I'm torn on this issue. Granted, part of me likes mouthing off on the internet about things I may or may not know a single thing about. On the other hand, sometimes I read things where people are just spouting off whatever comes to them without either the appropriate education or real-life experience. Then again, some people say that they have "related" experience that may/may not be related, but regardless of the context, said experience directly relates and appears to apply to any/all other situations however loosely connected. I guess I don't know what to think... but, I am amused. And that's the point, right? To be amused?

Anyway, for anyone that hasn't already blocked me, know this: I'm not a pilot, but I was good at Zaxxon. I mean, really good. I think I'm going to start talking and posting about flying and space travel should the forum become interested enough to post about it...

Also, I don't think I've ever casted a spell or used the force, but I have experience playing with Star War figures and the "original" D&D, so I think that provides me the context. Granted this may have been in the late 1970s or early 1980s or so, but I did play with the original ones manufactured by Kenner and Gary Gygax (the paperback editions, prior to the hardback Player's Handbook). Not any of the "replica" ones - so, hopefully I will only post with fellow forum members that are Star War purists who agree that the Replica Star War figures, or those with bendable joints, are crap because they aren't "original". These things generalize right? Gah.... I can't f'ing wait for the next post about the dangers of spell casting or going to the Dark Side. Bring it on!

@cfos

LOL :cheers: ;)

Speed and loss of control due to the speed caused the wreck. Not saying it wouldn't happen driving 40mph on city streets. But less likely regardless.

And yes... this is merica. But the law is placed for a reason. I break it all the time. But see we all do it with understanding of the consequences. This was an unfortunate consequence.

Curious....who amongst us are actual lawyers with actual experience with this and actually have a legal clue what they are talking about?

It doesn't matter if we're lawyers or not. People like us will be the jury.

Wanna bet there's not one Porsche owner on that jury?

This case will never go to trial.

(And yes, I slept at a Holiday Inn last night)

Absolutely it matters. Do you really think all the jury will here is what is portrayed by Batman and Robin there? Cause that's basically all we are doing. Love to get some actual legal perspectives....any past precedents....that sort of thing.

Giller, here you go....

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty good with Google and can cut and paste with the best. :)

Garrison vs Porsche Passenger died in a 930 Turbo when the driver lost control on a city street and went into oncoming traffic. The jury awarded $2.5 million. Following this verdict, Porsche started offering driver's training to buyers of its highest performance vehicles.

Trent vs Porsche Driver died when a 930 Turbo oversteered and collided with a telephone pole. The case settled for a confidential amount.

Its no joke that the 930 Turbo was called the "widow maker".

Rudl vs Everyone Else 2005 case where a Porsche Carrera GT driver and his passenger (Rudl) were killed in a crash at Auto Club Speedway during a Ferrari Club track day. A Ferrari pulled onto the track causing the Porsche to make an evasive maneuver and the car hit the wall at 100 mph.

Everyone got sued; track, club, Porsche, Ferrari driver, and Porsche driver. The claim against the Porsche driver was that he failed to inform the passenger that the car had been having handling problems and that he had a previous incident where he lost control of the car.

Porsche was sued on the basis that the car was not equipped with Electronic Stability Control.

The family of the passenger won $4.5 million. But Porsche only had to pay 8 percent ($360K) whereas the drivers's family paid 49 percent and the track and organizers paid the remainder.

Actually those are the same thing. And as I said before, Walker's case is quiet different than Rodas'. He is not responsible for the decision making of Rodas. Neither do Rodas' decisions/errors absolve Porsche in a wrongful death case based on design defect, which is essentially the case that Walker's daughter has brought.
The jury will likely have to weigh the comparative negligence of RODAS as well as that of Porsche, in determining to what extent Porsche's decision making in the seatbelt design, fuel lines and stability control were a factor in Walker's death. People think that Walker was completely liable for all his injuries simply because he got in the car, but the law doesn't work that way. If he were the driver there was a time where "contributory negligence" might have negated all his daughter's claims but those days are past and again, he was the passenger and not the driver. When another passenger, Corey Rudl, died in this car the case settled for $4 million, with the widow also receiving damages from the driver's estate. But Walker's daughter is not obligated to bring suit against Rodas.

Which is why so many civil cases where a plaintiff demands a jury trial end up settling. If the case survives summary judgment/motion to dismiss with the big claims intact...all bets are off as juries are a total crapshoot. With a big jury award in hand the plaintiffs have even more leverage in negotiating a settlement. A defendant has to be supremely confident of victory to roll the dice. If people were getting killed in Porsches regularly then it might make financial sense to fight Walker's daughter but that's just not the case today.