Quote:
fpb said:
Why was the Ferrari driver determined to be only 2% at fault? Since CA apparently is a pure comparative negligence state how is the vehicle that is the proximate and cause in fact only apportioned 2% the blame? Maybe I didn't read it carefully enough but it appears the Ferrari driver got off VERY easy.



The percentage is not representative of fault. The Ferrari driver had rather low limits on his policy which was paid. Also, there were other factors which mitigated the exposure for the Ferrari driver.

Tim, thank you for your kind comments.

Crash, Porsche is VERY difficult to deal with in litigation. The arrogance in their marketing carries over to litigation.Their line is, WE HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG AND IT IS PARTCULARLY SO IN THIS CASE. They never pay easily. You drag them fighting, screaming and kicking.