http://jalopnik.com/paul-walkers-daughter-files-wrongful-death-lawsuit-agai-1733537264
Will be interesting to see how this plays out for Porsche- whether they settle quietly just to make it go away or stand up to it like they did in the previous suit and fight on the fact that they were driving a 600+ HP car at roughly the speed limit on 9-year-old tires.
Is it not possible to sue the cheapass idiot who put the Ghetto Special tire setup on the car? Because that's who I blame.
I get the feeling that if Paul could react to this he would say "forget it, we were being idiots, leave it at that"
I would suggest suing whoever installed the engine in the wrong location. Moving the engine obviously affected stability 
Quoted from the end of the Jalopnik article:
"Driving a Carrera GT fast is no walk in the park, but 612 horsepower in a mid-engined rear-wheel drive car built 11 years ago wasn’t supposed to be."
(yes, that should be in the sarcastic font, but I couldn't find it)
Has she considered suing Physics or Stupidity? Because I'm pretty sure that both played a fairly significant role in this event.
How are 'regular' Americans expected to take responsibility for their actions when all of our popular 'icons' seem to think that everything is somebody else's fault?
If you can't take responsibility for your actions, I call you pathetic.
It would make way, way more sense for her to sue the driver.. wait, she can't.
Rational and level headed thinking are what I think of when I think of 16 year olds.
Not sure what the speed limit is on the road it happened is but the article said the lawsuit states they were going between 50-60mph which is what Paul's daughter and the driver's wife is claiming but the accident report states damage consistent with 80-90mph. Wonder which is more believable. Daughter and wife weren't there so how would they know how fast they were going?
In reply to Appleseed:
You don't think it was the 16 year old's idea to sue Porsche, do you...
Not the first time Porsche has been sued like this. Won't be the last, too.
One may insert any high performance car maker for Porsche in that line.
Bear in mind, being sued does not mean that they will get anything.
BoxheadTim wrote: In reply to Appleseed: You don't think it was the 16 year old's idea to sue Porsche, do you...
Everybody wanted to sue Porche when I was 16.
wlkelley3 wrote: Not sure what the speed limit is on the road it happened is...
Apparently they hit the sign (picture is from article about how the limit was increased to 45 in that area)
They are rather wide streets there:
Wasn't a significant part of the problem an extremely unlucky hit of a fairly immovable object of some sort that resulted in the fire? Who's responsible for immovable objects next to roads in California?
i don't recall, was that Porsche modified in any way?
wlkelley3 wrote: Not sure what the speed limit is on the road it happened is but the article said the lawsuit states they were going between 50-60mph which is what Paul's daughter and the driver's wife is claiming but the accident report states damage consistent with 80-90mph. Wonder which is more believable. Daughter and wife weren't there so how would they know how fast they were going?
The lawsuit stated something about the impact separating the back of the car and snapping the seatbelt taut- I'd be far more likely to believe a 90mph crash would do that kind of damage than a 60mph crash. I'm also more likely to believe the physics analysis that produced the 90mph estimate from the skidmarks than what the wife & daughter are pushing in a lawsuit without any apparent evidence.
I used to have a customer that was partners in a company that paved streets. His job, EVERYDAY, was to go to court. Every time there was a lawsuit about an accident, lawyers automatically added everyone that could be involved, including theirs that built the streets. It's sad that our society is this lawsuit happy.
I can't get too worked up over this. Obviously it's a silly lawsuit, but I suspect it will be recognized as such and thrown out of court. And it's being brought by a 16-year-old kid who's been through a very tough emotional time. I would imagine she's being pushed down this path by some "advisers" who see dollar signs and publicity resulting if the suit actually does go anywhere. And there's always the chance that Porsche will settle out of court to make it go away and avoid the publicity of a trial. But I hope they don't.
mazdeuce wrote: Who's responsible for immovable objects next to roads in California?
The public schools used to be, now its the hippies, but they don't have their own money.....
Ashyukun, the only instances I've seen them split are at triple digit speeds.
mazdeuce wrote: Wasn't a significant part of the problem an extremely unlucky hit of a fairly immovable object of some sort that resulted in the fire? Who's responsible for immovable objects next to roads in California?
Looks like a tree. So Mother Nature, or god (the pope might be deep pocket here)?
Who puts a TREE next to a ROAD!!!! REALLY!?!?..... OMG, they're everywhere!!!....
aircooled wrote:mazdeuce wrote: Wasn't a significant part of the problem an extremely unlucky hit of a fairly immovable object of some sort that resulted in the fire? Who's responsible for immovable objects next to roads in California?
Yeah, that looks like the aftermath of a 45 mph accident. In un-related news, I just found out that I have a large sum of money coming my way from a fine barrister in Nigeria just for helping out a prince.
Paul_VR6 wrote: It would make way, way more sense for her to sue the driver.. wait, she can't.
She can sue his estate and insurance company.
aircooled wrote:mazdeuce wrote: Wasn't a significant part of the problem an extremely unlucky hit of a fairly immovable object of some sort that resulted in the fire? Who's responsible for immovable objects next to roads in California?
If that tree right there caused all of that damage, then maybe the lawyers are onto something.
I dont get why people can't accept that it was a mistake on the driver's part. Dragging it around like this is rude IMO.
BoxheadTim wrote: In reply to Appleseed: You don't think it was the 16 year old's idea to sue Porsche, do you...
Exactly this has some sleezy lawyer planting ideas in a hurting young girls head while hoping for a payday written all over it.
This cars reputation very much proceeds it and people still seek it out. I don't see this going much of anywhere and I very much hope Porsche puts the lawyer in his place publicly.
You'll need to log in to post.
