Paul Walker's daughter sues Porsche over father death

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?

The case will be based on the idea that expectations for this category of car, given price and intended use, are much higher than for a normal road car. Remember, this isn't a criminal case - it's not state vs, it's a civil matter.

Did Porsche fail to make the car as safe as you would expect these cars to be - should a seatbelt trap a driver in the car on a track-focused supercar in a 90mph impact?
 
The case will be based on the idea that expectations for this category of car, given price and intended use, are much higher than for a normal road car. Remember, this isn't a criminal case - it's not state vs, it's a civil matter.

Did Porsche fail to make the car as safe as you would expect these cars to be - should a seatbelt trap a driver in the car on a track-focused supercar in a 90mph impact?

Generally track based cars will not be subject to the same impact type as that car was. That is why you have tyre and armco barriers, run off zones etc. It is unlikely that the car would be so deformed on a proper track at 90mph because anything it is there to hit would be designed to disperse the force of the impact.

On a public highway, that is not the case, and if you are going to exceed the speed limit and drive the car in an environment it is not fit for in a way that jeapodises your control, I don't think the manufacturers can be held responsible.

It would be a bit like trying to drive a crane through a river and suing because it sinks.

EDIT, you can plough the safest car currently available sideways into a tree at 90MPH and statistically there is very little chance the driver and passenger would survive.
 
Last edited:
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.

It's a track/race orientated car that's road legal, the fact it was being operated on the road and faster than the law allowed is irrelevant.

The fact that the driver lost control is not in dispute, the reason will never be known, given that it could go from 50-90 in <2 seconds and is incapable of driving over a can without spinning the are literally thousands of possible causes.

What is in dispute is that the vehicle was lacking safety equipment which would have either prevented the accident or made it non-fatal. IMO road going race cars of this performance and with the ability to have such a spectacular accident should have fire suppression, especially if they are so easy to lose control of that professional drivers refer to it as "scary" and "dangerous".
 
well, the road itself would have been unsafe to drive at over 90mph - thats not the cars fault - why not sue the state for not making the roads smooth racetracks that idiots can break the law on :rolleyes:
 
Generally track based cars will not be subject to the same impact type as that car was. That is why you have tyre and armco barriers, run off zones etc. It is unlikely that the car would be so deformed on a proper track at 90mph because anything it is there to hit would be designed to disperse the force of the impact.

On a public highway, that is not the case, and if you are going to exceed the speed limit and drive the car in an environment it is not fit for in a way that jeapodises your control, I don't think the manufacturers can be held responsible.

It would be a bit like trying to drive a crane through a river and suing because it sinks.

EDIT, you can plough the safest car currently available sideways into a tree at 90MPH and statistically there is very little chance the driver and passenger would survive.

You're making it too general - think specific.

The case is questioning the safety of the seatbelt setup and the fire risk of the fuel lines. Walker's death, it would seem, was down to a failure of those two - the case being brought is suggesting those failures are due to Porsche "skimping" on safety: these safety measures are found in other Porsche's, apparently. If that argument has merit, then the case probably has merit.
 
Two things that I think may be a wildcard in this case (considering the US civil legal system and courts) is that Porches chief test driver told them during design that the car needed traction control due to it's unpredictability.

And secondly Porsche have already been successfully sued after a fatal accident (as part of a joint suit) for not fitting traction control to the CGT.

*EDIT*

In fact here's a couple of excerpts from an article on the previous successful lawsuit:

Porsche. The sole claim against Porsche was that the CGT was defective because it was designed without electronic stability control, which Porsche calls PSM. McClellan deposed two German engineers on the subject, and their answers were inconsistent. One testified that Porsche did not think that its PSM system would work on the CGT because the car's frame structure and suspension mountings would create strong vibrations that would interfere with its operation. The other engineer testified that PSM was not offered because the customers didn't want it.

McClellan suspects it was a marketing decision, as the CGT was marketed as a "race car for the streets," and race cars don't have electronic stability control. He notes that during its development, the CGT had exhibited a tendency to oversteer during high lateral acceleration. Porsche made some adjustments, but did not fully correct the problem, which explained why the mechanic who drove Keaton's car reported "handling problems." PSM would have corrected the "tail happy" oversteer response to Keaton's steering input to avoid the Ferrari.

McClellan thinks that the manufacturers' greatest exposure in this regard may not be crashes on racetracks, but what might happen on the street. Imagine a CGT driver who gets in over his head on a public road, the rear end comes around, and he spins into an oncoming car, killing its occupant. Faced with expert testimony that electronic stability control could have prevented the spin, what will the jury think?

The second quote is quite harrowing with regard to the Walker crash
 
Last edited:
It's a track/race orientated car that's road legal, the fact it was being operated on the road and faster than the law allowed is irrelevant.

The fact that the driver lost control is not in dispute, the reason will never be known, given that it could go from 50-90 in <2 seconds and is incapable of driving over a can without spinning the are literally thousands of possible causes.

What is in dispute is that the vehicle was lacking safety equipment which would have either prevented the accident or made it non-fatal. IMO road going race cars of this performance and with the ability to have such a spectacular accident should have fire suppression, especially if they are so easy to lose control of that professional drivers refer to it as "scary" and "dangerous".

Race cars are not designed to withstand sideways impacts from concrete light poles and trees. This car struck a curb which propelled it into a light pole and tree on the driver's side. This impact span the car 180º into another tree which struck the passenger's side.

