Porsche sued over actor death crash
Porsche sued over actor death crash
Author
Discussion

reedman

Original Poster:

588 posts

223 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
The widow of the man who was driving a Porsche sports car that crashed and killed Fast & Furious actor Paul Walker is suing the car maker.

The widow of the man who was driving a Porsche sports car that crashed and killed Fast & Furious actor Paul Walker is suing the car maker.

She is claiming that design flaws caused both men to die in the crash in November.

The wrongful death lawsuit by Kristine Rodas says her husband was driving at 55mph - not at unsafe speeds as law enforcement investigators decided - before it crashed last year.

Roger Rodas was driving a 2005 Porsche Carrera GT capable of speeds more than 200mph, but his wife's lawsuit says the vehicle lacked a proper crash cage and safety features in the petrol tank that would have saved both men's lives.

The lawsuit also contends that a failure in the car's suspension system forced it to career out of control and strike three trees while driving down a street in Santa Clarita, California.

"The Carrera GT was unsafe for its intended use by reason of defects in its manufacture, design, testing, component and constituents, so that it would not safely serve its purpose," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages from Porsche Cars North America, which did not immediately comment.

Kristine Rodas' lawyer, Mark Geragos, said he hired the most senior experts in the country to evaluate the wreckage and crash.

The results, he said, were an unbiased look at the accident that refutes an official investigation that decided the sports car was speeding at up to 94mph when it crashed.

The results of an investigation by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and California Highway Patrol were released in March and concluded that it was unsafe speed and not mechanical problems that caused the crash.

That investigation was aided by engineers from Porsche, who evaluated the wreckage of the rare car.

The differing opinions on the crash will probably be a part of any trial over the lawsuit, which could take years to resolve.

Roger Rodas was trained as a race car driver, according to his wife's lawsuit. He left behind two young children on his death.

Walker, the star of the Fast & Furious film franchise, co-owned a car racing team with Mr Rodas named Always Evolving.

Walker's death occurred on a break in the filming of Fast & Furious 7, and the actor's two brothers are helping complete action scenes in the film.

The film's release has been delayed until April 2015.

Sandy59

2,733 posts

240 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
That was just a matter of time I guess.

nxi20

786 posts

234 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
Surprised she didn't also sue Michelin for allowing their tyres to go rock hard after 9 years (iirc, that was also a factor); the words "chance", "snowball's" & "hell" come to mind nuts

zeb

3,292 posts

247 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
I used to say 'only in america'

not anymore....they imported this here too.....

Jim1556

1,838 posts

185 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
So the official investigation says 94mph, carried out by experienced accident investigators along with Porsche.

She 'says' they were doing 55mph, yet they bounced off 3 trees...?

Tragic as it was, I know who my money's on.

Big E 118

2,468 posts

198 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
Unfortunately it's not a case of who can prove what.

This is purely PR, if Porsche NA feel they are getting enough bad PR because of this they will just settle out of court.

They will also have to weigh up the risks of going to court, what would happen if they were found negligent, how much would that cost in this case and would every family who had a loved one killed in a Porsche then have a precident to sue?

Sometimes it's easier just to pay up.


agtlaw

7,394 posts

235 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
Big E 118 said:
Unfortunately it's not a case of who can prove what.

This is purely PR, if Porsche NA feel they are getting enough bad PR because of this they will just settle out of court.

They will also have to weigh up the risks of going to court, what would happen if they were found negligent, how much would that cost in this case and would every family who had a loved one killed in a Porsche then have a precident to sue?

Sometimes it's easier just to pay up.
It cost Porsche $360,000 + legal costs in 2007 - after a CGT fatality on a trackday. Claimant argued no PSM was causative of the crash.

Penguinracer

1,765 posts

235 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
Civil action jury trial in California against a large foreign-owned corporation - anything could happen - Porsche should settle.

The media will plunder their archives for footage of the "Unintended Acceleration" suit against Audi in 1984. That action saw sales collapse from 74,000 units in '84 to 12,000 by '91 - all exacerbated by Piech's hamfisted handling of the siutation.

Given the six fatalities & 700 accidents perhaps saying "We must teach Americans how to drive" wasn't a particularly commercially astute move from Piech. You can call it cultural difference or German arrogance - it doesn't matter - it's how the jury sees it that counts.

