BretLuter wrote:
...but some of those claims are a bit of a stretch.
Not that I agree that the claims should be a basis for a lawsuit, but from a factual point of view, which of the claims sound to be a stretch?
• Keaton 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.
Sounds reasonable. Question is at what point should you be letting your passenger in on issues with the car? "Brakes don't work. Thought you should know" is an obvious one. Where is the line?
• 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.
Sounds plausable. Would moving the barriers back changed things? Maybe not.
• 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.
Some of this sounds like a stretch. But how do you quantify the general theme that they were operating an unsafe event? What is the benchmark for this? It should be clear that risk is involved in events like this. When is the risk excessive or the organizers creating or allowing excessive or preventable risk?
• Ferrari driver - Not paying attention to the flagman, entering the track improperly, driving too slowly, and moving directly into the path of the Porsche.
From all accounts, this sounds like what happened.
• 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.
1. Not Porsches fault on the assumption that if the owner knew something was not right, he should have had the car fixed.
2. Design defect? No. Hard to control at the limit? Maybe it is, but that is not a defect.
3. Hard to drive at the limit? That can apply to most cars. Problem is that the limit is so much higher in these types of cars. Which is not a defect in the car.
My prediction is that it is going to be harder and harder to buy high performance cars without the manufacture trying to offer up instruction to cover themselves.
_________________
Richard Casto
1972 Porsche 914
2013 Honda Fit Sport
2015 Honda Fit EX
http://motorsport.zyyz.comMoney can't buy happiness, but somehow it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Kia.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
It may only be in the form of higher costs due to insurance, but that's a problem in itself.
