Quote:
Originally posted by MRM
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'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.