Carrera GT Crash Case Settled at $4.5M

[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.

Originally Posted by Tool Pants

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

Tool Pants, you are a very good Moderator on another Porsche site, and even you have engaged in many discussions about Class Action lawsuits for the RMS, and have even considered joining a class action yourself.

[Perfectlap]

I don't know...sounds like they were trying to blame the CGT handling "problems" on the accident.... And thereby blaming Ben Keaton who was warned. I think if you are the author and are going to cite handling "problems" and say that there was a warning, you need to be more specific instead of just throwing it out there like that. CGT's are known for having nervous handling, actually all the high powered Porsche's get that rap. Handling "problems" and damage are two different things. Which was it? And which of the two did the tech inspection point to? If a tech inspector determined it was damage and still passed the car to enter the track then that's really bad. If the tech inspector who was wasn't familiar with such an exotic car said "you're car is squirelly and oversteery, I'm not comfortable driving it" that's not really a warning based on perceived damage. Also, bringing up the "problem" without knowing what it was, and thereby inferring that it contributed to the accident is weird. The very squirrely nature of the car could have contributed to the spin and the fact that there was a cement wall so close to the track turned a spin into a double fatality. Or it could have been a simple case of driver error brought on by improper track procedures. Either way I think the track owners should have done away with that cement wall long ago and used one of the soft walls instead, a softwall much much farther away from the track...

A big problem is that these cars in track and autocross events are tech inspected very quickly, minutes sometimes and then they are allowed to enter. If you're going to be driving at a speedway like this in a CGT or similar, I would imagine that the tech inspection would need to be done before the day of the track event, examining the car on a lift etc. Fontana isn't jsut a small road course.

p.s.
enough experienced drivers have spun the Carrera GT so many times that I think Porsche would have taken the decision to add electronic assistance after the first model year. But we know how Porsche is at admitting errors...

[Kirk]

Didn't I read on here somewhere that PSM is standard on the new Boxsters? I don't think it's gross negligence that Porsche doesn't have PSM on the CGT, but still certainly stupid. It's a safety device which they'll put standard on their lowest powered model but not on their highest powered and fastest model? That just does not make sense.

Regardless you can see that this "stupidity" only cost Porsche 8% out of this lawsuit. The driver and the track carried the brunt of the cost. As for the track, well yeah they did screw up in a big way. Take a close look at the pictures of the wall where they hit. The design of the wall to accomodate a playground (nice location to have kids playing by the way) was just beyond stupid. That's why the track settled, because they would have lost in court for gross negligence. Sure you can hit a wall head-on in a turn if you just push straight through the turn. But generally in a turn you're going to be braking and going much slower. On a straight you're going to be going as fast as you can and having a solid wall there, in the straight, that you can hit head-on, was pure negligence on the part of the track.

Personally I think the widow was right in getting this settlement!

Kirk

[David N.]

I've spun my Boxster with traction control on. It was a powered spin, it was completely unintentional, and the TC did squat. Thankfully it was on a broad road with lots of flat area. Bottom line, PSM only does so much, it won't save you from your stupidity, and sometimes not even from happenstance.

Placing it at fault in this situation is total BS. Not so much that I don't think people might appreciate it in a CGT, but the more cases that go this way and cost carmakers money, the more likely TC toggles will be **************** and you'll never actually be able to turn them off completely:P

-David

[Cloudsurfer]

In my opinion, you can argue up and down for days about PSM and whether it should be on certain cars and if it would change the outcome of events once you are really in over your head. I respect Porsche for building the CGT the way they did, and to me, the problem is really the fact that anyone with enough money can purchase a car like this and the obvious problem being the unskilled driver in a ridiculously fast car.

What I'm really bothered by in this case, is the concrete wall. Hitting something like at 130MPH would ruin anyone's day, and that does qualify as gross negligence as far as I see it with regard to the operators of the track.

Patrick

[Brucelee]

Opinions are like lawyers, we have too many of both!

[Brucelee]

Which of course, is another opinion!

[Tool Pants]

If the article is accurate then "in my opinion" the lawyer for the Estate of Rudl did a good job for his client.

No one forced Porsche and/or it's insurance companies(s) to contribute a penny towards the settlement pot.

If Porsche had a something to prove, or to protect the reputation of the CGT, or the reputation of the company, or to point fingers, then Porsche could have refused to contribute a penny to the settlement pot and go to trial by itself.

Same thing for all the other defendants in the case.

The case settled, for whatever reasons.