Paul Walker: Late Actor's Daughter Files Lawsuit Against Porsche for Wrongful Death
 

I wonder where this will end up?

Daughter of actor Paul Walker files wrongful-death suit against Porsche - LA Times

Rotten little brat.

Porsche will likely end up settling outside of court. Even if Porsche wins it just cost too much money to fight this legal battle.

Another treasure hunter.
If I'm carelessly running along and slip on a banana peel, I'm not going to sue Dole for my broken leg. I'm not even going to sue the guy that dropped it there, even though I'd have more of a chance at a legitimate case.

I think Porsche knew the legal liabilities they were walking into when they decided to sell a racing car as a road car without the requisite driver's aids. In fact, they took on these potential liabilities deliberately simply because they feared losing sales otherwise (as per the testimony of Porsche in the previous Carrera GT fatal accident case). Similarly, the owners knew the risks they were taking buying such a car. But when you're running a business you have to make decisions that increase sales without associating your brand with tragedy or fraud (cough VW).

Poor Paul Walker. He has given soo much to the community, Not in his films but what he does in his spare time. Charity work all over the world. Now to have his own flesh and blood go money hungry. 1, Paul Walker was no noob to the car scene. Despite his character on the F&F Movies, he was a legit automotive enthusiast with a decent car collection of his own. Buyer Beware! Purchase of this vehicle will cause stupid ideas! Everyone knows that. And it could have, would have happened with any other vehicle given the right circumstances.

Honestly I would be ashamed if my Daughter did such a thing.

Yes, that darn Porsche! How dare they sell us what we want and demand, instead of protecting us from ourselves?

I think you're missing my point. It's not an issue of protecting us from ourselves.
It's simply a reminder that if a company chooses to sell a full blown racing car for road car use (by amateurs), then a business executive must be fully prepared for the fatality that will occur (not if). And since these are public roads then you must also take into account that someone with more wallet than driving skill may end up killing the mom in a Honda on her way to work. These are all huge risks that you take with your brand when you make a decision like that. A decision that was made even after Walter Rohrl said the car made his very experienced hands turn white (aka a red flag). It's like the guy who announces to everyone that he's decided to roll the dice and decides to stop paying for home insurance because it will be more profitable for him in the short term. The next week a tree crashes into his bedroom while he's asleep. Don't act so surprised when it predictably goes the other way.

But the GT is sold to the General Public... And its not a full blown race car. the 919 is a full blown race car. Its just like any other Ferrari or Lamborghini Sold to the rest of the public. In fact, you'll never see a stock GT in a legit race against actual race cars. And Paul Walker knew what he was doing, he was a car enthusiast. He had a car collection. He liked speed. And the results would have happened either way. The wreck was done at around 100mph... I've done 140 Easilly in my Boxster, Its not a Race Car. I've done 167MPH in my Old Mitsubishi. Its not a race car. Toyota Supra's are well known for cruising speeds of 200mph, They aren't Race Cars.

But unlike "any" Ferrari or Lamborghini, the Carrera GT was never intended to be a road car. That was more of "accident" (pun intended) and Porsche had no choice but to scrap the race car project (with Footwork F1 engine) and make it a car show novelty attraction. When they did decide to sell this racing car to the public they had a simple decision to make about adding a traction control switch, particularly for wet weather, as Rohrl already made it abundantly clear to them that the car was a lethal mix of unpredictable and unforgiving. But they didn't listen and now they're getting sued. Seriously who is surprised by any of what has come since...

Sure but I don't think you've hit triple digits on a regular street. If you have, you might be insane.
And the Boxster, even the new one, or any Mitsubishi never made Walter Rohrl's face turn white.
Point being when you have a car with those terrifing characteristics that can hit 100 mph on a public street in an eye blink, it's quiet different
than doing 100 mph on the highway.

Why would this ever hold up? They were speeding. Following speed limits, the crash 99.9% would not have happened.

It will be easy for Porsche to say 'reckless driving' and win, right?? CGTs driven in accordance to road laws will not cause the seat belt to trap its occupant, and so on..

My stupidity of speeding is my fault. Yes the 167 was on public streets, and I luckily didn't harm anyone or myself in the process. But it was only myself to blame.

Guns Kill People. Spoons make People Fat. The user is not at fault... yeah ok.

This is wreckless driving. Nothing more. Now if this was like the problem with the Prius and the throttle got stuck, then the manufacture is at fault. But I am positive the GT was sold even to Paul Walker with the warnings " please obey all traffic laws" like every car or bike is sold by.

Pretty sure most of us hit triple digits fairly regularly in our Porsches. Only takes a few seconds from 50. Is that Porsches fault too? Maybe they should be computer limited to 65mph.

Because it's a jury... they do unpredictable things. Like for instance they could say that had Porsche not deliberately removed the driver's assists this reckless driving accident might have been survivable. They could rule that Porsche's decision contributed to this being a fatal accident rather than one where a pricey toy gets totaled. Juries do crazy things, hence why manufacturers don't make these kind of decisions. Tellingly, Porsche haven't done this again, which will be an very interesting question as to why not for a very seasoned trial lawyer to ask Porsche in front of said jury.

I posted this story this morning. Went to the dealer this afternoon, and ran into this. I've never seen one live before today.

http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01/GT11443556137.jpg
http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01/GT21443556177.jpg
http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01/GT31443556220.jpg

Was reading Jalopnik piece on the lawsuit and this comment about Boxster safety (or the lack thereof) from a side impact gave me the shivers. Looks like a person's shoulder would be destroyed in a side impact.

Link to the comment: Paul Walker's Daughter Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Porsche

Pic of Boxster roll cage area:

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...5236028307.jpg

I've seen one, in the Local Cruise Spot Sonic Drive Thru. Getting Food! The local "V12 Family" has one. Parked next to their Ferrari's and Lamborghinis'.

Its not the first death due to negligence. And deaths have even occurred on a closed track, with fire and ems teams standing by. Its the risk we all take when we get behind the wheel, whether its on public roads or on a closed course. Race car or Mini Van.

I agree that if the driver was doing the speed limits, this wreck wouldn't have happened. But lets say it did, Your doing 45mph and lose control... Your not hitting the wall or pole at 90mph. Your chances of survival are much greater. Might not want to live after totaling your toy. But the risks were known.

If the lawyers of Porsche can't argue any of this, they need new lawyers.

Where's the lawsuit for Porsche Girl? I unfortunately have seen the photos from that. And it haunts me. And is always in the back of my mind.

This is wreckless driving. Nothing more. Now if this was like the problem with the Prius and the throttle got stuck, then the manufacture is at fault. But I am positive the GT was sold even to Paul Walker with the warnings " please obey all traffic laws" like every car or bike is sold by.[/QUOTE]

I think the heart of the claim is that Porsche faulty design stopped Paul from being able to get out of the car, once his friend crashed the car. And that their faulty design contributed to the car burning up in the first place. I don't know if this ever sees a court room, but I would bet that this young lady will get some money out of it!

Oh no doubt.

From new2bxstr's Jalopnik

"It also installed the model’s seat belts in such a way that when the car fractured on impact, the shoulder belt anchor was yanked along with the rear engine compartment while the seat belt anchor stayed put.

This snapped Walker’s torso back with thousands of pounds of force, thereby breaking his ribs and pelvis, flattening his seat and trapping him in a supine position, where he remained alive until the vehicle erupted into flames one minute and 20 seconds later. Paul Walker breathed soot into his trachea while the Porsche Carrera GT burned.”

^Porsche will settle this case if they're smart. Those sort of claims can only hurt the brand.



P.S.

I saw this quote from Graham Rahal current Indy race car driver:


"It's a race car for the street. Simple as that. It asks for and needs respect at all time. It's not a car for people who don't have experience driving high end vehicles or race cars really for that matter."

Porsche won't settle the case.

Porsche must maintain the precedent that the driver, not the car, is responsible for its safe operation. Otherwise, they would open the company up to billions of dollars of lawsuits.

As for hurting the brand - more often the car becomes more famous and iconic. Where would the 550 Spyder be without James Dean?

I'm curious if there have ever been any lawsuits resulting from accidents with the second (third?) Gen Dodge Vipers, which were produced around the same time as the Carrera GT. If I recall those things have 500+ horsepower and were notorious for spinning/flipping/etc in the hands of the wrong drivers, of which I imagine there were many (many Vipers produced, and many in the wrong hands).

I may be wrong, but I didn't think those had any stability features either, but have almost as much uncontrolled power in a similar open cockpit as the CGT.

Just wondering, and too lazy to Google it.

Roger Rodas (born October 31, 1975 in El Salvador) was a race car driver and co-founder of Always Evolving, an auto parts business, from El Salvador. He started Always Evolving with actor Paul Walker.

Actually from everything you can google on Roger Rodas.... He's no Noob Either. His Wife also filed Suit against Porsche for the same reasons. There was a ruling in the case in February in which the judge dismissed some of the plaintiff’s claims but said Porsche must face claims over whether the car was defectively designed and made. Porsche's attorneys in their response on Monday laid the blame on Rodas.

"Roger Rodas’s death, and all other injuries or damages claimed, were the result of Roger Rodas’s own comparative fault," the attorneys said.

Rodas "chose to conduct himself in a manner so as to expose himself and others to such perils, dangers and risks," they added.

The automaker's attorneys denied there were defects in the car, and said they believed the vehicle was "abused and altered" after being purchased in a way the company could not have foreseen and that could have been a factor in the accident.

In her lawsuit seeking unspecified damages, Rodas's widow alleged a suspension failure occurred on the car. Authorities ruled the crash was caused by excessive speed and not a mechanical failure.

I'm supprised Porsche hasn't been sued for all the deaths that single 550 Spyder has caused... lol Reading up on that cars history, even after the wreck, it has managed to injure and kill people.

Porsche has to start with the court first and see what the claims are. Then decide what the potential $$ exposure is. My guess is they will settle, without admitting fault, gag order in place and make this go away quietly. Remember OJ won the criminal case and then lost the civil case for big $$$.

Lawyers, I think civil plaintiffs only have to prove 51% responsibility to make their case for damages? I am not a lawyer or do I play one on TV, internet or community theater.

Really?
 

How is this still a thing?

People killed themselves running to Marathon, Greece.

People killed themselves riding horses. Ask the Reeve family.

People killed themselves driving Muscle Cars in the 60's.

People killed themselves driving Mustang GTs in the 80's.

People die every day.

If you drive a super car and lose control and hit a tree sideways at 100mph and die, well, that's life.

Fire is hot, water is wet, we're all gonna die some day. If you can't handle lift throttle oversteer, you might die a little sooner than most.

We've become a nation of wussies.

http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01...1443572871.jpg

The Truth Hurts
 

She should be filing a suit against her father's estate for being a dumb ass.

I believe the drivers wife tried to sue Porsche and a judge threw it out but said a suit could be filed against Porsche for the design. But they didn't offer to settle.
It looks like the little spoiled twits attorney watched and waited and then went to work on her frivolous lawsuit. I really hope they fight it.

All cars should be slow.

All knives should be dull.

Matches and lighters should not light.

Wrap everything in bubble wrap so no one gets hurt.

Where is the line? When are we responsible for our own actions?

Two of the tires were over nine years old...case closed

Doesn't explain the car randomly falling on multiple helpless people breaking legs lol

http://www.carbuzz.com/m/Article.aspx?Id=29553&utm_source=3

Porsche Responds.

I don't think that helps Porsche's case one bit. Graham Rahal was saying you must be a highly skilled to drive the car safely. Meaning the car was inherently unsafe for a road car that can be sold to any Tom, Dick or Harry. A very good trial lawyer will present that statement from Rahal to a jury and ask them why Porsche would deliberately remove driver's assists, then follow up with Porsche's own test driver Walter Rohrl, a world class racing champion, who made a public statement that the car made his face turn white and that he urged Porsche to put in the driver's assists since it was car that would be driven on public roads and presumably where it would rain at one point another. Yet Porsche refused for the sake of selling more cars. If Rodas had switched off the driver's assists the case would be garbage. Unfortunately for Porsche, they decided to think in black and white and treat as a binary issue, all or nothing on driver's assists.

But the really, really big issue for Porsche is those seat belts.... and the decision to bolt them to the car in the way they did... on a car without the test driver-recommended driver's assists. The trial lawyer will have a very strong case that the accident itself was survivable since soot was found in his breathing passages but the unsafe seat belt design (easily proven) left him paralyzed from the accident, so he was effectively burned alive. Do you REALLY want to go a jury with that? In a very public trial where video cameras will most likely be allowed in court room since it's state court? That would be insanely foolish. Porsche already looks bad because many people, including former employees say the car is still unsafe for public streets. I heard one former sales manager say (on video) he would absolutely not ride as a passenger in the car when it was being sold on the floor. Another witness for the plaintiffs.


They'll also question the lack of roll cage (handy for safely anchoring seat belts) so common in their own RS cars over the years.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...UMrc43nB45Z3iu

Secondly, and also directly tied to Walker being burned alive, the dubious choice of fuel lines that could not withstand a public street accident, when safe options were available to Porsche highly effective in keeping customers from becoming human flambe. The trial lawyer will have a whole day just on that particular part selection. It's like shooting fish in a barrel for a high-powered trial lawyer. And I have a pretty good idea which one is being contacted now to do the oral argument. He has probably close to a billion dollars in jury awards, plenty of dough to spend on very respected experts in the fields of auto racing and sports car safety to eviscerate Porsche's decision making, some of which has been contradicted by their own employees in past cases, so this trial lawyer will make them look either dishonest or incompetent, both bad in front of civil juries.

Said jury will likely take into account that driver error, or even recklessness made the accident possible in the first place. And you could well argue that Porsche need to make the case that one takes their own life in their hand when they drive over 55 mph but making that particular case, no matter how important, is virtually impossible without shining a light on the decision making that made this car more dangerous which will cause many prospective buyers to question what ill-advised decisions they're still making. For example... the center wheel locks on the Carrera GT, still sold on cars today that have had dubious on-track incidents featured on YouTube. It boggles the mind why they would take this kind of gamble in their biggest sales market. As far as the case itself, there is a very strong possibility that the jury could completely ignore the driver error issue simply because they're angry at Porsche's decisions on driver's assists, seat belts, fuel lines, etc., and chose to punish the company.

I agree! But the car you're driving today is infinitely safer than those old muscle cars because of the threat of litigation and the bad publicity's effect on sales. The for-profit news media only report about accidents when someone marches into to court, especially when the deceased is a movie star. When it's Joe Shmoe or Plain Jane killed on their way to work because the spring in the ignition was the equivalent of a cheap ball point pen, the media pays it no mind and people keep buying the still unsafe cars. But when someone sues, and the incompetent gubbimint wakes from their slumber it opens a giant can of worms of outright criminal behavior.

Not gonna quote you Perfectlap. But your off by a margin. Any vehicle is safe for road use. Depending on the user. The car wasn't safe for any one lacking experience ... well he had experience. And he chose to break the law. Can't blame this and that. Porsche, Audi, VW, Honda, Dodge, Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc... does not condone the actions of what we do behind the wheel. We are all expected to drive with respect, no matter if it's a Porsche GT, F1, or a Honda Civic. We are EXPECTED to act professional where it counts... everywhere! They did not.

The one thing about actual Race Cars...a real race car could have handled the wreck better. Is built to withstand vicious impacts. Now saying this is a race car that has been de....whatever... and that's the reason for death... is wrong. Because why were they speeding. The car didn't force them to speed. A gun didn't appear and threaten their lives if they didn't obey... we all know how guns kill people... and spoons make people fat. This is not the case. They were disobeying traffic laws. They got in an accident...just like any of US could do. And unfortunately paid the ultimate costs. Paul Walker neither the driver were just some random newb. They knew what they were doing and the consequences

Why were they speeding? Because this is America where ignoring the speed limit is the norm not the exception. It's not Europe where they actually enforce the speed limit with video cameras and where there's no negotiating the ticket. You lose your license. Drivers in America don't have those expectations put on them. In fact, it's not even zero tolerance if you habitually violate the speed limit, you get multiple opportunities to continue driving even after being caught.
And let's not play make believe here and suggest that any damage done to a car above the speed limit automatically absolves a car company of having actively contributed to a fatal accident vs. a survivable accident. If you regularly drive 70 mph when the highway speed limit is 55, why should the car company build a car that won't collapse like a sardine once you take it above 55? By your logic you have no business going over the speed limit in the first place. Yet who in America would buy a car that is only sound up to the speed limit?

And for the record, I wouldn't rule out dismissing this case on certain grounds if I were the judge. But my point is that it would be foolish for Porsche to fight given how many poor decisions they made on safety, both for the occupants' safety as well as that of the public.

You told PL he's wrong... uh oh, now you've done it :matchup:

http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01...1443811310.jpg


:D :cheers: :D :cheers: :D

The quote here is that speed killed him. But according to the M.E. it was getting roasted alive, and not the speed of the impact.

Also, let's remember that Walker was the passenger, legally he wasn't the one who put the pedal to the metal. So it's quiet a different case from the case filed by the family of the driver. It wasn't Walker's fault that he was laying flat atop of the heap of the burning Porsche rubble trapped by his seat belt.

If people are going to make the argument that the car should
 

have had some sort of stability system installed and that the lack thereof is a major contributing factor to the crash, those same people would complain when a stability system is installed and the manufacturer gives the end user the ability to switch it on/off. ex: (Crash happened because manufactuer made the stability system able to be turned on /off...instead of blaming the driver.) That is it in a nutshell...the driver (and passenger) though deceased take no responsibility for their actions and their families by perpetuating these lawsuits continue that legacy.