LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksFor all we know he could of stuck too much air into the tyres.
![[GSV]Trig is online now](https://forums.hexus.net/images/hex_statusicon/user-online.png)
For all we know he could of stuck too much air into the tyres.
Ah, woops.Originally Posted by badass
Try more than double that
Out of touch with the supercar scene
That may be the case but the blame still shouldn't be with Porsche.
a) The guy was on a race track, an inherrantly dangerous place, of his own accorf
b) By being on a race track and at high speed he knew the risks
What I am saying is that Porsche did design this car to be a monster, however they can't design a car that takes into account every situation it will ever be in. It sounds more to me that the Ferrari should be at fault for pulling slowly onto a track when someone was on a fast lap.
Not only that but would you blame the manufacturer if a tyre/suspension item went if you were racing round a track? I personally wouldn't, by being on a track you are tacking a car to its limits and should expect failures/strange things to happen.
It depends what caused the crash. If the crash occurred because the driver did something, like swerve, that should have been okay, and the car crashed because of a design or manufacturing fault, then of course Porsche (or perhaps someone that worked on the car, if a part that had been changed had been incorrectly fitted, or was the wrong part, etc) are to blame.
If, on the other hand, his manoeuvre was totally outlandish and no reasonable driver in any car could expect anything other than to lose control, then Porsche aren't to blame. The guy in the Ferrari might be, as might be the flag guy that signalled him out, or as might be the operators employing the flag guy if, for instance, either training or operating procedures were inadequate. And that's why it goes to court. The point is that if the two (or more, in this case) parties can't agree, then it's up to a court to decide.
To a point, absolutely. I agree. But only to a point.
When you take part in any sport that carries risk, you accept an element of risk. For instance, if you play rugby, you accept that it is in the nature of a contact sport that there are risks and that you may be injured. You can't sue on the basis of those reasonable and predictable risks. But, that doesn't mean that anything goes. While a fair sporting injury is a risk you take, it does not give your opponents carte blanche to assault you any how they feel like. You can be, and people have been, charged with assault after an incident on the pitch. Similarly, the organisers are expected to take care to fulfil their obligations to ensure safety at sporting events. An example would be the provision of marshals at a road race or life guards at a swimming event.
The same logic applies to race circuits. Yes, they're dangerous places, but there are rules (and laws) about safety standards and operators are required to follow them. So while anyone (and I've done it, and I'd bet a fair few others here have, too) taking part in track events understands and accepts that there are risks, you still have a right to expect that safety precautions are taken. If they aren't, and someone is hurt (or as in this case) killed, as a result of that failure in safety standards, then a liability could well exist and could well prompt a lawsuit.
Nor should they be expected to, nor are the lawyers bringing this case saying they should. But there's a balance between design benefit and design risk. The lawyers claim that the balance is wrong in this case, and that two people died as a result. That at least suggests the possibility of a case to answer. If the court don't agree that the balance is in the wrong place, they'll lose and Porsche will win. And that may be the outcome. Time will tell.
It depends why it went.
If a suspension part was fitted incorrectly, or the wrong part used, or it had a manufacturing defect that caused it to fail when it should not have, then yes, absolutely I'd blame them provided that the use the car was being put to was included in the expected uses of the car. I would not expect, for instance, a bog-standard Fiat Lupo to be designed with high-performance track manoeuvres in mind. But a Carrera GT?
If, on the other hand, whatever caused the failure was because the vehicle was being stressed far beyond any reasonable and anticipated use, then of course the manufacturer would be blameless. It's down to the numpty that chose to take things far too far.
But again, that's for the court to decide. Just because lawyers take a case to court doesn't mean they'll win, or that they're right. But, nor does it mean that Porsche are necessarily in the right. It certainly would not be the first time a car manufacturer has had design defects that killed people, and it wouldn't be the first time that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming before a court before they'd either admit it, or do anything about it.
Last edited by Saracen; 13-02-2007 at 05:09 PM.
For all we know the car could of been dinked on the backend when it was being loaded or unloaded from a trailer bending something and causing the back end to be lighter than it should be hence making it tail happy.
But then again any RWD car with above 200bhp could be called tail happy if you try and drive it with your foot to the floor.
Again maybe this guy was used to driving a Skyline or something similar with elecronic toys to save the driver from himself, gets into the GT and thinking he has more skill than he does causes the car to be "tail happy"...
There are too many what ifs and maybes and other factors for anyone to solve this on an internet chat room...
I agree with all of that, Trig, and the last line sums up precisely why I think it's fair game for a court case.
Two people died, and the decision as to who or what caused it should be evidence-based, which is why taking it to court is appropriate if the parties can't agree.
From what I can understand of the incident, the Ferrari pulling onto the track slower and later than it should have caused the Carrera GT driver to swerve and subsequently crash.
Yes, in a situation where you slam on the brakes and then yank hard on the steering wheel, a mid-engined car is more likely to go into an uncontrollable slide (or tankslapper) than a front engined car, because it has more weight towards the rear of the car, meaning the rear tyres slide harder and less recoverably when the rear is unweighted by braking. That, however is true of any mid engined car, from the Carrera GT/Enzo/Murcielago league right down to the Toyota MR2 that I used to drive. I daresay in that situation a 911 would have been even harder to control.
