Paul Walker's daughter sues Porsche over father death

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...

The car will have passed all relevant safety tests before being allowed to be sold in the USA, therefore it was certified as "safe".

The only missing safety feature in this car was a competent owner / driver.
 
A lot of performance cars deliberately don't have safety features as in a skilled drivers hands they are more fun.

Even normal saloons you can generally go through a complex procedure at startup to turn off traction control etc to have a bit of fun in it.
(Which then re-activates as soon as you turn it off & on again)


If this court case succeeds, it will further my amazement of USA laws.
 
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 doubt he could escape even if the door was wide open with a broken pelvis.

Doubt he even knew he is being burn, likely unconscious on impact so being "trapped" is a little irrelevant.
 
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...

Ironic when they have to pass their BAR Exams to then get Barred after 12 poor attempts at law interpretation?

As much as I see them as parasites, this system will not work. Judges should be able to shame the lawyer for their greed and stupidity to bringing the case to a paid court, of which they already do, but not to black-mark them. It'll just put people off being lawyers, and thus making those who do, charge even more of a premium.

We need a "Sal" in every price bracket so everyday man can have access to a legal council.
 
Moses said:
Not necessarily - arguably not if the minimum is unreasonably low in the context of a performance vehicle.
Click to expand...

Then the relatives of both men should be suing the Californian and U.S. Federal authorities for failing to protect the public by allowing low minimum safety standards in performance vehicles.

Good luck with that.
 
(Copied from my post in the main thread)

According to the info on his daughter's lawsuit:

According to the Los Angeles Times, the document claims the car lacked "features that could have prevented the accident or, at a minimum, allowed Paul Walker to survive the crash".
Click to expand...

Okay, let's be honest, that's 100% correct, however even if the car had proper traction/stability control they would have just disabled it. Paul's friend knew it was a dangerous car when he bought it and Paul being a car nut knew that when he got in it.

I mean, Porsche issued warnings like this:

"This vehicle cannot drive over a Foster Beer can that is lying on its side."

"You need to be aware of what type of road surface you are on (dips; pot holes, seam heights, etc.)"

"The Carrera GT is as close to a racecar as we will ever get, this car has all the disadvantages of a racecar."
Click to expand...
 
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...

yeah wearing a seat belt is the 'issue'

sure if he didn't have a seat belt he could escape - actually he might well have escaped by being thrown out of the car and also still ended up killed

he also had the choice to not wear his seat belt... though I think not wearing it is generally considered riskier
 
neil_g said:
am I being a little sceptical in that this is timed to drop right in the middle of the VW diesel "scandal"
Click to expand...

I read that as Vin Diesel XD


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?
Click to expand...

Basically, the fact they were speeding is irrelevant to the case. This isn't a Mondeo we're talking about, it's a track/race car which can legally be driven on the road. Being on the road didn't cause the accident, just like being on the track didn't cause Lenos, the car being difficult to control did.
 
Mr Jones said:
Ironic when they have to pass their BAR Exams to then get Barred after 12 poor attempts at law interpretation?

As much as I see them as parasites, this system will not work. Judges should be able to shame the lawyer for their greed and stupidity to bringing the case to a paid court, of which they already do, but not to black-mark them. It'll just put people off being lawyers, and thus making those who do, charge even more of a premium.

We need a "Sal" in every price bracket so everyday man can have access to a legal council.
Click to expand...

As a solicitor (so clearly a parasite) I am at a loss as why this is the lawyers fault. We have absolutely no idea what was discussed between the client and the lawyer so why are we all jumping to blame the lawyer?

In the UK if a potential client approaches you and asks for advice on an issue and you explain to them that it is a long shot, probably not in their interests and recommended to them that they do not pursue that said course of action but they ignore this advice and still want to go ahead and instruct the lawyer then it is entirely their choice. A lawyer will then have a duty to follow instructions (with limits), keep the client informed on the available options and try and achieve the best possible outcome available.

In any event the claim looks bunk but this does not mean she should not be entitled to pursue it if this is her wish. The Courts will simply dismiss it at the earliest possible opportunity.
 
Really? Good grief what is the world coming to? Nobody or anything is to blame other than himself. It was his choice when he put his foot down on that accelerator.. the same choice we all have.
 
I will prob take some flack for saying this but I think her case does have *some* merit.

This was not a normal road car, it was a race/track car with a reputation for being unpredictable and dangerous, especially on the road. It really should have had fire suppression fitted. I can see why Porsche didn't because it would have meant more weight and less speed, however IMO the US should make that a regulation for all vehicles over a certain performance level (that way it impacts every manufacturer equally).
 
Admiral Huddy said:
Really? Good grief what is the world coming to? Nobody or anything is to blame other than himself. It was his choice when he put his foot down on that accelerator.. the same choice we all have.
Click to expand...

Same as it's always been can sue for anything, it's a civil case, same over hear if you want to spend the money, will get laughed out of court though.
Got to feel sorry for the kid, rather than getting the help she needs to deal with the loss, she's been poached and wasting inheritance on one low life lawyer.
 
ubersonic said:
I will prob take some flack for saying this but I think her case does have *some* merit.

This was not a normal road car, it was a race/track car with a reputation for being unpredictable and dangerous, especially on the road. It really should have had fire suppression fitted. I can see why Porsche didn't because it would have meant more weight and less speed, however IMO the US should make that a regulation for all vehicles over a certain performance level (that way it impacts every manufacturer equally).
Click to expand...

What a load of tosh.

If the vehicle was being operated in accordance with the law of the land, the accident may not have happened, and if it did the damage sustained may have been much less severe.

The fault lies squarely with the driver of the vehicle, who was operating said vehicle in direct contravention of the road traffic rules.
 
DustyMiller said:
The fault lies squarely with the driver of the vehicle, who was operating said vehicle in direct contravention of the road traffic rules.
Click to expand...

Well that depends on whether the car met an appropriate level of safety.

It's a civil case - does the car meet with the safety and durability standards such a product should be expected to meet? That's what the proceedings will decide.

If you're driving a car at 100mph and the chassis splits in two, then should your speed exclude you from suing for damages?
 
cheesyboy said:
Well that depends on whether the car met an appropriate level of safety.

It's a civil case - does the car meet with the safety and durability standards such a product should be expected to meet? That's what the proceedings will decide.

If you're driving a car at 100mph and the chassis splits in two, then should your speed exclude you from suing for damages?
Click to expand...

But surely if the car has been passed by that countries safety rules then unless there was a failure (like you said it splits in two) then there is surely no case based on the fact its not as safe as other cars they make?

And also where does the speed become a factor? Surely it can be argued the car is safe to driver on the road at 70mph but not safe at 90mph? Would they still have a case if he had been taking a bend at 180mph?

And if cases like this do have a chance of winning or do indeed win then it won't be long before the US change the law and put 70 mph speed limiters in every car.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom