Carrera GT Crash Case Settled at $4.5M

[wild1poet2]

Here's an interesting case.

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/content/carrera

Excerpt: "The sole claim against Porsche was that the CGT was defective because it was designed without electronic stability control, which Porsche calls PSM. McClellan deposed two German engineers on the subject, and their answers were inconsistent. One testified that Porsche did not think that its PSM system would work on the CGT because the car’s frame structure and suspension mountings would create strong vibrations that would interfere with its operation. The other engineer testified that PSM was not offered because the customers didn’t want it."

[racer_d]

Luckily, Ralph Nadar (Unsafe at Any Speed) wasn't part of the legal team.

And yes, expect PSM to come on all porsches.. since clearly "we" aren't able to be trusted with fantastic cars.

[ChrisZang]

Better read the whole article, very interesting.

IMHO this would not happen at a PCA organized event.

[Perfectlap]

THe driver of that CGT Ben Keaton was a regular poster on Rennlist, I used to read his posts and I remember him sticking up for the Boxster when some snooty 911 owners would try to look down on it. He called one guy out once who was dissing the Boxster and told him that his C4S was the poor man's Carrera GT.

If the lawyers looking at whether or not Keaton's death could have been avoided I wonder if California Speedway coldn't have been looked at rather than Porsche.
Ben crashed into a cement wall. Now that we have these soft walls you have to wonder why they aren't mandatory everywhere on the racetrack. I believe Roger Penske owns that track.

[70Sixter]

Reminds me of the dumb a$$ broad who plunged her 911 Turbo into downtown La Jolla back in the late 70s/early80s. Sued Porsche for making a car with too much power for her to control.

She won.

Oh-by-the-way, she was drunk at the time and was convicted. Her lawyer kept the conviction out of the lawsuit trial because she had plead nolo contendere to the drunk driving charge. CA law apparently.

I was very suspicious of La Jolla and San Diego in general after that.

[ChrisZang]

as I said earlier: read the whole article and not only the headline

Very interesting read.

[blinkwatt]

Wow,that crazy! I wonder how many CGTs there are left after seeing all these wrecked ones on the net.

[Tool Pants]

This article has been all over the message boards.

100 years ago I skydived solo, static line. I signed a release. Now if there was popcorn instead of a properly packed parachute on my back I would have been pissed, or maybe my heirs would have been sad after I died.

Corey Rudl, who was a passenger in the CGT, died.

Folks keep talking about Ben Keaton, who also died. The driver and owner of the Carrera GT. The focus has always been Ben Keaton and the car.

What on earth did Corey Rudl do to deserve to die on that day?

He went for a ride.....

[blinkwatt]

@TP,

do you know how long ago the crash happened?

[mdex]

As an organizer of track events I am concerned about the 41% judged against the track and organizers. I would like to see how the blame was distributed, and also to know what waivers were signed. Up until this case, as far as I knew the track waivers that the insurance companies use had yet to be defeated in court (although this was a settlement).

Marc

[Perfectlap]

June 2005.

I remember reading about it as it unfolded. First came a TV local news report about a crash at Fontana and within hours the guys on Rennlist figured out it was "Ben in la jolla". The passenger Corey Rudl was a well known internet millionaire who made his money from spam emails.
I'm sure the Ferrari community writes about Corey more than Ben Keaton.
Crazy how quickly times go by...

Originally Posted by mdex

As an organizer of track events I am concerned about the 41% judged against the track and organizers. I would like to see how the blame was distributed, and also to know what waivers were signed. Up until this case, as far as I knew the track waivers that the insurance companies use had yet to be defeated in court (although this was a settlement).

Marc

Marc, did you read the whole article? You really need to. Then you'll understand more.

[pteam]

Sad story. Bless both of them. Porsche is dumb for not having PSM standard on CGT, even if they have 2 options one to partially disable it and one to fully disable it, then it was your choice. Stability control saves lives and even when racing if you partially disable it , it really only comes on when youve fuxed up.

[mdex]

Originally Posted by bmussatti

Marc, did you read the whole article? You really need to. Then you'll understand more.

I did read it.. it still leaves many questions though, and depending on the interpretations this could be the end of track events.

If the waiver was beaten is huge (or did the parties just settle because they thought it might be beaten) as no one can risk this kind of judgement for something we do for fun.

I have to trust that statements etc, from my drivers are honest... if their car is out of sorts how am I to judge? We all hear rumors and BS that different drivers / cars are dangerous or out of sorts and 99% of the time it is unfounded.. so how can we know that this is the 1% case?

After 18 years of running events, without a single serious incident I am for the first time thinking of shutting down... the one thing that gave peace of mind was that we were covered by the Lloyds waivers that had never been beaten from this kind of suit.

Marc

[mdex]

Originally Posted by pteam

Sad story. Bless both of them. Porsche is dumb for not having PSM standard on CGT, even if they have 2 options one to partially disable it and one to fully disable it, then it was your choice. Stability control saves lives and even when racing if you partially disable it , it really only comes on when youve fuxed up.

If you are in too far PSM is of no help... I have seen many cars with PSM in the wall.

Marc

[kras]

It seems that waivers never hold up in court when there is "gross negligence." However, when someone dies, even minor things become "gross negligence."

Is it really gross negligence for Porsche to leave out PSM? It may be bad judgment or poor engineering or maybe even negligence, but I hardly consider it “gross” negligence. To me, gross negligence would be not bolting the seat belt down or a brake line that fails at high speeds.

But when someone dies, everything goes out the door, and it’s assumed that there must be gross negligence –and the waiver is worthless.
.

Thats like me sueing porsche when I get in a wreck because my car doesnt have psm. My big thing is that they never re configured the track after the nascar thing, the wall was like a catchers mit for cars.

[Tool Pants]

In the real world all the defendants must have had liability insurance.

I doubt very much if food was taken off the plate of Ben Keaton's widow.

Do not know how accurate the story is. 99.9% of the time there is a confidentially agreement in a case like that.

If Porsche or it's insurance company paid 8% or $360,000 for the loss of one life (Rudal) then so be it. That is not even the cost of the vehicle that was crashed. Say what you want but Porsche is very protective of it's money.

Funny how sometimes you folks want to see a class action lawsuit about the RMS.

[humara]

I think this can be summed up pretty easily.

1. people need to take responsibility for their own actions. or in this case, the wife needed to take responsibility for her husband's own actions. sad as this case is, it's not porsche's fault, ferrari's fault, the ferrari driver's fault, the track's fault or anybody else's fault.

2. our legal system is probably the best in the world. or at least its way up there. but it is still flawed, and people will take advantage of any flaws they can because they won't follow the above point. sadly, it was cheaper and easier to settle this case, and that will continue to allow people to ignore the above point.