Assuming that there was no build quality fault with the car (it's a Porsche, so IMO that's a reasonable assumption), then if this case succeeds on the basis that the car's handling is inherently hard to control, then that logically should sound the death knell for any car whose engine is mounted behind the driver. Which would be a shame
Albeit that Rudl's widow has been bereaved, I still think that suing the estate of the man who died in the same accident is in exceptionally poor taste. I very much doubt she's been left penniless, so suing another widow for damages smacks to me of pure unbridled greed.
Last edited by Rave; 14-02-2007 at 01:27 AM.
Agreed. I'd be trying to get over the death of my partner, not thinking of milking money off someone else.
Slamming the breaks in a mid-engined car with rear-wheel drive would cause a lot of instability, especially compared to a front-wheel drive car. But surely this guy, if he is spending so much on supercars, would know this already? Nonetheless, you make valid points. I still put it down to human stupidity.
I woudlnt say so much stupidity, well not on the point of the driver, his wife definately..
Even if you know how to drive in theory and have 10 years NCB and when asked can answer questions about car handling etc doesnt mean when the **** hits the fan that you will do under pressure what you know how to do when asked, two totally different situations..
I would say though that mid engined cars are the most neutral handling due to the fact their is no weight overhanging the front or acting as a pendulum at the rear. I know Dad's boxster is one of the most forgiving cars in terms of recoverability, because there isn't that sudden snap of oversteer.
As trig says, all the theory in teh world isn't worth anything if you freeze behind the wheel when something like that happens..
But without an impartial examination of evidence, we don't know if any problems with handling are due to design defects, a fault with that specific car or just to general handling characteristics and a situation that couldn't be avoided.
And as for suing widows or estates, Keaton had insurance cover provided by State Farm and it seems they've conceded that it covered this event in these circumstances as it wasn't a "race" event but a "driving experience" event.
It also is alleged that Keaton concealed the handling problems from Rudl, and concealed the fact that those alleged handling problems had previously led to an incident in which he'd lost control of the Porsche. And that one of the organisers knew of Keaton's alleged aggressive and reckless driving habits AND ofthe handling problems, and also concealed that from Rudl.
I have no idea of the truth of any of these claims, but IF true, then I'd say Tracy Rudl has every justification in going after Keaton's estate. Bear in mind that she HAS to go after the estate in order to get to the insurance company because she can't go after them directly.
And, it seems to me, that either Keaton was fully or partially to blame, and therefore his insurance company SHOULD be held liable, or he isn't and the case will be thrown out.
Let me give an example of the way this kind of thing works. It's a much more trival example, since it happened to me, but it illustrates the legal principle.
Some years ago, my car was parked, and was hit by a delivery driver for a substantial but local car hire firm. That firm admitted liability and everything was passed to the insurance company. The insurance company then decided to play silly beggars, and instead of just paying up for the damage to my car, and the hire of a similar vehicle in the meantime, decided to delay and prevaricate for months (18 months in the end) before paying out, then to decide they didn't pay for car hire, then when they conceded that, that they weren't paying for the interest I'd lost as they'd delayed repaying me for the car repairs for a year or more.
Eventually, I lost my patience and went to a solicitor. He informed me that I can't take legal action against he insurance company because I'm not a party to the insurance contract. Instead, I had to take action against the car hire company, who had in fact been nothing but cooperative and honest throughout. Yet, if I went legal, it had to be through them.
So, I got the court forms, filled them out and went to see the insurance manager at the car hire firm. He was astonished to see me, as he'd assumed it had all been sorted over a year ago, and was very far from amused when I showed him the ready-completed court forms that I was about the file to sue his firm.
With me sitting in his office, he rang the insurance company, spoke to a senior manager, blew a fuse and threatened to pull their insurance business from the insurance company if this claim was filed and they had to defend what he referred to as "the indefensible".
A settlement cheque for the full amount arrived by bike courier that afternoon.
I didn't want to threaten the car hire firm. Other than the dozy twerp that wasn't watching where he was going, they'd been pleasant to deal with throughout. But to get the insurance company's attention, I had no choice.
Rudl's family have lost a loved one and, by the sound of it, if the allegations are close to true, thorugh negligence on someone's part. And as a very successful entrepreneur, it's also very likely that they've lost several decades worth of earning potential from him, as well asthe personal loss. IF, repeat IF there's negligence, then why should those responsible (or their insurers) not compensate for that loss?
Moreover, if that negligence was on the part of the event organisers or the site owners, then suing them and clobbering them hard will punish them for lapses that allegedly cost two people's lives, and will encourage others not to go after greed at the expense of safety. Bear in mind that the assertion is that the track owners moved the concrete wall reducing the safety margin, in order to provide space for a children's playground. If so, then it's for an independent assessment of whether that move compromised safety standards and if, as alleged, track operating rules were broken in so doing.
My main point is that none of us, from a distance, really know what's going on and/or why lawsuits have been issued. Sometimes, it's just ambulance-chasing, sometimes it's a astrategic move (as in my case above) and sometimes it's because a genuine impasse has been reached and there's a case to answer.
A telling point will be which of the named defendants (and there's 13 I'm aware of) ever actually go to trial. I'd bet that least some of those are dropped before this ever sees a courtroom. Such is standard practice, in naming those you believe to be liable, then dropping them either as settlememts are reached or as investigations show they either have no liabilty that can be demonstrated or no culpability at all.
The crunch will be what, if anything, ever sees the inside of a court. Up to that point, it's just legal posturing. And even then, it depends what the verdict is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote