Paul Walker Dead.

AAAAAARGH!!

How they even CONSIDER settling for parts that were NOT EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE CAR???

It's not even legal to have a fuel cell in a street car. They are not approved by the DOT.

In reply to Woody:

Which is one of my issues with the way the civil system works. Not sure why I always succumb to voicing my disgust with it though.

I'm pretty well convinced it is the 24 hour news cycles fault again. I wish we could go back to the well researched 2 hour news block of my childhood.

SVreX wrote: AAAAAARGH!! How they even CONSIDER settling for parts that were NOT EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE CAR??? It's not even legal to have a fuel cell in a street car. They are not approved by the DOT.

YOu can't say that. Most hyper cars since the McLaren F1 have fuel bladders. This is the Carrera GT

Most sports prototype cars don't have a shiny red Fuel Safe cell, they have bladders inside the carbon tub just like the CGT. If Porsche has even a half-witted lawyer they can't lose this. Also the carbon tub is the cage, just like a sports proto. The judge should also throw it out as the accident wouldn't have happened if the driver wasn't criminally negligent and /or had non aged out tires on it.

Agreed though, they will settle out of court.

The car was faulty. Because there was a bad part in the suspension, a guy trying to show off for his hollywood big shot buddy drives like an imbecile and kills them both. Seems logical to sue the car manufacturer.

Damn lawyers.

GameboyRMH wrote: And the moron who put the Ghetto Special tire setup on the thing will get away scot-free. Also wasn't her husband the guy hooning the car? If dying in a street hooning accident isn't enough to make a racer spin in his grave, this'll do the trick.

I haven't heard about the wheel/tire set up. What was on the car?

dyintorace wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: And the moron who put the Ghetto Special tire setup on the thing will get away scot-free. Also wasn't her husband the guy hooning the car? If dying in a street hooning accident isn't enough to make a racer spin in his grave, this'll do the trick.

I haven't heard about the wheel/tire set up. What was on the car?

3 different models of tires, at least 2 of them were a freaking decade old. Like I said, Ghetto Special.

So, in other words, the car had tires that were perfectly safe for toodling around at 45 mph? Again, this seems silly for anyone to blame anyone in this case other than the driver. People make mistakes and sometimes they have to pay the price for them.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

I would hope Porsche fights it. If they settle, it could set a bad precedence for a number of issues.

Ian F wrote: In reply to Adrian_Thompson: I would hope Porsche fights it. If they settle, it could set a bad precedence for a number of issues.

Precidence? HAH!

Happened before. Wasn't there a lawsuit against Porsche for the Carerra GT a few years back, someone was entering or exiting the pits at an hpde?

AH! found it

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/24/4-5-million-awarded-in-porsche-carrera-gt-case/

8% ($360,000) of the settlement came from Porsche for that one.

NOTE* not saying that the Carerra GT is safe or unsafe, just saying that precidence rabbithole has already been gone down.

In reply to Apexcarver:

I remember that accident, although not the lawsuit or settlement. In that case, I agree Porsche will likely settle for some undisclosed sum.

This is probably why current performance cars are blessed with so many electronic nannies.

Just as a comment/prediction, this is a very winnable lawsuit. And, one that should be tried, unless the settlement is relatively cheap.

In reply to Apexcarver:

What precedent???

You mean the "Porsche got sued by SOMEBODY for something or another, therefore there is a precedent and everyone else should be able to sue them if they feel like it?"

That was a track event, including waivers. Completely legal, and a legitimate question may have been raised about the car's capabilities.

This is the illegal operation of a vehicle in a negligent, unlawful, and reckless manner, by a driver who was trained and completely aware that what he was doing was unacceptable.

There is NO similarity between an unfortunate incident at a racing venue, and vehicular homicide.

I feel like such a sucker sometimes, if I were in this situation I wouldnt ever cross my mind to sue Porsche.

The guy seems to have been well off financially so I doubt this is looking for a payday. Just a blood sucking lawyer taking advantage of a mistake her husband made. Personal accountability is a foreign concept it seems these days...

chuckles wrote: Just as a comment/prediction, this is a very winnable lawsuit. And, one that should be tried, unless the settlement is relatively cheap.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm betting Porsche will gladly pay 4-5 million to avoid having their name attached to a court battle against a "poor little innocent widowed woman". They don't want to look like the bad guys in this, so they'll give her money, she'll go away, and everyone will forget about this in less than a year.

In reply to Maroon92: I am a (retired) lawyer and this is not a bad prediction.

Yeah, chuckles is right and right the berkeley there is what's wrong with the legal system in this country. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it, only who can hit the deep pockets the hardest with carefully crafted bullE36 M3, cost to society be damned.

Lancer007 wrote: Personal accountability is a foreign concept it seems these days...

But don't you know? Only horrible "tea baggers" believe in that and they hate society, America and gays. /troll

but seriously... own up to your mistakes, or admit that they happened and it's not someone else's fault your husband berkeleyed up.

Who put the tires on the car? Who planted that horrible man killing tree? Who sold the gas that allowed that homicidal machine to start? Why stop with Porsche?

TRoglodyte wrote: Who put the tires on the car? Who planted that horrible man killing tree? Who sold the gas that allowed that homicidal machine to start? Why stop with Porsche?

Don't give the lawyers any more ideas.

A while back, Discount tire would not put my spare tire on the ground until they could patch the tire because it was the original one (on a 1999 4runner).

Wish I weren't so lazy to go and track down the old Bloom County comic about Steve Dallas discussing who to sue, it seems quite fitting here.

My first lawsuit with transit had 7 defendants. A car passing me hit the left rear corner of the bus with their right side mirror. A passenger in that car was suing me, transit, the bus manufacturer, NYCDOT, the other driver, Toyota and State Farm. In a minor collision he was going to need $5 million to be made whole.

Did he win?

Everyone wins. It's cheaper to settle than go to court most of the time.

Our company just went to court over a law suit for which we had no contractural obligation. Two-three coat-tailers were thrown out by the court long ago, but the one platiff went forward. We won. We had to pay the plantiff nothing...but we paid $250-500,000 to our attorneys.