it's not just cars. In California a popular downhill bike park was closed because a person was injured during a race! So now he can't race on the course because of his injuries, and nobody else can ride on it because the legal fees basically closed the park. It's a damn shame that people take a risk and then everyone pays for it.

Clearly you do not know very much about what happened that day or about Keaton, the CGT he was driving, the type of event he was in. Again there is a discussion on the CGT rennlist forum that is somewhat informative. I suggest you read it before making these type of statements.

The first axiom for an extremely good handling is that a car has the best handling ability when it is setup just a bit past neutral where it is a bit unstable. With the careful addition of a lack-of-knowledge (and brakes) it can suddenly shift to very unstable.

Learning to drive a loose car at 150 miles an hour isn't something you do in a weekend training course or even a few months of concerted practice. It is something you sneak up on after endless hours of practice. Most serious enthusiasts refuse to go there because they refuse to entertain "the bumps along the way"... But!... learning this is the only way to get near the limit at high speeds.

Any halfway 'performance' oriented car that can reach these kind of speeds will come unstuck if you lift when the car isn't going straight and there isn't anything you can do about it because there is no way that you can look at someone and tell if they have the skills to deal with it. The idea that we would allow the legal profession to force mediocrity on use should be enough to get us marching in the streets with our pitchforks and torches.

At the root of this, I take great exception to the notion that every little microbe of 'unsafe' must be cleansed from our world because it is a stupid lie,
because . . .
LIFE HAS A 100% MORTALITY RATE!
Get over it.

Most everything that is wonderful in this world involves risk. Very often it is great risk that is required for the truly exceptional things. We choose what risks we take and should settle for the consequences.

I have a right to go out and do something that is likely to injure myself. I don't have a right to try to extract a pound of flesh from the universe if I screw up and discover the full extent of the risk.

---

The only defendant in this lawsuit that makes any sense is the driver of the Ferrari that was leaving the pits. When your actions are dangerously oblivious to the surrounding danger and that hurts someone then that is wrong.

I don't believe that means that he should pay for pain and suffering because the universe made sure that we would feel pain and suffering and never said that we would be paid for it. It is also unreasonable that he should pay for Mrs. Cory's life. Sorry but bad things happen in life and there isn't enough money in the world to make it all go away.

(so there)

It's all about personal responsibility. If you drive a car that you know/suspect isn't working right then you need to either be prepared to pay the consequences or be really, really careful until you figure out what the problem is. There may have been extenuating circumstances, but I still think that this is a lot to do with money.

Didn't this exact same thing happen with 930's years ago? Did it make any more sense there.

Steve I agree with you. It would be stupid and reckless to do so.
But this is not the case here. Ben Keaton did not take the car out doing 160pmh knowing that there was something wrong with it.

I think it is one of those internet legends. And if you read the article in the link it's Mrs Rudl's attorney's version of the fact...
Don't you think he would spin it that way?
We do not know all the facts...

The person I feel for is the flagman.

If he wasn't a volunteer he was definitely not highly paid and I'm sure he tried to do the right thing.

Judging the speed of a car at 175mph an balancing that against another eager driver in a fast car ready to exit the pits can be tricky. I could see myself making the same mistake.

If you are out there flagman hang in there and thanks for giving it your best.

Was he (the flagger) an SCCA flagger or someone with the Ferrari club, or maybe an employee of the track?

As long as we have greedy pond-scum people in this world, we will have too many personal injury and civil lawyers.

It is easy to blame the lawyers for the screwed up system we have (and I do, believe me I do) but the low-lifes who think it is their personal "lottery" only perpetuate the screwed up system.
Not to mention the clue-less and brain-less people who sit in the juries and award money like it was candy. How do people this stupid make it to adulthood without making the darwin list? There should be a law against people like that reproducing.
maybe the driver of the CGT had a hot cup of coffee in his lap and he crashed because it was too hot. that should be worth $10 mil or so.


I have nothing but contempt for the widow who has brought this suit. Shame on her and her attorney.
We need higher morals, not more lawsuits.

Many if not most of the posts above are people spewing based on this incident and don't really relate to this particular incident much.

1. The author of the article, John Draneas, was President of the Oregon PCA club and is still a big impetus in it. He is also an attorney I think. He did a good job on the article. Read it.

2. The lawyer suing owns Porsches and DEs or races them.

3. No one knows what the widow plans to do with any proceeds or what her motivation is. She may well just want to make the racing/DE events safer.

4. In law suits of this type (torts) the common approach is exactly the same as that of the 82nd Airborne -- "Sue (or kill) them all and let the Judge (or God) sort it out"

5. Remember this is just a filing of a suit, not a decision. There are lots of events, and time before any decision is made. Most of these things settle long before much happens in the litigation.

6. "inquest" - this is something the government does in a criminal case. it won't happen here. The govt. will leave it to the civil justice system.

7. The only way the widow, etc. can find out all the facts is by filing a suit. Private parties or companies can't just order docuemnts or question people - only a criminal prosecutor (or the rare agency like the SEC or EPA can do that an only under certain conditons). So if she wants to get to the bottom of the her husband's death, this is the only way.

8. This does not apply to this specific event since the dead person was rich, but the laws in the US are made for most people so the laws operate for the rich also. That is, that the only way in the US for most people to get medical care paid or in some cases even get money for a funeral is to file a lawsuit for wrongful death or negligence. These are rarely filed unless there is an insurance co. on the other end. The ins. co. will not pay usually unless there is a suit against them - simpel economics. Other countries in the devloped world have universal helath care and other means to take care of people who are injured. The US does not.

Some of you should be ashamed for what you've said about a bereaved widow.

3. Somehow, I doubt that. 7. He died in a fast car at a fast speed. do we need a full inquisition for that?
Ashamed? Not me.

Me too.

Same lawyer. Read the article referrenced.

Ashamed? Not me.
I did read the article. I despise the widow and the lawyer for what I consider to be a lack of character and morals.

All this is going to do is hurt alot of regular people who shouldn't be hurt, net the lawyer and the widow money they don't deserve, make automobile manufacturers more reluctant to make high performance cars, and make it more expensive and dificult to take our cars on the track.

I am actually shocked that some of you people can judge someone else by reading 2 paragraphs on a internet BBS.

Don't you think that if something is/was wrong it should be rectified?
If they find nothing went wrong so be it. It will be classified as an accident where a series of events lined up in a way that cause the death of 2 people.

I can't comprehend how you do not have an interest in getting the facts straight and finding out what happened. And the only way to do it is in a civil court.
Please re-read randy's point 7. This is our society works.

Mostly the insurance companies will be doling out the large sums. You can't sue the insurance company directly that insure the person(s) that may had attribute to this tragedy, you can only sue the people(s) that may have caused this tragedy, ie the track venue, the Ferrari Club, Mr. Keaton Estate, Porsche, etc.

I saw a bit on the news the other night about one state talking about outlawing "tuning" because some 18 yr old couple got themselves killed trying to do the "Fast and Furious" thing. Yet another example of the gummint telling us that we are too stupid in general to decide what to do with our lives.

Please consider my background when you evaluate the credibility of my opinion. Other than my misspent youth as a prosecutor, I have spent my career as a defense attorney. Most of those years doing insurance defense. In fact, I am certified as a civil trial specialist by the National Board of Trial Advocacy on the basis of my insurance defense practice. I currently do comercial and construction litigation in defense of large companies who are household names. Unfortunately, none of them are Porsche. I'd give them a discount, though.

In my opinion the wife should sue. Her husband may have accepted the risks inherent in riding in a CGT on a track; he did not accept the risk of a careless flag man or an innatentive co-driver who failed to take the track when it was safe to do so and then darted in out of panic after freezing at the wheel. That is what he claims happened. If it is, the guy who sent the Ferrari onto the track and the Ferrari driver who froze and then darted in should be held accountable because they made a mistake that caused an innocent person to die. If it is not, then the insurance will cover the costs of defense and the truth will vindicate them. Well, it would if they were smart enough to retain me to defend them, but I'm not licensed in California.

Personal responsibility means that the person who caused the accident and resulting deaths should pay for the damage he or they caused.

The lawyer who filed the suit is not ambulance chasing. He has a legal obligation to his client. He is doing what is called pleading in the alternative. He argues that the track, flag man and other driver are at fault. But if it turns out they're not, he argues that it must have been a defect in the car. He makes this arguement because if he doesn't name all of the potential parties in the first suit papers, he could lose the right to sue them at all.

Final thought: there are always a lot more facts that are relevant to the legal analysis than make it into the press. Don't be too harsh on any party to a lawsuit unless you have personal knowledge of the facts underlying the claim.

I wonder if drivers life insurance company will deny the enhanced benefits for 'accidental death" because of the insured putting himself in harm's way? I am a recovering lawyer who practiced on both sides of the aisle and as a rule, Plaintiffs PI lawyers are the bottom feeders that Joe Public thinks they are. Most of the big time Plaintiff's lawyers i have been around made me want to shower after meeting them. They have little, if any interest in the poor schmoes they represent. Most of them make money by churning their smaller cases and settling them for much less than they would be worth IF the case was actually as sound as the lawyers say they are. That is why Allstate started not settling cases and taking all of them to trial in Florida. It actually reduced the amount they were paying out.

By the way, I usually hate it when I agree with Randy Webb's legal analysis. But in this case he's 8 for 8 and right on point.

Sorry, Randy, I'm not sure if I just complimented you or insulted you. I hope you take it well, which it was meant to be

Yes, she can go after the insurance companies of the ferrari club, the track, the guy who was volunteering as a flagman, the owner of the CGT and the guy who was leaving the pits.
My point was that although tragic, the money she will get from these insurance companies is not justified or warranted.
Who will end up paying in the long run? Everyone who needs insurance. The cost of frivilous and outrageous court-awarded judgements is passed onto all of us. Ever wonder how much your car or homeowner's insurance would cost if there were no more personal injury lawyers? It would probably cost 1/10th of what it is now or less.
Same with medical insurance. Don't tell me that the cost of health care isn't driven sky high because of malpractice lawsuits, I know better.
Once in a while a lawsuit is justified and warranted, but it is a small percentage.

This guy jumped in a car thsat was headed out on the track during a competition event. It was a very fast car. Did he tell the driver to just put-put around at 30 mph? i don't think so. The car crashed and he lost his life. Which one of those plaitiffs twisted his arm and forced him to be a passenger? Since when was a track event supposed to be totally without risk?

It isn't the 15 freeway. When we go out and sign up to participate in a DE, a time trial, or even an AX we ascept a certain risk. If we screw up are we supposed to blame everyone within a miles of our screw up?
I was taught that it was my responsibilty to control the car in a way that I can react to the unexpected. Obviously that was wrong. It isn't my responsibilty, it is up to all the insurance companies.

In the past I have volunteered to show up and work at events for the local PCA region even though I wasn't driving. I just wanted to be a good guy and help out.
I can tell you for sure that I don't think I will volunteer to work a driving event again and I know I will not be working as an instructor again.
Suppose someone balls up their car because they went into a corner too hot and since our society does not allow personal responsibilty or accountability, the corner worker or the instructor will be the obvious one to blame even though they were just easy targets for a lawyer. I will not be that corner worker or instructor.

This same lawyer went after Porsche for building and selling the 930, because SOME PEOPLE don't have the common sense to keep from flooring it and going too fast or goig into a corner too fast and then lifting. He won the case.
Based on that logic, all car manufacturers should make cars that only have enough horsepower that even the dumbest or least skilled potential driver can operate it without screwing up. I figure that is about 15 mph. Think of the gas mileage we will get when the only car that is legal has a maximum of 5 hp.
High performance cars are obviously not safe enough to be operated by a small percentage of our population so they shouild all be outlawed. send em all to the crusher!
Either that or drive the insurance costs up so high that even the rich guys can't afford them.

I haven't read/know the whole story so I won't comment on the motives here. However, unless ALL CGTs are having the same exact problem, then it doesn't seem that it's a design problem. Is Ferrari being sued because the Enzo is also unforgiving at it's limit? Is the CGT too much for the average Joe?, possibly. Everyone here knows you can't drive a 911 as you would any other car, particularly in turns. Does this mean there is a "design flaw" and we all should sue Porsche for losing it in a turn? Hell why don't we all sue all car manufacture's for making cars that go faster than a the posted speed limits. Any one of our Porsches can go around turns at speeds that would flip over the average sedan, trying the same manuver. Does that mean there is a design flaw with sedans, No.
This whole situation is a big gray area. At what point is a car "too much" for the average Joe/Jane? What cars should require special driver's education? Personally if there was something that I suspected was wrong with my car, I certainly would not be taking it out on the track going triple digit speeds.

I've been out of the law biz for so long, i can't remeber this, if I ever knew it to begin with. Would the owner of a CGT be afforded the same kind of protection under products liability law as a person who bought a Saturn? I wonder because of the "intended use" of a CGT. Are we going to see a claim that cars like the CGT are 'inherently dangerous" even when they work as designed? I know that the Plaintiff's bar almost destroyed the light aircraft industry in the 70's even though 90%+ of all crashed are caused by pilot errorand most of the rest are caused by maintenence issues. Not sure how these things are handled today.