remember the CGT that crashed and killed 2?

[nicholas421]

the passenger's wife found herself a hungry lawyer:

THE CLAIMS

The lawsuit asserts a number of claims against several defendants. The more significant are:

• Keaton (cgt driver) Estate - Failure to inform Rudl that he had been having handling problems with the Porsche, and that he had a recent incident where he lost control of the car.
• Racetrack owners and operators - Maintaining an unsafe racetrack as a result of inadequate maintenance, signage, and safety controls, and not moving back the concrete barriers after creating the children's play area.
• Ferrari Owners Club and the flagman - Negligently operating the track day by sending the Ferrari onto the track at the wrong time, violating their own rules by allowing passengers in the cars, failing to disclose Keaton's dangerous driving propensities, and allowing the track day to occur without moving the concrete barriers back to where they belonged.
• Ferrari driver - Not paying attention to the flagman, entering the track improperly, driving too slowly, and moving directly into the path of the Porsche.
• Porsche - Product liability for selling an unsafe car. This falls into three levels of defect.
1. There was some mechanical problem with this particular car that made it handle badly.
2. There are design defects with the Carrera GT that make it a poor-handling car, mainly tail-happy.
3. Third: The Carrera GT is too difficult a car to handle at high speeds for the average driver without instruction.

full story here:
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/jun2006/bw20060608_466074.htm

 

[scorp965]

It's sad that she is suing the estate of the driver, but this has been covered in the past here on prime, and the actual suit is from the end of last year - the lawyer who is representing her is the one that sued porsche some time ago over their selling of the "unsafe" 930 turbo.

 

[Understudy]

It's sad that she is suing the estate of the driver, but this has been covered in the past here on prime

Yep, here's the other link: http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71474

 

[zahntech]

Have you ever driven a 930 turbo??....it is a freeky car to drive..the turbo comes in hard and the thing feals like you have an afterburner..so if you are not very familar with how the 911 platform handles it is a scary ride.

The car I worked on/drove was a 79 wich is suposedly the most frighteningly tail happy 901/911 body car ever built.

 

[scorp965]

Have you ever driven a 930 turbo??....it is a freeky car to drive..the turbo comes in hard and the thing feals like you have an afterburner..so if you are not very familar with how the 911 platform handles it is a scary ride.

The car I worked on/drove was a 79 wich is suposedly the most frighteningly tail happy 901/911 body car ever built.

I owned a 930 turbo :wink:

If you're not familiar with a 911 there is no reason to buy a turbo, these are not entry level vehicles intended for a novice driver. In this above situation, with the CGT, these people were at a track day - you take certain risks, and usually sign several waivers, when you go to such an event.

 

[NSXDreamer2]

I wished the widow and the lawyer will be burning in hell.

We shall see increasing track fees, stricter rules ie no passengers, no timing device, probably no camera due to the stricter insurance policies.

 

[BioBanker]

I wished the widow and the lawyer will be burning in hell.

That is a really well thought out response.

Personally, I dont begin to know what I, or my wife, would do under a similar circumstance. Plus, although I know *a bit* about what events unfolded to cause such a trajedy, I do not pretend to know what happened which means that I do not know if there is cause or not.

Besides, that is what *your* court system is for, isnt it?

 

[flaminio]

That is a really well thought out response.

Personally, I dont begin to know what I, or my wife, would do under a similar circumstance.

If it were I, I would hope that after a respectable period of grieving she would get on with her life.

The last thing I would want is for my widow to use my demise as a payday.

 

[Ko-nsx]

That fiasco is bad as smokers claiming nobody informed them of the risk of smoking.

 

[queenlives]

I wished the widow and the lawyer will be burning in hell.

i've never filed a lawsuit but i wouldn't hesitate for a second if i felt it were justified. my experience is the definition of "justified" depends where one is sitting when the sh*t hits the fan.

hopefully, we'll never have to read what your survivors would do should you be injured or killed in such circumstances.

me? i hope justice is served in this case and trust that it will be.

 

[ANYTIME]

I owned a 930 turbo :wink:

If you're not familiar with a 911 there is no reason to buy a turbo, these are not entry level vehicles intended for a novice driver. In this above situation, with the CGT, these people were at a track day - you take certain risks, and usually sign several waivers, when you go to such an event.

No amount of waivers you sign allows you to sign your life away.

 

[Da Hapa]

I wished the widow and the lawyer will be burning in hell.

We shall see increasing track fees, stricter rules ie no passengers, no timing device, probably no camera due to the stricter insurance policies.

That's a bit harsh. She is afterall, still grieving at the loss of a husband.

While I feel the suit has absolutely no merit and I hope it is tossed from court... wishing that someone burns in hell is uncalled for.

 

[fifrules]

I don't believe this is what Cory would have wanted.

 

[zahntech]

She prolly never wanted her husband to go to the track in the first place...so now she is just acting out her bitterness twards everybody involved...not too suprising actually.

 

[queenlives]

She prolly never wanted her husband to go to the track in the first place...so now she is just acting out her bitterness twards everybody involved...not too suprising actually.

sadly, this is probably on the mark. if this is the case, imagine the issues she's dealing with - husband goes to do a high risk sport against her wishes and this happens.

 

[NSXDreamer2]

and please, someone explains to me what does it have to do with law suits and the money involved? (reward, payday comes to mind) I probably didn't read it right, is that a civil case, or criminal??

 

[BioBanker]

heh?

criminal case?

Its a civil case as evidenced by the widow making the charges and not the crown, and the damages being compensatory and not time in the slammer.

Anyways, yes, he went to the track. Yes, shit happens on the track. Signing wavers does not allow gross negligence a get out of free card. Was there neglegence? I have no idea, the courts will decide.

Remember folks, the driver of the Fcar was waved onto the track at a time that suggests that the flagger may have been neglegent.

Should this suit be heard? I dont know the answer to that either, but it is the widow's right to raise it isnt it?

Is that what you guys are saying? That she shouldnt have the right to raise this?

 

[Understudy]

Remember folks, the driver of the Fcar was waved onto the track at a time that suggests that the flagger may have been neglegent.

From all accounts that I've read from people privvy to the situation is that the flagger acted appropriately when he initially waved on the Ferrari. However, the Ferrari didn't react immediately and quickly as he should have when entering a hot track. Apparently the flagger tried to then stop the Ferrari after seeing the delay, but wasn't noticed/heeded at that point. As you say, the exact details and fault (if any) can be decided if the case goes to the courts, but there is another side to the story than what is claimed in the suit.

Should this suit be heard? I dont know the answer to that either, but it is the widow's right to raise it isnt it?

Is that what you guys are saying? That she shouldnt have the right to raise this?

I know the problem I have with it, and many others may too I would imagine, is the scope of the suit/allegations. It screams of trying to cash in/profit from such a tragedy. It looks as if she's suing all of these people hoping to get at least one or two of them found at fault and earn some compensation.

I mean it's somewhat ridiculous that she's attacking all of these people: Ben Keaton's estate, Porsche (think $$$), the flagman (seriously?), the Ferrari driver. I mean even IF either of these last two made a mistake, that's unfortunately just one of those things that you assume the risk of when participating in an HPDE. She would have been better suited to focus her attention on what is at least an arguable case against the track with their barrier system not being restored to its original shape prior to the HPDE.

Of course she has the right to file this suit, but what is wrong IMO is the breadth of her suit, which really looks like she's trying to profit from an unfortunate instance.

 

[Ponyboy]

I think the breadth of the suit is a little far fetched as well but I also think it's more of a case of legal due diligence in that every entity potentially responsible is listed. The courts will iron out which case, or all of them, are valid in a criminal and civil court.

For example, I don't see any criminal negligence but if it can be successfully argued and won then a civil case is that much more easy to win.

 

[W]

... I also think it's more of a case of legal due diligence in that every entity potentially responsible is listed ...

Agreed.