News: Paul Walker’s Daughter Sues Porsche

DannyITR

DannyITR

Administrator
Staff member
paul-walker-porsche.jpg


Paul Walker’s Daughter Sues Porsche

http://www.montrealracing.com/wp/wp/2015/09/paul-walkers-daughter-sues-porsche/

The daughter of the late actor Paul Walker is suing the German manufacturer for wrongful death. Walker and his business partner died in a crash while driving a Porsche Carrera GT in 2013.

Meadow Walker alleges that defects with the car are to blame for his death claiming the seat belt snapped his torso back thereby breaking his ribs and ended up trapping him in the car after the accident.

The suit also alleges that the Carrera GT should have been equipped with a stability control system but Porsche chose not to include that feature on this particular model despite the car having a history of instability and control issues.

Walker’s attorney, Jeff Milam, told People magazine that, “The Porsche Carrera GT is a dangerous car. It doesn’t belong on the street. And we shouldn’t be without Paul Walker or his friend, Roger Rodas.”


We don’t know how much the lawsuit is asking in damages.
 
Maybe it's a "dangerous" car but they were driving fast. I don't see how there could be a case here
 
Both waren't neebies to cars....

Maybe dangerous for Mr and Ms Average person

Don't think she have a case of dangerous....maybe the seat belt is at wrong position....but its a stretch a far as this law suit.
 
For the electronics thats stupid since you can get some 800kg cars with 400hp ... and no electronics

For the seatbelt, if they can prove it was defective, she can get a few bucks
 
That's plain ridiculous. I loved Paul Walker but I hope she fails miserably.
 
le ptit Jeremie maintenant la fille a Paul Walker...

Si je me fait arreter par la sq a 140 kmh, je peux poursuivre lexus canada parce que les limites au canada c'est 100 et que l'auto n'est pas barré = profit?
 
The lawsuit is ridiculous...it won't bring Paul back. The money isn't an issue for them, so I have to ask "why"?
 
Bmw745lover said:
le ptit Jeremie maintenant la fille a Paul Walker...

Si je me fait arreter par la sq a 140 kmh, je peux poursuivre lexus canada parce que les limites au canada c'est 100 et que l'auto n'est pas barré = profit?
Click to expand...

Tu sais que c'est CERTAIN que ca s'en vient une legislation qui barre les voitures.
 
ils ont pas bruler dans le char suite à l'accident ? à cause que le réservoir d'essence est drolement positionné sur ce modèle là se répend sur les passager en cas d'accident ?

me semble si une voiture asperge ses passager d'essence et que les ceinture de sécurité coince suite à un accident... ya de quoi poursuivre la compagnie ...

inb4 porsche cheat IIHS
 
Toze said:
Maybe it's a "dangerous" car but they were driving fast. I don't see how there could be a case here
Click to expand...

Il y a un précédent... http://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/24/4-5-million-awarded-in-porsche-carrera-gt-case/

While the track event participates signed waivers noting that they were aware of the inherent dangers associated with driving at high speeds on a closed course, those waivers were dependent on who was found to be negligent in the event of an incident. Tracy Rudl, the wife of passenger Corey Rudl, filed a lawsuit claiming gross negligence by many parties associated with the track event. She recently received a settlement of approximately $4.5 million. The contributing parties to the settlement fund were 2% from the merging Ferrari driver, 8% from Porsche, 41% from California Speedway and Ferrari Owner's Club and finally 49% from the Carrera GT driver's estate.
Click to expand...
 
maudite conne

c'est un accident a haute vitesse c'est pas la faute de l'Auto et meme si ce l'etait l'auto avait plus de 10 ans ...
 
j'ai l'impression que c'est plus le fait que la voiture aille pogner en feu qu'elle poursuit pour "engin dangereux".

maintenant, c'est sure que s'il aurait pas fait d'accident, la voiture aurait pas pris en feu...

mais rendu la, qui est responsable de quoi. c'est ca la vrai question.

c'est comme GM avec la volt qui prenais en feu. GM a remedier a ete mis au courant des incidents, identifier le probleme et remedier au probleme.

maintenant, la porche, suposement, il etait au courant du "danger" l'a suposement ignorer et un incident est arriver qui a donner lieu a un feu qui aurai bruler les 2 personnes.
 
FT86RWD said:
j'ai l'impression que c'est plus le fait que la voiture aille pogner en feu qu'elle poursuit pour "engin dangereux".

maintenant, c'est sure que s'il aurait pas fait d'accident, la voiture aurait pas pris en feu...

mais rendu la, qui est responsable de quoi. c'est ca la vrai question.

c'est comme GM avec la volt qui prenais en feu. GM a remedier a ete mis au courant des incidents, identifier le probleme et remedier au probleme.

maintenant, la porche, suposement, il etait au courant du "danger" l'a suposement ignorer et un incident est arriver qui a donner lieu a un feu qui aurai bruler les 2 personnes.
Click to expand...

ca me fait penser à ca dans Fight club:

Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?

Narrator: You wouldn't believe.

Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?

Narrator: A major one.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top