Paul Walker's daughter sues Porsche over father death

Deathjester · 30 Sep 2015 at 08:08

Pawnless Endgame said:
Doing 94 in a country where the speed limit is generally 60 or 70 would be considered as speeding.

Porsche 1 : Daughter 0

Not really, because it's a car which is designed to travel @ 90mph plus.

The fact that the driver was speeding does NOT absolve the manufacturer of failing to provide safety features. Assuming that primary argument is that Paul would have survived long enough for an ambulance to have arrived had the car not burst into flames, then they might have a reasonable case; the speed in this instance is completely irrelevant as the car was stationary at the time.

FloppyPoppy · 30 Sep 2015 at 08:22

Deathjester said:
Not really, because it's a car which is designed to travel @ 90mph plus.

on a track.

ChrisJSY · 30 Sep 2015 at 08:28

Deathjester said:
Not really, because it's a car which is designed to travel @ 90mph plus.

The fact that the driver was speeding does NOT absolve the manufacturer of failing to provide safety features. Assuming that primary argument is that Paul would have survived long enough for an ambulance to have arrived had the car not burst into flames, then they might have a reasonable case; the speed in this instance is completely irrelevant as the car was stationary at the time.

There are many instances where the manufacturer cannot account for, there is no technology or bending of the laws of science that can help here.
If you crash into an object and stop without deflection, like, literally just stop right there you will enter fatal ranges of sudden acceleration (well, semantically deceleration) at about 40-45mph. Doing 80-90 in those circumstances is ridiculous to push onto anyone else's as blame.

90mph is about 120g, accidents over 80g are for the most part as I read, fatal. (sudden stop)

eatcustard · 30 Sep 2015 at 08:28

We all know the kid will win, fat yanks are dim at best and the judge will hammer the Germans a bit more (think VW).

All logic goes out the window in America

Terminal_Boy · 30 Sep 2015 at 08:35

harry5522 said:
on a track.

No. It's a road legal version of a track car.

This one just happened to have old/original tyres and a driver who couldn't control it on the public highway.

I seem to recall that Porsche released a statement to the effect that the car had also been modified and fitted with non-Porsche parts.

ubersonic · 30 Sep 2015 at 08:39

BadMojo said:
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?

Well, if you had read my previous posts you would know, but for reference: The reason Porsche lost the last time they were sued over this is essentially because they had deliberately refrained from fitting safety features to the CGT that it should have had, in order to make it more scary/exciting on the track. IMO if you're going to do that and make your vehicle much more likely to crash than it should have been then you should take steps to improve the chances of the occupants surviving a potential crash.

Your Fiesta doesn't need fire suppression because it's much less likely to crash, much less likely to be involved in a high speed crash, is not considered outright dangerous in wet weather and scary in dry weather by Ford's test drivers, cannot go from 50-90 in <2 seconds (and therefore that cannot be done simply by twitching your foot while sneezing), has much better handling and is worth less than a fire suppression system (which wouldn't increase the price of the CGT all that much).

*EDIT*

NB: In case anyone gets them crossed the are two points I am making that should not be confused. My personal opinion that vehicles of this type should have fire suppression (not something that I'm claiming should affect this specific case/lawsuit), and the fact that the CGT should have had traction control (the thing that cost Porsche the last case and will probably cost them this one).

Terminal_Boy · 30 Sep 2015 at 08:42

Was there a regulatory requirement for that feature to be fitted to certain models of car in California in 2005?

ubersonic · 30 Sep 2015 at 08:53

Terminal_Boy said:
This one just happened to have old/original tyres and a driver who couldn't control it on the public highway.

It had a professional driver who had specialised in Porsche races (mostly GT3 cup championships), a lot of people seem to be assuming this driver failed where others wouldn't have, which is questionable considering his experience and the cars reputation for unpredictability/unstableness (this is a car where everything done needs to be preplanned, swerving to avoid a pothole or McDonalds packaging will usually result in loss of control).

cheesyboy · 30 Sep 2015 at 08:58

Terminal_Boy said:
No. It's a road legal version of a track car.

This one just happened to have old/original tyres and a driver who couldn't control it on the public highway.

I seem to recall that Porsche released a statement to the effect that the car had also been modified and fitted with non-Porsche parts.

The case appears to have been brought on two specific failures of Porsche parts/design, which, it is claimed, caused the death of Walker - the way the seatbelt acted in the impact, and the lack of break-free fittings on the fuel lines.

The cause of the crash is not being questioned, so I don't know why so many people in the thread keep bleating on about it.

Terminal_Boy · 30 Sep 2015 at 08:59

The car would not have crashed if it was being driven on or below the posted speed limit.

A professional driver would the limitations of his/her vehicle and drive accordingly.

Terminal_Boy · 30 Sep 2015 at 09:03

cheesyboy said:
The case appears to have been brought on two specific failures of Porsche parts/design, which, it is claimed, caused the death of Walker - the way the seatbelt acted in the impact, and the lack of break-free fittings on the fuel lines.

The cause of the crash is not being questioned, so I don't know why so many people in the thread keep bleating on about it.

No production car built would have retained structural integrity after being subjected to similar high speed impacts with solid vertical objects.

Deathjester · 30 Sep 2015 at 09:07

ChrisJSY said:
There are many instances where the manufacturer cannot account for, there is no technology or bending of the laws of science that can help here.
If you crash into an object and stop without deflection, like, literally just stop right there you will enter fatal ranges of sudden acceleration (well, semantically deceleration) at about 40-45mph. Doing 80-90 in those circumstances is ridiculous to push onto anyone else's as blame.