Of course, the track version would have been fitted with a comprehensive roll cage/safety cell and 4/6 point harness systems.

Fire suppression equipment would not have saved the driver as the autopsy showed that Rodas had no soot in his airways due to being killed near instantaneously by massive head, neck and chest trauma.
 
You're making it too general - think specific.

The case is questioning the safety of the seatbelt setup and the fire risk of the fuel lines. Walker's death, it would seem, was down to a failure of those two - the case being brought is suggesting those failures are due to Porsche "skimping" on safety: these safety measures are found in other Porsche's, apparently. If that argument has merit, then the case probably has merit.

Possibly.

But the overarching factor here is was the car legal in the USA by all applicable laws and regulations of the time? It does not matter if the car did not have features XYZ if US law stated it did not need them in order to be road legal.
 
Of course, the track version would have been fitted with a comprehensive roll cage/safety cell and 4/6 point harness systems.

Fire suppression equipment would not have saved the driver as the autopsy showed that Rodas had no soot in his airways due to being killed near instantaneously by massive head, neck and chest trauma.

Re-read what you wrote there backwards, with that safety equipment Rodas would probably have survived the impact like Walker did, and in either case fire suppression would have saved Walker.


It does not matter if the car did not have features XYZ if US law stated it did not need them in order to be road legal.

The court that found against Porsche for not fitting traction control to the CGT in the previous lawsuit thought it mattered.
 
Last edited:
Possibly.

But the overarching factor here is was the car legal in the USA by all applicable laws and regulations of the time? It does not matter if the car did not have features XYZ if US law stated it did not need them in order to be road legal.

You'd be right if we were talking criminal proceedings against Porsche.

But we're not talking criminal - we're talking about a civil case.
 
Re-read what you wrote there backwards, with that safety equipment Rodas would probably have survived the impact like Walker did, and in either case fire suppression would have saved Walker.

So would many other things, like traction control, speed limiters, more ground clearance, better tyres etc etc.

In real terms, the severity of Paul Walkers injuries would have most likely been fatal anyway.

So should all cars capable of going 90 MPH and kicking the back end out now be required to have a roll cage and a fire suppression system?

Because effectively that is what you are arguing.
 
Hold on...does this mean any car manufacturer is now liable if someone through their own fault dies in one of their cars if a system available elsewhere could have saved them?
If someone dies by hitting a wall at 140mph could their family sue because if that car had a 1l engine it couldn't have done 140mph?
 
So should all cars capable of going 90 MPH and kicking the back end out now be required to have a roll cage and a fire suppression system?

Because effectively that is what you are arguing.

Nono, I am arguing that road legal race cars, especially highly dangerous ones should have fire suppression, something that wouldn't even raise the cost much anyway and could save lives.

NB: I am not saying Porsche should lose this case for not having fire suppression, just saying I think it should be a feature on all cars of this class, especially going forwards.

*EDIT*

The crux of my argument on fire safety is that if you increase the likelihood of your vehicle having an accident and increase how big that accident will be, you should also increase the safety equipment in place to avoid/mitigate said accident.
 
Last edited:
Hold on...does this mean any car manufacturer is now liable if someone through their own fault dies in one of their cars if a system available elsewhere could have saved them?
If someone dies by hitting a wall at 140mph could their family sue because if that car had a 1l engine it couldn't have done 140mph?

Only if the judge rules in favour of the daughter, yes. I assume there'll be a higher court to decide further (not too familiar with American court system). I wouldn't hold my breath though.
 
Only if the judge rules in favour of the daughter, yes. I assume there'll be a higher court to decide further (not too familiar with American court system). I wouldn't hold my breath though.

As I said before, the was a previous case where a widow sued Porsche (and others) after a CGT her husband was a passenger in lost control and crashed. She was awarded damages against all parties named. The verdict against Porsche was due to the lack of traction control which would have negated the accident and in the courts eyes should have been a feature of the car.
 
It's a track/race orientated car that's road legal, the fact it was being operated on the road and faster than the law allowed is irrelevant.

The fact that the driver lost control is not in dispute, the reason will never be known, given that it could go from 50-90 in <2 seconds and is incapable of driving over a can without spinning the are literally thousands of possible causes.

What is in dispute is that the vehicle was lacking safety equipment which would have either prevented the accident or made it non-fatal. IMO road going race cars of this performance and with the ability to have such a spectacular accident should have fire suppression, especially if they are so easy to lose control of that professional drivers refer to it as "scary" and "dangerous".

If we're going to talk about what manufacturers of such cars can do to make them safer then why not go to the root cause and simply prevent them from selling their vehicles to morons that break road traffic laws? You wanna buy our car? You wanna drive fast? Prove you can handle it! And take it to a track! You can afford the car, you can afford lessons and restrict your kicks to the racecourse.

IMO if something bad happens while you're breaking the law then tough; it's your own fault. A road legal car does not need fire suppression systems. I mean, omg! No one on the road should be driving in such a way as to place themselves in a situation where they would need it!

All cars can catch fire; they don't have to be super/hyper/road-legal race cars. Why is that Porsche more likely to burst into flames crashing at 90mph, than, say, my fiesta 1.1? Are you saying my Fiesta should have fire suppression? Where do you draw the line?

It's not the cars fault, or even the manufacturers - it's solely the fault of the numpty behind the wheel.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom