Legal Fallout from Carrera GT Crash at California Speedway
10-25-2007, 06:45 AM
#77
Re: (Dan Fielding)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Dan Fielding »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Why he earned that car so why cant he drive it? I dont understnd the logic behind that....Do you know how to drive a CGT or any supecar for that matter?
The CGT didnt kill the guy it was certain track conditons and neglect that killed both parties maybe if he was a masterful race car driver then maybe he couldve avoided it?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Maybe he made enough $$ to buy it, but I highly doubt that he was adequate behind the wheel to take full advantage of what a CGT has to offer (**** maybe not even adequate enough to control the thing).
It is very common to see rich guys driving cars they can't keep up with around the track. Most likely, that was the case here. That is all I'm saying.
Why he earned that car so why cant he drive it? I dont understnd the logic behind that....Do you know how to drive a CGT or any supecar for that matter?
The CGT didnt kill the guy it was certain track conditons and neglect that killed both parties maybe if he was a masterful race car driver then maybe he couldve avoided it?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Maybe he made enough $$ to buy it, but I highly doubt that he was adequate behind the wheel to take full advantage of what a CGT has to offer (**** maybe not even adequate enough to control the thing).
It is very common to see rich guys driving cars they can't keep up with around the track. Most likely, that was the case here. That is all I'm saying.
10-25-2007, 06:53 AM
#79
Re: (artifex)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by artifex »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">FWIW, 130 on that front straight isn't really that fast for a car with that kind of power. I hit 125 on that straight in my [stock-motor] integra.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
There's a perfect piece of evidence for my argument.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
There's a perfect piece of evidence for my argument.
10-25-2007, 07:14 AM
#81
H-T Order of Merit
Re: (Preferio)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Preferio »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Why the expletive should Porsche have to pay?</TD></TR></TABLE>
The bit that Porsche paid had to do with an evident knowledge aforsaid that the Carrera probably should have had PSB computer controls on board, but they did not install them.
It's debatable whether or not Porsche should have forseen this, hence their relatively smaller percentage of the overall bill.
By the way...
In Virginia, releases are virtually useless. Even in a case of ordinary [sic] negligence, the track and sanctioning body can be held partially or completely liable for a difficulty like this.
The bit that Porsche paid had to do with an evident knowledge aforsaid that the Carrera probably should have had PSB computer controls on board, but they did not install them.
It's debatable whether or not Porsche should have forseen this, hence their relatively smaller percentage of the overall bill.
By the way...
In Virginia, releases are virtually useless. Even in a case of ordinary [sic] negligence, the track and sanctioning body can be held partially or completely liable for a difficulty like this.
10-25-2007, 07:15 AM
#82
H-T Order of Merit
Re: (Evil M0nkey)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Evil M0nkey »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">[screw] america... I'm moving to europe...</TD></TR></TABLE>
Well.
By Europe, I hope you don't mean the United Kingdom. Because that is, after all, where our common law and all these ideas originated 1,500 years ago.
Well.
By Europe, I hope you don't mean the United Kingdom. Because that is, after all, where our common law and all these ideas originated 1,500 years ago.
10-25-2007, 07:16 AM
#83
Re: (Barney Stinson)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Barney Stinson »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">4mil is chump change to the wife. I'm sure her husband had a huge life insurance plus money in the bank. You don't really see poor people driving ferraris.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Plus, if she *had* to, she could sell the most likely humongous house, and live within her means for the rest of her life on the $$ from this, insurance, investments, etc, most likely.
Plus, if she *had* to, she could sell the most likely humongous house, and live within her means for the rest of her life on the $$ from this, insurance, investments, etc, most likely.
10-25-2007, 07:16 AM
#84
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kills
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Hatchy-Ownzjo0)
Originally Posted by Hatchy-Ownzjo0
You're both complete morons. The flagger flagged the Ferrari onto the track when it was NOT SAFE. The idiot flagger waved a slow moving Ferrari onto the track, infront of a car going 130+ MPH. I don't care who's driving the CGT, if a car pulls out 10 yards in front of you and you're going 130 MPH, you're gonna ******* crash, idiots. On top of that situation, CGT has OVERSTEER problems. IF they are bad enough for the person testing the cars to make sure they are safe for the track to say "this car is not safe" then Porsche obviously did something horribly wrong. It's a ******* race car for god's sake and it has horrible oversteer problems? They built a car they KNOW people are going to be driving at high speeds and gave it **** handling. I think that's a problem.
The track was not designed for safety. Instead it was designed to entertain kids, and the people running the track were complete ******* idiots who caused an accident that KILLED someone. Had the track been set up as a normal track [instead of one to give kids a place to 'play'] the accident would not have been fatal. Had the track hired people who knew how to make sure the ******* track was clear before waving a slow moving idiot onto the track, there would have been no crash.
People claiming the wife of this guy had no right so sue, or that the outcome of the lawsuit is wrong are just completely ignorant fucktards.
When I go race at a track I expect to die from my own doing.. not some ******* retard waving a car onto the track in front of me because he's ignorant.
The track was not designed for safety. Instead it was designed to entertain kids, and the people running the track were complete ******* idiots who caused an accident that KILLED someone. Had the track been set up as a normal track [instead of one to give kids a place to 'play'] the accident would not have been fatal. Had the track hired people who knew how to make sure the ******* track was clear before waving a slow moving idiot onto the track, there would have been no crash.
People claiming the wife of this guy had no right so sue, or that the outcome of the lawsuit is wrong are just completely ignorant fucktards.
When I go race at a track I expect to die from my own doing.. not some ******* retard waving a car onto the track in front of me because he's ignorant.
Originally Posted by Website
McClellan says, “No, Porsche should only be liable because this car was defective.” But then he adds, “It is defective, however, if the risks of its design outweigh the benefits. If its power and handling characteristics make it too dangerous for the average driver without training or instruction, then it is defective. Porsche should be liable because it sold a defective vehicle to Ben Keaton.” I certainly can’t profess to have the answers to all of these questions, but I think this case is going to answer some of them after it works its way through the legal system. We’ll keep you informed.
Originally Posted by Website
The more significant are: Keaton Estate – Failure to inform Rudl that he had been having handling problems with the Porsche, and that he had a recent incident where he lost control of the car. Racetrack owners and operators – Maintaining an unsafe racetrack as a result of inadequate maintenance, signage, and safety controls, and not moving back the concrete barriers after creating the children’s play area. Ferrari Owners Club and the flagman – Negligently operating the track day by sending the Ferrari onto the track at the wrong time, violating their own rules by allowing passengers in the cars, failing to disclose Keaton’s dangerous driving propensities, and allowing the track day to occur without moving the concrete barriers back to where they belonged. Ferrari driver – Not paying attention to the flagman, entering the track improperly, driving too slowly, and moving directly into the path of the Porsche. Porsche – Product liability for selling an unsafe car. This falls into three levels of defect. First: There was some mechanical problem with this particular car that made it handle badly. Second: There are design defects with the Carrera GT that make it a poor-handling car, mainly tail-happy. Third: The Carrera GT is too difficult a car to handle at high speeds for the average driver without instruction.
Originally Posted by Website
As the Porsche was completing a lap, the flagman sent a Ferrari onto the front straight. The driver hesitated, then started late and slow. The flagman saw the Porsche come onto the straight and tried to stop the Ferrari, but it was passing him by then, and neither the driver nor passenger noticed his waving arms or heard his shouts.
The Ferrari continued onto the straight at a relatively slow speed, just as the Carrera GT caught it. Keaton swerved to avoid contact, the Porsche’s rear came around, and it skidded into a concrete barrier wall. The wall had been placed closer to the track than its original position in order to enlarge the area behind it for use as a children’s play area during an earlier NASCAR race. The end result was the fatal crash.
The Ferrari continued onto the straight at a relatively slow speed, just as the Carrera GT caught it. Keaton swerved to avoid contact, the Porsche’s rear came around, and it skidded into a concrete barrier wall. The wall had been placed closer to the track than its original position in order to enlarge the area behind it for use as a children’s play area during an earlier NASCAR race. The end result was the fatal crash.
10-25-2007, 07:26 AM
#85
H-T Order of Merit
We shouldn't be second guessing the judge.
He is the only one who could explain how he apportioned out the blame.
The Porsche engineers who testified gave evidence that seemed to indicate that Porsche's own policies would have normally indicated that the Carrera GT should have had computer stability controls as part of the standard package.
The engineers contradicted each other over why the car was released without the controls.
Please note, however, that Porsche was not apportioned out the big part of the blame. The court felt it was mostly somebody else's fault.
41% the fault of track officials and event organisers.
49% the fault of the driver.
8% from Porsche.
2% the fault of the Ferrari driver.
He is the only one who could explain how he apportioned out the blame.
The Porsche engineers who testified gave evidence that seemed to indicate that Porsche's own policies would have normally indicated that the Carrera GT should have had computer stability controls as part of the standard package.
The engineers contradicted each other over why the car was released without the controls.
Please note, however, that Porsche was not apportioned out the big part of the blame. The court felt it was mostly somebody else's fault.
41% the fault of track officials and event organisers.
49% the fault of the driver.
8% from Porsche.
2% the fault of the Ferrari driver.
10-25-2007, 08:08 AM
#86
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kills
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (George Knighton)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by George Knighton »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">We shouldn't be second guessing the judge.
He is the only one who could explain how he apportioned out the blame.
The Porsche engineers who testified gave evidence that seemed to indicate that Porsche's own policies would have normally indicated that the Carrera GT should have had computer stability controls as part of the standard package.
The engineers contradicted each other over why the car was released without the controls.
Please note, however, that Porsche was not apportioned out the big part of the blame. The court felt it was mostly somebody else's fault.
41% the fault of track officials and event organisers.
49% the fault of the driver.
8% from Porsche.
2% the fault of the Ferrari driver.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yeah, I just don't see myself suing anyone if I was in the same boat, as they say different strokes for different folks...
He is the only one who could explain how he apportioned out the blame.
The Porsche engineers who testified gave evidence that seemed to indicate that Porsche's own policies would have normally indicated that the Carrera GT should have had computer stability controls as part of the standard package.
The engineers contradicted each other over why the car was released without the controls.
Please note, however, that Porsche was not apportioned out the big part of the blame. The court felt it was mostly somebody else's fault.
41% the fault of track officials and event organisers.
49% the fault of the driver.
8% from Porsche.
2% the fault of the Ferrari driver.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yeah, I just don't see myself suing anyone if I was in the same boat, as they say different strokes for different folks...
10-27-2007, 06:07 PM
#87
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over, ca
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (artifex)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by artifex »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">FWIW, 130 on that front straight isn't really that fast for a car with that kind of power. I hit 125 on that straight in my [stock-motor] integra.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
thats indicated speed on your gauges which is off I've been down that straight more than a few times and the viper world challenge car they brought out for the srt days will hit about 130-135 and thats a very fast car obviuosly and it is pretty fast to be driving at that point.
It's a tragedy what happened and I cant imagine what there familys are going through but he was driving at or above racing speeds at a track day in a street car. I spoke to an EMT and someone who investigated the vehicle in impound really sad. But,
Mistakes are made but it's the drivers fault, no one elses.
It's like when you rear end someone your to blame in CA because you obviously were driving to close, he was driving to fast to avoid an accident, that he swerved and hit a wall was a consequence. Any driver that cant aticipate a change in enviorment or circumstance is not a driver there a passenger, and the law does not allow passengers to drive as far as I know.
That being said hopefully event organizers more carefully scrutinize the operating procedures and driving level filters and the track thinks about it's safety protocols.
I know that I personally wish that track would replace it's runoff with painted green asphalt, and I did see an instance where a driver hit some tires in front of me that I felt were ill placed and consequently moved but I still felt it was his responsibility and no theres ultimately.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
thats indicated speed on your gauges which is off I've been down that straight more than a few times and the viper world challenge car they brought out for the srt days will hit about 130-135 and thats a very fast car obviuosly and it is pretty fast to be driving at that point.
It's a tragedy what happened and I cant imagine what there familys are going through but he was driving at or above racing speeds at a track day in a street car. I spoke to an EMT and someone who investigated the vehicle in impound really sad. But,
Mistakes are made but it's the drivers fault, no one elses.
It's like when you rear end someone your to blame in CA because you obviously were driving to close, he was driving to fast to avoid an accident, that he swerved and hit a wall was a consequence. Any driver that cant aticipate a change in enviorment or circumstance is not a driver there a passenger, and the law does not allow passengers to drive as far as I know.
That being said hopefully event organizers more carefully scrutinize the operating procedures and driving level filters and the track thinks about it's safety protocols.
I know that I personally wish that track would replace it's runoff with painted green asphalt, and I did see an instance where a driver hit some tires in front of me that I felt were ill placed and consequently moved but I still felt it was his responsibility and no theres ultimately.
10-27-2007, 06:42 PM
#88
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 2,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (MV99-S)
This reminds me of an incident at Willow Springs. A guy brought out a Porsche 914 which he'd converted to a 6-cylinder. He drove all morning, then that afternoon took his wife for a ride. The car chassis apparently broke (due to the higher power and chassis mods?), causing the car to go off in Turn 9, and sadly, his wife was killed.
The driver sued Willow Springs...
I know this is a very different situation, different track, and so on, and yet, it's the same. It's about accepting responsibility for whatever happens when you go out on course. Obviously no one "expects" to die in a silly trackday event, but we all know, deep down, that it can happen. Apparently though, not all of us can accept the consequences.
Yes, mistakes were made, a terrible accident occured, and yet it's sad how someone has to benefit from it. And yet, after it's all over, what exactly was "learned" from this? I fear that it's "don't have any more trackday events because bad things can happen."
There was another event accident covered on H-T. Remember the HPDE where the cars in pit row were lined up way, way, too close to the track? A car spun off the track and hit a bunch of the cars waiting to go out. Who's fault was that? Ultimately, it's the drivers, for allowing themselves to be placed in a dangerous position. If all the drivers had refused to park so close to the track, what could the organizers do?
It's up to the drivers to assess if the track is safe and not go out if it is not. Obviously in this case, it was a fast car/slow car issue, but everyone knows this stuff can happen, even in a amateur event.
Sadly, everyone loses when something like this happens.
The driver sued Willow Springs...
I know this is a very different situation, different track, and so on, and yet, it's the same. It's about accepting responsibility for whatever happens when you go out on course. Obviously no one "expects" to die in a silly trackday event, but we all know, deep down, that it can happen. Apparently though, not all of us can accept the consequences.
Yes, mistakes were made, a terrible accident occured, and yet it's sad how someone has to benefit from it. And yet, after it's all over, what exactly was "learned" from this? I fear that it's "don't have any more trackday events because bad things can happen."
There was another event accident covered on H-T. Remember the HPDE where the cars in pit row were lined up way, way, too close to the track? A car spun off the track and hit a bunch of the cars waiting to go out. Who's fault was that? Ultimately, it's the drivers, for allowing themselves to be placed in a dangerous position. If all the drivers had refused to park so close to the track, what could the organizers do?
It's up to the drivers to assess if the track is safe and not go out if it is not. Obviously in this case, it was a fast car/slow car issue, but everyone knows this stuff can happen, even in a amateur event.
Sadly, everyone loses when something like this happens.
10-28-2007, 08:44 AM
#89
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (MV99-S)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MV99-S »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
thats indicated speed on your gauges which is off I've been down that straight more than a few times and the viper world challenge car they brought out for the srt days will hit about 130-135 </TD></TR></TABLE>
Just off topic but have you ever used a GPS to view your speed vs your speedo? I was quite suprised that the speedo in the integra wether I had tall or short tires is pretty acurate vs a gps. If he says 125 I doubt that speedo is far off +/- 2-3mph vs a gps.
thats indicated speed on your gauges which is off I've been down that straight more than a few times and the viper world challenge car they brought out for the srt days will hit about 130-135 </TD></TR></TABLE>
Just off topic but have you ever used a GPS to view your speed vs your speedo? I was quite suprised that the speedo in the integra wether I had tall or short tires is pretty acurate vs a gps. If he says 125 I doubt that speedo is far off +/- 2-3mph vs a gps.
10-28-2007, 03:42 PM
#90
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Houston,, TX
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (essex)
I didn't realize a Carrera GT was at the track today until one showed up in my rear view mirror. I'd already read this thread and was thinking "hmmm."
He was driving pretty hard and damn near blew my doors off coming onto a straight. A lap later, he looped it a couple times and went off into the dirt on a turn called "the launch."
He was driving pretty hard and damn near blew my doors off coming onto a straight. A lap later, he looped it a couple times and went off into the dirt on a turn called "the launch."
10-29-2007, 05:09 AM
#91
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Where the wild things are in, NY, United States of America
Posts: 2,679
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: (comma)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by comma »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
While, at first glance, it does seem excessive. However, is it? We don't exactly know what money the guy was pulling in, we don't know his lifestlye, etc. Therefore, what if the guy was making BANK and what if this $4.5m isn't enough to support the family for more than a couple of years?</TD></TR></TABLE>
This has to be without a doubt the dumbest thing i've read all day. You know what you do if your family is 'ballin' or w/e and the breadwinner passes on? YOU STOP BALLIN'. $4.5M can provide for any family for more then a couple years ( it could sustain mine for the rest of our lives ), the idea that court payments should be curtailed to fit someones life style is fawking ridiculous.
for blaming manufacturers when richie rich's right foot gets happy. for the sue-happy americans we coddle into believing this **** is acceptable and super cars with traction control / stability control. 
While, at first glance, it does seem excessive. However, is it? We don't exactly know what money the guy was pulling in, we don't know his lifestlye, etc. Therefore, what if the guy was making BANK and what if this $4.5m isn't enough to support the family for more than a couple of years?</TD></TR></TABLE>
This has to be without a doubt the dumbest thing i've read all day. You know what you do if your family is 'ballin' or w/e and the breadwinner passes on? YOU STOP BALLIN'. $4.5M can provide for any family for more then a couple years ( it could sustain mine for the rest of our lives ), the idea that court payments should be curtailed to fit someones life style is fawking ridiculous.
for blaming manufacturers when richie rich's right foot gets happy. for the sue-happy americans we coddle into believing this **** is acceptable and super cars with traction control / stability control.
10-29-2007, 06:20 AM
#92
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: aaeskl, cas
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (ComeOnKip)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ComeOnKip »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You know what you do if your family is 'ballin' or w/e and the breadwinner passes on? YOU STOP BALLIN'. </TD></TR></TABLE>
I agree. However, the breadwinner didn't just PASS ON. Read much?
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ComeOnKip »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">$4.5M can provide for any family for more then a couple years ( it could sustain mine for the rest of our lives ), the idea that court payments should be curtailed to fit someones life style is fawking ridiculous. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Yes, 4.5M can maybe provide me for the rest of my life. However, the idea that it coulde "sustain" your's for the rest of your life does not mean the court should determine that she should live at a "lower means" just because it can support YOUR lifestyle. If she lived an expensive/extravagant lifestyle, which her husband was able to afford, then the 4.5M is justified in that those at fault for her husband's negligent death occurrence.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ComeOnKip »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> for blaming manufacturers when richie rich's right foot gets happy. for the sue-happy americans we coddle into believing this **** is acceptable </TD></TR></TABLE>
Did you read anything in the article? Have you read anything that Knighsport has posted? Geez.
Sue-happy americans? How so? Her husband was killed due to negligence on the driver's part, as well as bad moves on the regarding the track changes, which were done to accomodate an earlier race....or actually, it was to accomodate KIDS.
Actually, I shouldn't ask if you read the article, seeing as that you say "richie rich's right foot gets happy". This right there simply diminishes the credibility of your post. Go read the article and you'll see that it had much more to do than someone's "right foot getting happy". And note that the driver's wife isn't suing. It's the PASSENGER'S WIFE.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ComeOnKip »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> super cars with traction control / stability control. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Refer to Knighsport's post regarding the contradicting answers that Porsche individuals gave.
Modified by comma at 7:30 AM 10/29/2007
Modified by comma at 7:33 AM 10/29/2007
I agree. However, the breadwinner didn't just PASS ON. Read much?
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ComeOnKip »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">$4.5M can provide for any family for more then a couple years ( it could sustain mine for the rest of our lives ), the idea that court payments should be curtailed to fit someones life style is fawking ridiculous. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Yes, 4.5M can maybe provide me for the rest of my life. However, the idea that it coulde "sustain" your's for the rest of your life does not mean the court should determine that she should live at a "lower means" just because it can support YOUR lifestyle. If she lived an expensive/extravagant lifestyle, which her husband was able to afford, then the 4.5M is justified in that those at fault for her husband's negligent death occurrence.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ComeOnKip »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
for blaming manufacturers when richie rich's right foot gets happy. for the sue-happy americans we coddle into believing this **** is acceptable </TD></TR></TABLE>Did you read anything in the article? Have you read anything that Knighsport has posted? Geez.
Sue-happy americans? How so? Her husband was killed due to negligence on the driver's part, as well as bad moves on the regarding the track changes, which were done to accomodate an earlier race....or actually, it was to accomodate KIDS.
Actually, I shouldn't ask if you read the article, seeing as that you say "richie rich's right foot gets happy". This right there simply diminishes the credibility of your post. Go read the article and you'll see that it had much more to do than someone's "right foot getting happy". And note that the driver's wife isn't suing. It's the PASSENGER'S WIFE.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ComeOnKip »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
super cars with traction control / stability control. </TD></TR></TABLE>Refer to Knighsport's post regarding the contradicting answers that Porsche individuals gave.
Modified by comma at 7:30 AM 10/29/2007
Modified by comma at 7:33 AM 10/29/2007
10-29-2007, 06:29 AM
#93
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: aaeskl, cas
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (K20EF8)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by K20EF8 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Her husband was a multi million, she shouldnt spend a dime of that 4.5 mill, she should give it to charity or if shes so concerned about safety she should give it all away to an organization that will makes tracks safer.</TD></TR></TABLE>
"Her husband was a multi million". LOL. So, if I was a multimillionaire with life insurance and I died, then my wife/family shouldn't collect life insurance?
