It is absolutely porsche's fault for building such a dangerous car. They should be sued for everything they are worth and I hope they lose. Does anybody here actually think that the driver should be held responsible for crashing such a dangerous car? Porsche put the engine in the car not Roger. If the engine wasn't there then Roger wouldn't have crashed the car in the first place.

Don't forget the tire manufacturer for making tires that didn't grip the road good enough keep it on the pavement. Probably should sue the company that sourced the parts for the key. Can't start the engine without that. (I'm hoping your post was sarcastic and I'm just adding more sarcasm to the layer.)

Another Unsolicited Opinion
 

I can't speak to whether Porsche is responsible for supplying a dangerous car. The Federal regulations that govern vehicles in the USA are pretty onerous on the manufacturers. Which is why we can't buy a Tata here.

What I think I can be fairly sure of is that Rodas and Walker didn't want a 'nanny controlled' car. They knowingly bought and built-up the car they wanted. My hunch is Walker knew what Rodas' driving habits were like and got in the car willingly.

Over 32,000 people were killed in traffic accidents in 2014. (per NHTSA) Families sue auto makers all the time, it's what lawyers do and the American way. (Firestone tires on Explorers)

If I can make a problem somebody else's fault, then I don't have to change my behavior or take responsibility.

All I can say is Wow..................:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Time to revive the Checker Marathon,

This should rile things up............boxxster, let me guess, you are a millennial?

If a company makes a faulty product, they are liable for any damages it causes. History is rife with poorly made products that have caused injury and death. Those companies have been fined and sued.
Now, did Porsche make an unsafe product? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer....but it certainly is possible that Porsche is partially responsible due to manufacturer negligence.

The CGT has always been known to be unforgiving at the limits, it's nearly 1/2 million dollar entry price hopefully negated the uninitiated.......not always though.

The car in question had 6 year old tires, the lawyer involved also was suspect in several regards to a degree. We will see.

i would hesitate to use the terms 'unsafe' and 'faulty' interchangeably. if i aim a gun at someone that is unsafe. if, when fired, the gun explodes in my face instead of doing what it is supposed to, then it is faulty.

some things are inherently unsafe; alcohol, tobacco, firearms. you can still buy them. nothing wrong with making and selling an unsafe product. a 600 hp missile made of carbon fibres and glue would be presumed to be relatively unsafe. it's not like porsche marketed the car based on its safety features.

was it faulty? it's not like a pinto, bursting into flame the moment the rear bumper gets tapped. if the best they have is that the brake lines ruptured and the seat belt was difficult to operate, realise the damn thing had a tree pretty much pass right through it due to driver error.

:D:D

Couldn't help myself

Quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You want an idiot proof car? Go build it. I bet it'll be fun to drive too.

Well, ladies and gents, the above quote is about the most insightful and funny thing I've ever read.

-- peer