90mph is about 120g, accidents over 80g are for the most part as I read, fatal. (sudden stop)

Yes, but had you read my post (which you quoted), you'd realise that I wasn't talking about the crash. The manufacturer SHOULD be able to prevent a fire like that, Porsche lost last time someone sued them over these safety features not being in the car, so there is precedent for this.

cheesyboy said:
The case appears to have been brought on two specific failures of Porsche parts/design, which, it is claimed, caused the death of Walker - the way the seatbelt acted in the impact, and the lack of break-free fittings on the fuel lines.

The cause of the crash is not being questioned, so I don't know why so many people in the thread keep bleating on about it.

Exactly this.

The daughter is not claiming or suing for both Paul and the Driver; since the driver died in the impact.
Paul however died because of the seatbelt and the fire which they are claiming could have been avoided.

cheesyboy · 30 Sep 2015 at 09:12

Terminal_Boy said:
No production car built would have retained structural integrity after being subjected to similar high speed impacts with solid vertical objects.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

The court will, you would think, be introduced to some expert witnesses who can give a more informed analysis.

The case suggests that the seatbelts were poorly designed, with the shoulder points being anchored to a part of the car which moves away from the anchor part of the belt in high impact. Break-free fittings on the fuel lines may have prevented the fire which killed him.

Your opinion may be deemed correct, but writing the case off on guesswork, as you are, is somewhat presumptuous.

jimjamuk · 30 Sep 2015 at 09:29

Really is a pointless argument

I'm sure that car is safe when driven in "normal" conditions. You cant complain that it should be safe at say 30mph above the legal limit because what then, someone will want it safe 40mph then 50mph - it will be never ending

Crash your car into a stationary object at nearly 100mph and you are pretty much a goner.

ubersonic · 30 Sep 2015 at 09:32

Terminal_Boy said:
The car would not have crashed if it was being driven on or below the posted speed limit.

There isn't really any way to know this for sure, and given the vehicle in question it's questionable.

Terminal_Boy said:
A professional driver would the limitations of his/her vehicle and drive accordingly.

Well he obviously didn't lol.

ubersonic · 30 Sep 2015 at 09:45

jimjamuk said:
I'm sure that car is safe when driven in "normal" conditions.

And it's that misconception that causes so many problems with this case, Porsche describe the CGT as having "all the disadvantages of a racecar". The car is road legal but designed for the track, in "normal" conditions it can lose control on a straight road just by clipping a cats eye*, a pot hole, an uneven driving surface or a can (hence why the have been lots of questions raised in the US about whether it was ethical of Porsche to sell such a dangerous vehicle even if it was classified road legal).

*One of the leading theories as to the cause of the Walker accident was the car hitting a cats eye.

bloodiedathame · 30 Sep 2015 at 10:14

ubersonic said:
And it's that misconception that causes so many problems with this case, Porsche describe the CGT as having "all the disadvantages of a racecar". The car is road legal but designed for the track, in "normal" conditions it can lose control on a straight road just by clipping a cats eye*, a pot hole, an uneven driving surface or a can (hence why the have been lots of questions raised in the US about whether it was ethical of Porsche to sell such a dangerous vehicle even if it was classified road legal).

*One of the leading theories as to the cause of the Walker accident was the car hitting a cats eye.

It's not a great argument. Motorcycles can lose control clipping a cats eye or hitting a white line in the wet. It's the responsibility of the driver to limit the danger.

ChrisJSY · 30 Sep 2015 at 10:46

Deathjester said:
Yes, but had you read my post (which you quoted), you'd realise that I wasn't talking about the crash. The manufacturer SHOULD be able to prevent a fire like that, Porsche lost last time someone sued them over these safety features not being in the car, so there is precedent for this.

You said a lot of things, like it being designed to travel at 90 which is pretty open to interpretation and/or actually means nothing, lots of cars can do 90 perfectly fine, so what? Because it can go that fast it should be safe that fast? I don't know what you're trying to say.

Then you say because he was speeding it doesn't absolve the manufacturer.
Well, depending on what happened it could. If you wrap yourself around a lamp post because you messed up then no.

You say speed is irrelevant, but excess speed may have contributed to a breached fuel system and/or death on impact. We'll never know - it's speculation. Coroner reports state that's what likely happened. (the former)

You also have to be doing something very special to crash on that large straight piece of road, or have something major fail to take your car off the road suddenly - witness account shows a display of speed, not much else.

Lastly, if you look at the crash photo you can't blame the manufacturer for a fuel leak, I'm sorry but just look how far that tree penetrated the vehicle.

ubersonic · 30 Sep 2015 at 10:57

ChrisJSY said:
You also have to be doing something very special to crash on that large straight piece of road, or have something major fail to take your car off the road suddenly

/sigh

The car is road legal but designed for the track, in "normal" conditions it can lose control on a straight road just by clipping a cats eye*, a pot hole, an uneven driving surface or a can (hence why the have been lots of questions raised in the US about whether it was ethical of Porsche to sell such a dangerous vehicle even if it was classified road legal).

*One of the leading theories as to the cause of the Walker accident was the car hitting a cats eye.

ChrisJSY · 30 Sep 2015 at 19:16

ubersonic said:
/sigh

What? that's exactly what I said.
Doing something special on that road.

Like going 90, trying to drift or leaving 11's on nine year old tyres.