LOL. So, she should spend it on something regarding "SAFETY"? Spend in on something that is already known? Why? Because her husband was killed? Her husband was killed due to factors that could have already been fixed, nothing that is unknown. The barrier was moved to accomodate a "fun area" for kids. The flagger had his mistake. The driver wrote his own "tech inspection". Why should she spend it on "safety" or charity? The reasons for the accident were all preventable. It had nothing to do with faulty track-building, concrete situations, etc. etc.
Maybe her husband was a mutimillionaire, then that $4.5M should serve sort of like the purpose of life insurance. To you $4.5M seems like a lot. But from her perspective it can be chump change. And you trying to dictate where she should spend it on is ridiculous. Her husband died in a situation that really could have been prevented. For all I care she could spend it on what she wants.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by K20EF8 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Damn greedy people and their greedy lawyers. </TD></TR></TABLE>
LOL. Read above.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by K20EF8 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Imagine losing a husband and kids losing a father only to have some already rich bitch trying to take more of your money away. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Well imagine the wife that already lost a husband due to:
-The track moving a barrier
-The DRIVER that forged tech inspection papers
-The DRIVER that had trouble with the car earlier
-The previous passenger who became nauseous (sp?) and kept quiet
-Etc.
-Etc.
"Her husband was a multi million". LOL. So, if I was a multimillionaire with life insurance and I died, then my wife/family shouldn't collect life insurance?
LOL. So, she should spend it on something regarding "SAFETY"? Spend in on something that is already known? Why? Because her husband was killed? Her husband was killed due to factors that could have already been fixed, nothing that is unknown. The barrier was moved to accomodate a "fun area" for kids. The flagger had his mistake. The driver wrote his own "tech inspection". Why should she spend it on "safety" or charity? The reasons for the accident were all preventable. It had nothing to do with faulty track-building, concrete situations, etc. etc.
Maybe her husband was a mutimillionaire, then that $4.5M should serve sort of like the purpose of life insurance. To you $4.5M seems like a lot. But from her perspective it can be chump change. And you trying to dictate where she should spend it on is ridiculous. Her husband died in a situation that really could have been prevented. For all I care she could spend it on what she wants.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by K20EF8 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Damn greedy people and their greedy lawyers. </TD></TR></TABLE>
LOL. Read above.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by K20EF8 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Imagine losing a husband and kids losing a father only to have some already rich bitch trying to take more of your money away. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Well imagine the wife that already lost a husband due to:
-The track moving a barrier
-The DRIVER that forged tech inspection papers
-The DRIVER that had trouble with the car earlier
-The previous passenger who became nauseous (sp?) and kept quiet
-Etc.
-Etc.
10-29-2007, 07:53 AM
#94
H-T Order of Merit
Some of the questions you guys have are only going to be able to be answered by the judge who decided the case, and it's dangerous second guessing him because we are not in his mind and we are not aware of all the evidence he heard.
The main point for organisers and tracks to understand is that no waiver is worth a grain of sand if you allow activities that are patently unsafe, or you don't exercise due diligence in correcting patently unsafe situations.
I remember that there was a bit of a hoo-ra in some circles a few years ago because some organisers were allowing cars to go out onto the track with harnesses but with<u>out</u> rollover protection.
The discussion went on to use phrases like "patently obvious" and then went into a discussion about Virginia's common sense application of the law.
The CCR of national organisations was subsequently modified to make it clear that safety items were an all-or-nothing affair, and many cars that were allowed out in those days would be rejected at the tech shed in 2007.
The main point for organisers and tracks to understand is that no waiver is worth a grain of sand if you allow activities that are patently unsafe, or you don't exercise due diligence in correcting patently unsafe situations.
I remember that there was a bit of a hoo-ra in some circles a few years ago because some organisers were allowing cars to go out onto the track with harnesses but with<u>out</u> rollover protection.
The discussion went on to use phrases like "patently obvious" and then went into a discussion about Virginia's common sense application of the law.
The CCR of national organisations was subsequently modified to make it clear that safety items were an all-or-nothing affair, and many cars that were allowed out in those days would be rejected at the tech shed in 2007.
10-29-2007, 07:18 PM
#95
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (comma)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by comma »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
-The track moving a barrier
-The DRIVER that forged tech inspection papers
-The DRIVER that had trouble with the car earlier
-The previous passenger who became nauseous (sp?) and kept quiet
-Etc.
-Etc.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
When you go on a racetrack you take RISKS, especially if you CHOOSE to ride shotgun in a mid-engined 612hp Supercar. In life when you take BIG RISKS sometimes you get bitten in the ***, that doesnt mean you should go around and sue as many people as you can. As far as the barrier being moved out, BULLSHIT, they were going well over 100mph and hit a concrete wall, wouldnt have mattered if the barrier was 50 feet further back. There is absolutely NO reason that Porsche should be part of that lawsuit and that whole argument about stability control is a whole lot of bullshit, if that car has to have it then every car sold in America has to as well. Short of the car driving itself what do you think an assist function is going to do anyway when at 140+mph you slam the brakes and jerk the wheel. If there is enough evidence that negligence was a major cause thats fine then bring a lawsuit, but suing Porsche.... what a joke... suing the driver family, when the accident wasnt even his fault imo....a joke.
If things continue like this its only a matter of time before people cannot do anything besides stare at paint drying for fear a reprisal or a lawsuit.
-The track moving a barrier
-The DRIVER that forged tech inspection papers
-The DRIVER that had trouble with the car earlier
-The previous passenger who became nauseous (sp?) and kept quiet
-Etc.
-Etc.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
When you go on a racetrack you take RISKS, especially if you CHOOSE to ride shotgun in a mid-engined 612hp Supercar. In life when you take BIG RISKS sometimes you get bitten in the ***, that doesnt mean you should go around and sue as many people as you can. As far as the barrier being moved out, BULLSHIT, they were going well over 100mph and hit a concrete wall, wouldnt have mattered if the barrier was 50 feet further back. There is absolutely NO reason that Porsche should be part of that lawsuit and that whole argument about stability control is a whole lot of bullshit, if that car has to have it then every car sold in America has to as well. Short of the car driving itself what do you think an assist function is going to do anyway when at 140+mph you slam the brakes and jerk the wheel. If there is enough evidence that negligence was a major cause thats fine then bring a lawsuit, but suing Porsche.... what a joke... suing the driver family, when the accident wasnt even his fault imo....a joke.
If things continue like this its only a matter of time before people cannot do anything besides stare at paint drying for fear a reprisal or a lawsuit.
10-29-2007, 08:17 PM
#96
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Where the wild things are in, NY, United States of America
Posts: 2,679
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: (K20EF8)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by K20EF8 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
When you go on a racetrack you take RISKS, especially if you CHOOSE to ride shotgun in a mid-engined 612hp Supercar.</TD></TR></TABLE>
quoted for the truth. i can't see why anyone would allow legal action against the track or porsche when its a known fact that *skies clear* driving an automobile fast is extremely dangerous. so what if the things a rocket ship? I never heard of Carroll Shelby getting handed a summons cause he made one as well (which we all know that more then one person died in). handling problems, wall placement and flagger error to the wind, the passenger still understood what he was getting into when he entered the car. unbelievable.
When you go on a racetrack you take RISKS, especially if you CHOOSE to ride shotgun in a mid-engined 612hp Supercar.</TD></TR></TABLE>
quoted for the truth. i can't see why anyone would allow legal action against the track or porsche when its a known fact that *skies clear* driving an automobile fast is extremely dangerous. so what if the things a rocket ship? I never heard of Carroll Shelby getting handed a summons cause he made one as well (which we all know that more then one person died in). handling problems, wall placement and flagger error to the wind, the passenger still understood what he was getting into when he entered the car. unbelievable.
10-29-2007, 08:49 PM
#97
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: aaeskl, cas
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (K20EF8)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by K20EF8 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">As far as the barrier being moved out, BULLSHIT, they were going well over 100mph and hit a concrete wall, wouldnt have mattered if the barrier was 50 feet further back. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Regarding the barrier, I brought it up as a factor in the sueing (sp?) because of what I read here (see direct quote just below): http://www.sportscarmarket.com/content/carrera
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by FromTheArticle/Site »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">A second photo shows the Carrera GT crashed in the worst possible place—right where the wall protruded. It looks as the CGT would normally have hit the wall and bounced back toward the track. Whatever happened then would have been better than a 130-mile near head-on crash.</TD></TR></TABLE>
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by K20EF8 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">When you go on a racetrack you take RISKS, especially if you CHOOSE to ride shotgun in a mid-engined 612hp Supercar. In life when you take BIG RISKS sometimes you get bitten in the ***</TD></TR></TABLE>
I agree that you take risks etc. etc. However, it's different when there is negligence involved. And as you stated...
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by K20EF8 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> If there is enough evidence that negligence was a major cause thats fine then bring a lawsuit, </TD></TR></TABLE>
Regarding sueing (sp?) Porsche. Ok, I see your point there!
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by K20EF8 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">suing the driver family, when the accident wasnt even his fault imo....a joke.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I agree about suing the driver's family. However, "the accident wasnt even his fault"????? Wasn't it partly his fault though? There were car problems, a prior passenger became nauseous (sp?) and kept quiet, the driver forged his tech inspection papers, etc.
10-30-2007, 12:28 PM
#98
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (comma)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by comma »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I agree about suing the driver's family. However, "the accident wasnt even his fault"????? Wasn't it partly his fault though? There were car problems, a prior passenger became nauseous (sp?) and kept quiet, the driver forged his tech inspection papers, etc.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Its my understanding that the accident was caused when he had to swerve to avoid a slow merging Ferrari, hence the accident wasnt his fault, there were no car problems, people become nauseous all the time on a racetrack etc that doesnt mean anything. Forging tech papers..... I bet there was nothing wrong with the CGT. I could understand if something broke on the car then that would be an issue but all of the points that are listed have nothing to do with the accident
I agree about suing the driver's family. However, "the accident wasnt even his fault"????? Wasn't it partly his fault though? There were car problems, a prior passenger became nauseous (sp?) and kept quiet, the driver forged his tech inspection papers, etc.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Its my understanding that the accident was caused when he had to swerve to avoid a slow merging Ferrari, hence the accident wasnt his fault, there were no car problems, people become nauseous all the time on a racetrack etc that doesnt mean anything. Forging tech papers..... I bet there was nothing wrong with the CGT. I could understand if something broke on the car then that would be an issue but all of the points that are listed have nothing to do with the accident
10-30-2007, 05:38 PM
#99
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (K20EF8)
You guys that are amazed at the 2.2million that the widow has to pay crack me up. She has to pay (or his estate has to pay) 5.5x the value of his track car. Figure out how much that would be if it were you. Probably less than $30k if it were me.
From my memory, the passenger owned a Lambo and was "thinking" about buying a CGT, so nobody is going from rags to riches or vice versa over this. Hopefully FOC/Cali Speedway will learn a thing or two, as will many other tracks/organizers
From my memory, the passenger owned a Lambo and was "thinking" about buying a CGT, so nobody is going from rags to riches or vice versa over this. Hopefully FOC/Cali Speedway will learn a thing or two, as will many other tracks/organizers
10-30-2007, 08:05 PM
#100
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: aaeskl, cas
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (K20EF8)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by K20EF8 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Its my understanding that the accident was caused when he had to swerve to avoid a slow merging Ferrari, hence the accident wasnt his fault, there were no car problems, people become nauseous all the time on a racetrack etc that doesnt mean anything. Forging tech papers..... I bet there was nothing wrong with the CGT. I could understand if something broke on the car then that would be an issue but all of the points that are listed have nothing to do with the accident</TD></TR></TABLE>
As for the factors I listed, they were brought up because of what I read (on that link):
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by from article »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">At a previous event, the FOC President and organizer had been warned by one of their vehicle certifiers that he believed that something was wrong with the handling of Keaton’s car and it should not be allowed to run. They let it into that event anyway, and it spun out three to four times—one time the event organizer was even on board and became nauseous. But he didn’t tell anyone about the warnings and did not exclude Keaton from that event. (As you will see below, it appears the concerns the mechanic had were related to the oversteer inherent in the design of the car, not to any particular mechanical defect.)</TD></TR></TABLE>
The bolded area kinda defeats my stance/argument, however, you can see that people were advised regarding the car's handling, they advised not to allow it to run, etc.
That's all I else I can really say.
As for the factors I listed, they were brought up because of what I read (on that link):
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by from article »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">At a previous event, the FOC President and organizer had been warned by one of their vehicle certifiers that he believed that something was wrong with the handling of Keaton’s car and it should not be allowed to run. They let it into that event anyway, and it spun out three to four times—one time the event organizer was even on board and became nauseous. But he didn’t tell anyone about the warnings and did not exclude Keaton from that event. (As you will see below, it appears the concerns the mechanic had were related to the oversteer inherent in the design of the car, not to any particular mechanical defect.)</TD></TR></TABLE>
The bolded area kinda defeats my stance/argument, however, you can see that people were advised regarding the car's handling, they advised not to allow it to run, etc.
That's all I else I can really say.