No doubt Media Training for corporate execs did very well in the wake of the Audi USA fiasco. Now every manufacturer issues a general recall if so much as a slipping floor mat fouls the pedals!

edc

9,636 posts

280 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
There are hundreds of deaths from cars every year. Without sounding crass why is this much if any different? Do all those death involve relatives suing the car maker?

Big E 118

2,468 posts

198 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
edc said:
There are hundreds of deaths from cars every year. Without sounding crass why is this much if any different? Do all those death involve relatives suing the car maker?
I'd say the potential earnings of the deceased (and in turn the size of the settlement) would encourage the no win no fee lawyers to take this one on.

pork911

7,365 posts

212 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
Jim1556 said:
So the official investigation says 94mph, carried out by experienced accident investigators along with Porsche.

She 'says' they were doing 55mph, yet they bounced off 3 trees...?

Tragic as it was, I know who my money's on.
Good of porsche to help out

JJWhitey99

8 posts

148 months

Wednesday 14th May 2014
quotequote all
It was a tragic story but like some people have mentioned the official investigation says the car was travelling at 94mph. I feel sorry for the driver's wife but how you can prove they were driving at 55mph I have no clue

anonymous-user

83 months

Thursday 15th May 2014
quotequote all
55? The wreckage looked more like 155!

Moog72

1,600 posts

206 months

Thursday 15th May 2014
quotequote all
agtlaw said:
It cost Porsche $360,000 + legal costs in 2007 - after a CGT fatality on a trackday. Claimant argued no PSM was causative of the crash.
This frankly baffles me. Presumably the person driving knew what they were doing, knew what car they were in (hard not to) and understood what it did and did not have fitted. They then drove beyond the limit of what they were capable of and the car crashed. To then "blame" that on the car manufacturer because it didn't have some nannying electronics fitted is both bizarre and ridiculous IMO. Besides, it's widely accepted that in order to get the best out of any performance car on track you need to turn off the PSM in any case to stop you ruining the ceramic brakes.

PSM or lack thereof wasn't the cause - the organic thing behind the wheel driving beyond their limits was surely??!

monthefish

20,467 posts

260 months

Thursday 15th May 2014
quotequote all
fblm said:
55? The wreckage looked more like 155!
previous reports said:
The Porsche carrying Fast & Furious star Paul Walker was traveling approximately 90 mph when it lost control on a suburban street and crashed, killing the actor and his friend.....
...
The sports car slammed into a light pole which had a speed limit sign of 45 mph...
Investigators concluded that unsafe driving, not mechanical problems, caused the crash....

.... Investigators calculated that Rodas was driving between 81 mph and 94 mph when his 2005 Porsche Carrera GT began to drift as it lost control after coming out of a curve....

selym

9,581 posts

200 months

Thursday 15th May 2014
quotequote all
Isn't this like suing Sir Walter Raleigh's estate for damages falling out of your parents smoking 40 a day then dying from lung cancer?

FurtiveFreddy

8,577 posts

266 months

Thursday 15th May 2014
quotequote all
More often than not these days, cases like this come about as a result of lawyers seeing a way they can make some money from a tragedy and then convincing the bereaved it's what they should do.

Who wins in the end? I think we know the answer.

anonymous-user

83 months

Thursday 15th May 2014
quotequote all

thegoose

8,077 posts

239 months

Thursday 15th May 2014
quotequote all
Moog72 said:
agtlaw said:
It cost Porsche $360,000 + legal costs in 2007 - after a CGT fatality on a trackday. Claimant argued no PSM was causative of the crash.
This frankly baffles me. Presumably the person driving knew what they were doing, knew what car they were in (hard not to) and understood what it did and did not have fitted. They then drove beyond the limit of what they were capable of and the car crashed. To then "blame" that on the car manufacturer because it didn't have some nannying electronics fitted is both bizarre and ridiculous IMO. Besides, it's widely accepted that in order to get the best out of any performance car on track you need to turn off the PSM in any case to stop you ruining the ceramic brakes.

PSM or lack thereof wasn't the cause - the organic thing behind the wheel driving beyond their limits was surely??!
I'm not disagreeing with you but from what I remember the trackday incident lawsuit was more complicated because the barriers had just been moved (to facilitate a bigger infield karting track I think), which made the consequences of the loss of control far worse than if they'd been where they were designed to be/usually were - maybe the claimant lawyers decided they may as well include Porsche in their lawsuit too?