall) to a women who burned her thighs when she spilled coffee on them while opening the cup between her bare legs.

Why? There was no cautionary note that "cofffee is hot"! (That is why we now have these idiotic reminders on coffee cups). The real reason for the jury's decision, of course, is that MacDonalds has deep pockets and this poor, nice woman (who had great legs, I suspect) had to spend money she could not afford on only partially successful surgery on the disfigurement to those great legs. I am sure that some psychologist testified she is embarrssed to go out in shorts, or short dresses/skirts; that the most outstanding part of her figure was her legs and her sense of self-worth was inextricably bound up with the same. The poor girl was probably suicidal! What is worse, she will no longer be able to attract a 'leg man' - the type of man who dated her in the past. I mean, when Rod Stewart wrote the song 'Hot legs' he may have been thinking of her. Well, somebody has to pay and surely MacDonald's can afford it! Cha Ching!

Does anyone here actually believe that this will not end up in litigation? Does anyone honestly believe that Porsche will not ultimately pay out millions upon millions - likely to settle rather than try such a high profile case, whether or not they were negligent? Does anyone think they will be willing to lose in the court of public opinion, regardless of what may happen at trial?

Brad

[AKnowles]

Originally Posted by stephen wilson

I'm a believer in personal accountability. If you choose to buy a "dangerous" car, without stability controls, that's on you, not the manufacturer.

I don't undeerstand how people get large payouts for on-track accidents of any sort. When you enter any such event, you assume responsibility, even for other driver's boneheaded moves.

+ 1

As tragic as it is, same goes for personal accountability for getting in any car as a passenger. trust is great, but doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for your own actions. Meaning, Paul Walker would be alive today if he just said "No thanks".

I remember the controversy and limits when motorcycles were required to not exceed a specific horsepower per CC. Or even the requirement to were a helmet if you ride a motorcycle (I always did and felt anyone that didn't wear a helmet had no right to complain about the injury they received when their head hit the pavement). I don't see ANY difference in this than a high performance car without traction control.

Legislation and limits are not the answer. Personal responsibility is. Most people will not assume responsibility for their own actions. It's somethings else that is the cause, someone else is he cause, etc. For my view, it's simple, from the day you are born it's about choice. You make your choices and accept the responsibility for them.

It is not the manufacture's responsibility as they did not force you to buy it. You made a choice to buy it (whatever it is) and use it. Similar to the the old adage ... "It's not guns that kill people. It's people that kill people."

[Nine8Six]

Originally Posted by AKnowles

"It's not guns that kill people. It's people that kill people."

People don't kill people, do they?! Doesn't sound natural with our instinct anyway.....

I live in a country where any sort of weapon is highly prohibited and nobody dies mate. 1.4billion and growing healthy

[linklaw]

Originally Posted by AKnowles

+ 1

As tragic as it is, same goes for personal accountability for getting in any car as a passenger. trust is great, but doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for your own actions. Meaning, Paul Walker would be alive today if he just said "No thanks".

I remember the controversy and limits when motorcycles were required to not exceed a specific horsepower per CC. Or even the requirement to were a helmet if you ride a motorcycle (I always did and felt anyone that didn't wear a helmet had no right to complain about the injury they received when their head hit the pavement). I don't see ANY difference in this than a high performance car without traction control.

Legislation and limits are not the answer. Personal responsibility is. Most people will not assume responsibility for their own actions. It's somethings else that is the cause, someone else is he cause, etc. For my view, it's simple, from the day you are born it's about choice. You make your choices and accept the responsibility for them.

It is not the manufacture's responsibility as they did not force you to buy it. You made a choice to buy it (whatever it is) and use it. Similar to the the old adage ... "It's not guns that kill people. It's people that kill people."

Yeah, you're probably right. When you get paralyzed in an accident caused by a drunk driver, you should accept personal responsibility and realize that you chose to drive on that street at that time and if you would have taken a different route you would not have been injured. Too bad for you. Or when you are electrocuted by a defective toaster you should accept the responsibility that it was your decision to have toast with your eggs and just live with the consequences. Or when you are poisoned by tainted chicken, just accept the responsibility and realize you should have eaten beef. I guess in your perfect world it would always be the fault of the person who is injured or killed. After all, they could have made a different decision. I'm just glad I don't live in your world.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by AKnowles

+ 1

As tragic as it is, same goes for personal accountability for getting in any car as a passenger. trust is great, but doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for your own actions. Meaning, Paul Walker would be alive today if he just said "No thanks".

I remember the controversy and limits when motorcycles were required to not exceed a specific horsepower per CC. Or even the requirement to were a helmet if you ride a motorcycle (I always did and felt anyone that didn't wear a helmet had no right to complain about the injury they received when their head hit the pavement). I don't see ANY difference in this than a high performance car without traction control.

Legislation and limits are not the answer. Personal responsibility is. Most people will not assume responsibility for their own actions. It's somethings else that is the cause, someone else is he cause, etc. For my view, it's simple, from the day you are born it's about choice. You make your choices and accept the responsibility for them.

It is not the manufacture's responsibility as they did not force you to buy it. You made a choice to buy it (whatever it is) and use it. Similar to the the old adage ... "It's not guns that kill people. It's people that kill people."

That's all true, those guys exercised free will in getting into a inherently dangerous car.

But this isn't an analog issue. You're certainly welcomed to put all of the blame on one party but I think that's a little too convenient for Porsche's sake. Everyone knows that high powered sports cars are dangerous, but does everyone know when they are in a yet higher level of danger because of safety compromises made for the sake of profit?

They exercised extremely poor judgment in selling this car as a production road car without taking some life-saving precautions. For starters they knew well ahead of the release that this car was not for novices yet no qualification was needed. They had every reason to believe that this car behaves like so many illegal for the street racing cars, and that sooner or later someone would turn the car into a heap. They recently acknowledged with the GT3 launch in press interviews that safety was prime motivation for moving to electric steering of high performance car, the old school steering fluid is highly flamable in the event of crash a simple spark could turn it into fireball. Yet they still chose to have the CGT fuel tank that close to the drivers, and still chose not to add some flavor of stability management or recalibration of the engine/throttle to make it more docile in green hands. This is a recipe for an accident that is survivable but the occupant(s) still get burned to death.

Did Paul Walker know he could be burned alive because of the peculiar crash-worthiness of this car? We'll never know.

[linklaw]

Originally Posted by trimer

What kind of litigation could these family proceed with? Suing for driving a car? Im not trying to be a smart as% and this is not an attack on your post but in all seriousness, what possibly could they sue for? A blown tire? sue for the fact that they were driving a 600 plus horsepower car and Porsche shouldnt build that fast of a car? THis will be interesting to see.

As far as the family of the driver is concerned, I would think that in order to be successful in any litigation they would have to prove that there was a mechanical malfunction with the car that caused the crash and driver's death. As for the passenger's family it is a completely different scenario. It is clear to me that if speed was a factor in the crash, the driver was the one operating the vehicle at the unsafe speed. Don't forget that "they" were not driving the car. Only one of them was the driver. Unless the passenger was reaching over and pushing the throttle or grabbing the steering wheel, I can't imagine how his family would not recover in a lawsuit against the driver. Driving a car at (presumably) double the speed limit is probably negligence per se. Failing to keep the vehicle under control and failing to stop it before the collision is negligence on the part of the driver. Since when does getting in a car with somebody give them a license to drive like a maniac and kill you? Is it any different than if the driver were intoxicated, crashed and killed his passenger?

[Topless]

A first look at the crash site from an engineer who does accident investigations offers a few clues to what happened:

I do talk to a white-haired man with small, even white teeth, who's been strolling around the site with a few inches of tape measure sticking out of one fist. None of the newspeople is paying any attention to him. He's an engineer who works in a building nearby. He came out here the first day and took pictures. The engineer's son is a "pro drifter," and he came out, too, and it was pretty clear to both of them what had happened. The whole story's written on the pavement, the engineer says. He asks me not to use his name, says it wouldn't be right for him to go on the record spouting off, that it might muddy the waters if there's ever an official investigation.

The engineer does accident investigations — deep-sea shipwrecks, air crashes. That's what this reminds him of, he says, an air crash. We walk up and down for almost 40 minutes and he shows me things about the site. Telltale signs. The boarded-up second-story window in the building behind the crash site, broken by a piece of the car — the starter, everybody's saying. This is how you know how fast they were going. For the starter to have broken a window 120 feet from where the car hit the pole, the engineer says, the car would have to have been traveling at 120 mph or more. Basic physics, the engineer says.

We walk down the hill, and he shows me the Carrera's tire marks on the pavement, tells me about the difference between a skid and a scuff. A skid is the kind of transfer of rubber that happens when a car is stopping; a scuff is what you get when a tire is locked and juddering sideways across the pavement. These are scuffs, the engineer says. From the scuffs, and the way the two tracks converge on the pavement, and a red-paint scrape-mark where the low front spoiler on the GT might have clipped the curb, it's pretty clear the car was in an "evasive slide" when it hit the pole. Like what you might do — and I say "might," as the engineer took pains to — were you a skilled driver trying to avoid hitting something while traveling at over 120 mph.

The engineer holds his cell phone out flat, turns it in the air, shows me how the mass of the car would have brought it around. He thinks the pole hit the driver's side first, then spun the car into the trees. Which means the notion that Walker died instantly — in the crash, not the fire — may be wishful thinking.

"Morbid ****************," the engineer says, when I ask him if he has noticed the collectors on the hillside. Not to mention that this is still technically a crime scene. The engineer says he saw the police taking a few measurements that day, but he hasn't seen anybody take a picture of the paint scrape on the curb yet. The engineer thinks that, as a car guy, Walker would want people out here, figuring out what had happened.

"He understood the physics of cars, and I think he would expect car enthusiasts to come out here and analyze it. And learn from it. So it doesn't happen again. It certainly has changed the way the drift kids are thinkin' right now. They're all scared ****************less. Young kids, they've got a drift club here in town. It's a wake-up call for them. They use this guy's lifestyle as a role model. So that's a big event for these car enthusiasts. Especially my son — he's pretty upset right now. You feel a kindred spirit, like you're connected to the guy. It's had a traumatic effect. I mean, look at this — were you here yesterday? There were like a thousand people here yesterday."


Dead Man's Curve: The Scene at Paul Walker's Crash Site and the Way We Mourn Now - Hollywood Prospectus Blog - Grantland