uh-oh...carrera GT lawsuit brewing

[lateapex911]

Man, she's suing everybody!!

I am sure most of it is merely to support the case....

However, the incident occured, (as I always say) as a result of a combination of events. Change just ONE, and the result would be dramatically different.

That said, if the passenger did not ride (illegaly it appears from that story), he'd be alive. If the club: A- controlled pit out, and B, controlled the passenger list at pit out in the CarreraGT, none of this would have occurred.

The track DID create an obviously bad situation with a high risk potential.

But................
the bottom line to me, is, the passenger went for a ride with a guy he didn't know, on a track he DID know, in a car he didn't know.....and with a club that's obviously a bit "casual".

He made a bad decision....thats the single most obvious point, and I think he holds the largest share of responsibility.

[widebody911]

Cash grab, plain and simple.

If you want to limit yourself to 'safe' driving, sit your fat ass on the couch and play Grand Turismo.

[Hugh R]

Wide has it right.

This has nothing to do with personal responsibility, fault, etc. It has everything to do with MONEY. After spending $100s of thousands on both side with "Expert Witnesses", depositions, etc. those being sued will settle. Too bad.

[defcon65]

Let me get this straight: Rich guy buys supercar from famous-name race car company for express purpose of racing it on a track. Car crashes because it was going too fast, the main objective of its intended manufacturing design. Rich guy's well-kept widow sues manufacturer for making fast race cars and event's sponsor for encouraging race cars to drive fast on a race track.

By extention of this logic, I would expect the manufacturers of push-up bras and hot pants to be named in paternity suits.

The only mistakes made by any of the named defendants would probably be the failure to collect defensible liability waivers, with possible exception of the other driver who contributed to the accident.

[Huh]

Shouldn't she be sueing the wife of the driver? It was his fault more than anyone's. He used poor judgement when he was driving a car that was tail happy and chose to go to a track event to sort it out. Then he invites a person he doesn't know (much blame on idiot passenger) and goes for a highspeed joy ride. I think the most of common sense (although common sense is not common) was not being used. I think it should be thrown out of court because the widow of the passenger used poor judgement in marrying a guy who can't use good judgement to be safe. Can we blame anyone else? Maybe me for writing something so ridiculous?

[FenderGuy]

Originally posted by dynevahn
i think thats bull. Especially one in the 80's someone filed a lawsuit against porsche because the 911 turbo was too hard to handle for the drivers. I just dont get it.

Yeah and the lady driving was driving her husbands car and had a couple of drinks.... go figure..

[k9handler]

Originally posted by widebody911
Cash grab, plain and simple.

If you want to limit yourself to 'safe' driving, sit your fat ass on the couch and play Grand Turismo.

you know I have a major blister on my thumb from doing just that...Sony should have thought of that and made a better controller.

[Super_Dave_D]

The drivers estate is listed first on the list of defendants. I see the estate, the track and the Club taking the hit. I know I'll get killed for saying this but if these boys made that much money then the wife should be set up through insurance. I see a pissed off woman who's income (I mean husband) was killed by some dumbass who had issues with his car and another dumbass who sent another car,with a dumbass behind the wheel, right in front of him! Bunch of dumbasses.

[nostatic]

send the attorney email...let him know what you think of him taking the case:

http://www.mcclellanlaw.com/content/view/9/29/

I did

[MRM]

That was a thoughtful and well written article. Most of the concerns expressed above about runaway litigation are valid but not an issue in this case.

As Dave and others point out, this case boils down to: why was the Ferrari entering the track at that time, and did the CGT driver react correctly? The reason all the other theories and defendants are included in the lawsuit is because, with some exceptions, any claim that is not made in the initial pleadings is waived. You can usually amend the pleadings to join parties and add theories, but including it in your original complaint is the only way to make sure.

So good practice has the lawyer pleading all possible theories and joining all possible parties to make sure that he hasn't lost any avenues of recovery as evidence is uncovered during discovery. You know why the lawyer is so diligent in covering all the bases? Because if he doesn't, and the case takes an unexpected turn and one of those theories he didn't pursue turns out to be the cause of the accident, the lawyer will be the one who gets sued next.

So don't worry too much that wild theories are being bandied about. The case will turn on the tragic but relatively simple issue of who had the right of way. Too bad two people died because of the mistakes of others.

[Noney]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!

My blood was boiling reading that article. It's obvious it's all about $$$. What a sad statement on society.

Didn't the CGT have a speedometer?
Didn't the CGT have a brake pedal?
Was there some rule or law stating that the driver HAD to go 140mph?

Those guys were in that situation because of choices they made. Nobody forced them to be out there. I play an electric guitar that will get VERY loud if I choose to turn it up that high (note the word CHOOSE). But I don't, because I value my hearing and don't want to get hurt. Can I sue the amp manufacturer for making a loud amp?!!!!

Lawsuits like this one (and fraud) are the reason we all pay so much for insurance. Our society has become so litigious it's a joke!

Thank you, Nostatic, I'm off to write my letter.....

[DARISC]

I feel empathy for anyone losing a loved one, whatever the fatal circumstances might have been, and respect their decision and right to file a law suit if moved to do so.

Personally, however, if I took my fast toy out to play with others and their fast toys and got killed taking that risk, I DEFINITELY would not want the grief of anyone who might mourn my passing to be increased by their seeing it as "tragic". I'd much rather they regretted my passing from this plane of existance while being able to comfortably say "Hey, we'll miss him - but, he wanted to play, knew the risks, paid his money, took his chances and lost".

[mwalker649]

urgg..... greed=lawyers...lawyers=greed.......we need tort reform.

[nostatic]

here was my take:

Mr. McClelland, It was with great dissapointment that I read of your representation of plaintiffs in the Hudl wrongful death suit. While I know your business is personal injury, I find your naming of Porsche in this suit do be at best desperate, and at worst, despicable. These types of cases are why motorsports are increasingly difficult to participate in here in the states. As an avid amateur competitor (with a track prepped '79 Porsche 911...the classic "tail happy" car), I was horrified to read about the crash when it happened, but now dismayed at the resulting lawsuit. This smacks of greed and little else. This is an example of an high-performance driving accident and to try and drag the manufacturer down into the morass of ambulance chasing is pathetic. The owners knew what they were getting into. And if they didn't, then their stupidity should not be covered by the "lotto lawsuit."

I'm sure you don't really care about what the public, or in this case, an enthusiast thinks, but I really hope you stop to consider the negative impact this will have on the sport rather than the positive financial impact it will have for the plaintiff (in the event she wins) and your firm (which wins either way). I have raced at California Speedway and know the track well. Just 3 weeks ago I sped past the crash site lap after lap. The accident was tragic and clearly the result of human error. But the humans responsible were *not* the engineers at Porsche.

[lateapex911]

Well, I don't respect the woman for filing the claim....it will end up costing a lot of people who had little to do with it a lot of money.

Secondly, the lawyer may be doing his job, but I don't have to respect that either. Morals can take a role in a lawyers decision making process.

Finally, I will be suing the Acme Brick Company, as their bricks are too hard, and I am being damaged by them as I beat my head against the wall over this whole thing.........

[nostatic]

Originally posted by lateapex911


Finally, I will be suing the Acme Brick Company, as their bricks are too hard, and I am being damaged by them as I beat my head against the wall over this whole thing.........

You too? I'm in the process of filing a class action suit against Acme for this. I have retained Dewey, Cheatem and Howe in this action. Please join the suit.

If you don't, I'll sue you for non-compliance and general meanness.

[sammyg2]

Yes, she does have a legal right to sue, but that doesn't make it right morally. It makes her a greedy lowlife trying to cash in IMO.
Shame on her and the lawyer representing her.

[Noney]

Anybody have the wife's email address?

I have a few choice words for her, too.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Noney
Anybody have the wife's email address?

I have a few choice words for her, too.

I don't know that I'd go there. She did lose her husband. And dollars to donuts it is family/friends that have suggested she sue. While that isn't necessarily an excuse, I at least have some empathy for her. The attorney on the other hand....none at all.

[Noney]

Agreed.