Paul Walker's daughter sues Porsche over father death

Archeum said:
That's the issue here.

The driver being incredibly irresponsible is not the subject, it's the fact the vehicle crashed and he supposedly could not escape.
Click to expand...

I imagine even without the seat-belt issue most cars would be hard to exit after smashing into concrete and a tree at 90 mph.
 
I think it has been taken too far, the way it happened, I don't think any car would have been salvageable.

Unless it was a tank, even then it wouldn't be going 90mph...
 
am I being a little sceptical in that this is timed to drop right in the middle of the VW diesel "scandal" in the hope that they don't want any more bad publicity and might pay out quickly?
 
It's sad that he died, sad when anyone dies. But there were high speeds / reckless driving on unsuitable roads.

Play with fire, you get burned.
 
wesley said:
dont forget the tyres on this porsche were 9 years old
Click to expand...

It is usually the owners responsibility for maintaining the worthiness of the vehicle not the manufacturer, the company that performs the vehicle safety test (i.e. tread may be fine but the test does not cover age of tire to support maximum speeds)

DailyFail Before Rodas, who owned the 2005 Porsche Carrera GT, could put it away for the day, Fast & Furious actor Walker jumped in the passenger seat and they decided to go for a quick spin round the block.
Click to expand...

So Porsche sold the car to Rodas.. Rodas was driving..
 
Greebo said:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...s-father-burned-death-crash-n435306?cid=sm_fb

Just saw this headline this morning and I really think the US have gone way to far over what you can sue for.


She is suing Porsche as its didnt have safety features fitted to some other cars in the range.


Since when did a manufacturer have to make every car it builds to the same safety levels and features?


One of the issues she is claiming for is the fact that the car "failed to install its electronic stability control system"


Has this got any chance of been successful?
Click to expand...

All respect is now lost for paul walker because of his greedy family. I will show my disgust to his family and I hope Porsche win and counter sue as American stupidity might be contagious
 
They should have a system.. lawyers start with 12 points. Each time they fail the judge has the ability to take a point off them. Once they hit zero they are barred for life.
 
Surely this shouldn't even get to a court of law because they were speeding, doing 94 on a 45mph limit road? How on earth can you bring a lawsuit upon Porsche for lack of safety features, when the driver was breaking the law by being over the speed limit? American law is stupid at best.
 
NickK said:
They should have a system.. lawyers start with 12 points. Each time they fail the judge has the ability to take a point off them. Once they hit zero they are barred for life.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a career nobody would want to train for.
 
Spuddy said:
I don't get how they can sue for an unsafe vehicle when it was proven he was travelling way over the speed limit? End of the day it was his own fault.
Click to expand...

You could try suing for that over here to. Get same result in both countries. Laughed out of court. Nothing but upset kid and a **** of a lawyer fleecing her out of inheritance.
 
CHokKA said:
Surely this shouldn't even get to a court of law because they were speeding, doing 94 on a 45mph limit road? How on earth can you bring a lawsuit upon Porsche for lack of safety features, when the driver was breaking the law by being over the speed limit? American law is stupid at best.
Click to expand...

Its the difference between Criminal and Civil, years ago I was hit by a bike that was speeding in Totenham. Bike hit me at about 70mph in a 30 zone and the rider spent a long time in hospital. From a Criminal point of view the police pressed charges against him for dangerous driving and driving without insurance/licence, no action was taken against me. He later sued me through the civil courts and won based on the fact that I was crossing his lane, he came around a corner and couldn't stop in time, he then chose to try and pass in front of my car rather than behind where he would have made it. Our very own laws aren't all that different it seems.
 
SkeeterUK said:
I no nothing really about cars, but this quoted, should be true they should all be the same for safety. Putting extra prices on safety is just greedy if that is the case.
Click to expand...

You think on a 300 grand car they scrimped on safety for cost?
You were right when you said you know nothing about cars!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom