Close
Feb 8, 2006 12:59:57 PM
you cannot blame the maker for loosing control of a car that YOU are driving at 60 in a 25mph zone in a car you chose to purchase!
Feb 8, 2006 1:20:34 PM
Feb 8, 2006 2:10:27 PM
Quote:
Branimir said:
Since I am attorney at law I will ask you a question-Why are we talking about something that happend such long time ago? USA judicial system is one of the kind(and I like some things about it ...) and this kind of case is probably possible in USA only...
(no offense intended, having a legal degree myself 
)
Feb 8, 2006 2:13:06 PM
Feb 8, 2006 2:23:27 PM
Feb 8, 2006 2:53:09 PM
Quote:
RC said:
The USA = lawyers paradise.
This is funny, people in the US buy weapons which can kill but I doubt there is a warning sticker on them saying: watch out, you could kill somebody with this gun.
And now I stop before I get a serious headache...
Feb 8, 2006 3:00:10 PM
Quote:
RC said:
The USA = lawyers paradise.
morals and ethics would make me reject every case I do not beleve just, no matter how much money I could win, I wouldn't sleep at night otherwise. Call me an [censored] but I could not be able to defend someone I believed guilty or accuse someone innoccent like in this case
Quote:
jandreas said:
With all this talk of lawsuits involving Porsche in the USA and different people commenting on the cases I thought it would interesting for those people (commenting) to know why Porsche lost the first time around.
Hopefully PCNA won't go changing any memos this time around?
Feb 8, 2006 3:39:23 PM
Quote:
Carlos from Spain said:Quote:
RC said:
The USA = lawyers paradise.
Not for me, I'd starve to death as a lawyer there
Feb 8, 2006 4:50:18 PM
Feb 8, 2006 5:25:59 PM
Quote:
RC said:
I can already picture the process of starting a future Porsche car: before you open the door, a warning bell sounds and a voice asks you: "Are you sure you want to enter this high performance car which could kill you?". Then, you have to confirm it by pressing a red button on the remote key control. When you open the door, another buzzing sound comes up and another firm voice reminds you: "Warning, you're going to board a sportscar, a car which can be dangerous to your health and it may even kill you if not used properly. Are you sure you want to sit in this car?" To confirm, you have to take a seat in the driver seat. As soon as you touch the steering wheel, another voice sounds: "Using this steering wheel may kill you. If you still want to use it, push the start button next to it. When you press the red starting button, a warning shows up on the PCM screen: "You're about to start your car. Driving this vehicle can be very dangerous if you're too dumb to learn how to drive it. Are you sure you want to risk your life? Then press the YES button and confirm with your finger print." After pressing the YES button and confirming with your finger print, another message pops up on the PCM screen: "Due to liability issues, each time you're starting/using this car, an email has to be sent to Porsche to confirm that you're aware that you're about to start on a dangerous mission. Please confirm the sending of this email with your fingerprint. (under the finger print field, another writing saying: "I hereby assume full responsibility for my actions driving the car with the registration number XYZ-111 and VIN number ZZZYYYOOOOS79382922 and if I kill my dumb a.., it is my solely fault and Porsche cannot be held liable for my death."). After confirming, an email is sent to Porsche with logged GPS position of the car, name, finger print signature, registration number and so on. Another bell comes on and a voice alerts you to put your seatbelt on and if you don't apply within 30 seconds, the whole starting "procedure" has to be repeated.
After putting on the seatbelt, the engine starts automaticall and another warning bell sounds and a dark serious voice says: "You're about to board a journey to unknown realms with the risk of dying a horrible death in an accident. Are you sure you want to do that? If yes, press the start button again, if no, please remove the seatbelt, the engine will shut off automatically."
Feb 8, 2006 5:56:25 PM
Quote:
nberry said:
First let me make one thing clear. I have spent most of my law career DEFENDING people and companies in personal injuries litigation.
I was not part of the 1980 litigation but I honestly believe most of you would have voted in favor of the Plaintiff given the secretive memo intrOduced at trial.
The CGT litigation has many good points in favor of the Plaintiff which I am not at liberty to discuss. One thing you all must understand is these cars with their huge power are basically dangerous in a average drivers hands.
Porsche and other car companies know this and that is why they developed safety devices to help the driver. In the CGT, Porsche could have installed several devices which would have made the car safer. However they wanted performance to be the prime consideration and installing these devices would have compromised the ultimate performance experience. But what they did not do was consider the buyer. Anyone with money could buy one regardless of driving skill or experience.
Thus, as many of you have stated ,several of them have crashed their CGT's (notice how many single car accidents?) and many have been seriously injuried. They just did nott know how to handle the car.
Given the propensity of the car and the necessity of driver skill why would Porsche wily nilly sell it to the public? What warning did they give to these these inexperienced drivers that this car will spin out of control without corrct modulation of the throttle and sharper input than necessary on the steering wheel while at speed over 70 mph?
Since it was a limited production car why not required training on the opreation of the vehicle with the setup and power it has? They are cash rich but apparently callous in their disregard as to to who is buying the CGT. I could go on but I think you get the point.
BTW, only recently has Porsche begun to train some owners of the CGT how to drive the car. Mike has posted on his experience and he has has much experience in track work as most do. I am certain he learned a lot about his car after his training.
Finally this applies not only to Porsche but to the rest of the car manufacturers. I have written this before but it bears repeating. Try flying any airplane without training and approved licensing. .
Feb 8, 2006 6:35:50 PM
Feb 8, 2006 7:25:22 PM
Quote:
nberry said:
I was not part of the 1980 litigation but I honestly believe most of you would have voted in favor of the Plaintiff given the secretive memo intrOduced at trial.
Quote:
nberry said:
The CGT litigation has many good points in favor of the Plaintiff which I am not at liberty to discuss. One thing you all must understand is these cars with their huge power are basically dangerous in a average drivers hands.
Quote:
nberry said:
Porsche and other car companies know this and that is why they developed safety devices to help the driver. In the CGT, Porsche could have installed several devices which would have made the car safer.
I'm awaiting yor lawsuit to Ferrari on the issue if you are being honest in what you are saying and consecuent with it. It affects you personally since they have sold you a car without side airbags.
Quote:
nberry said:
Given the propensity of the car and the necessity of driver skill why would Porsche wily nilly sell it to the public? What warning did they give to these these inexperienced drivers that this car will spin out of control without corrct modulation of the throttle and sharper input than necessary on the steering wheel while at speed over 70 mph?
Quote:
nberry said:
Since it was a limited production car why not required training on the opreation of the vehicle with the setup and power it has? They are cash rich but apparently callous in their disregard as to to who is buying the CGT. I could go on but I think you get the point.
Feb 8, 2006 7:47:06 PM
Feb 8, 2006 8:39:49 PM
Quote:
Carlos from Spain said:Quote:
nberry said:
I was not part of the 1980 litigation but I honestly believe most of you would have voted in favor of the Plaintiff given the secretive memo intrOduced at trial.
No we wouldn't. The memo does not change a thing, he was driving a 930 at 60 on a 25mph zone under his own risk and out of his own judgement and freedom.Quote:
nberry said:
The CGT litigation has many good points in favor of the Plaintiff which I am not at liberty to discuss. One thing you all must understand is these cars with their huge power are basically dangerous in a average drivers hands.
And the responsability for making such a tremendous and fine performing car is the maker's? nobody is putting a gun to the onwners head to drive the car, like no one is putting a gun if the owner decides to play with a loaded shotgun or practice hang-gliding...Quote:
nberry said:
Porsche and other car companies know this and that is why they developed safety devices to help the driver. In the CGT, Porsche could have installed several devices which would have made the car safer.
You mean like side airbagsQuote:
nberry said:
Given the propensity of the car and the necessity of driver skill why would Porsche wily nilly sell it to the public? What warning did they give to these these inexperienced drivers that this car will spin out of control without corrct modulation of the throttle and sharper input than necessary on the steering wheel while at speed over 70 mph?
So does the Pagani Zonda or Enzo, why not sue them? or a freakin' Miata in the wrong hands... a loaded gun can go off by accident if proper precautions are not taken by the onwer... sue the manufacturer too?
What are you doing driving a 490HP F430 in the streets, its definately overkill for street use and dangerous for most drivers, maybe yourself... yet on the otherhand you support a lawsuit against another maker for the same reasons?
A current day sportbike with 1000cc has similiar o even more performance than a CGT and on top of it requires more skill and knowledge to use safely its pootential, yet in your country yet its sold to 16 year old kids with a basic license for 15k and are not even required to use a helmet!!Quote:
nberry said:
Since it was a limited production car why not required training on the opreation of the vehicle with the setup and power it has? They are cash rich but apparently callous in their disregard as to to who is buying the CGT. I could go on but I think you get the point.
Yes we get the point, lets not fool anybody, its about putting the blame on someone else and trying to get some easy cash out of it, with a percentage going to the suit-happy empathy-faking laywers... so if a 16 year kid who just got his drivers licence crashes a Boxster because to him a Boxster's abilities are like a CGT to an average sportcar driver, lawsuit again? its the makers responsability for the driver's own actions, own skills, and whatever happens to him on the road?... this is ridiculous.
A real disappointment if you are involved in any of this Nick, I don't mind the Porsche bashing, its all in good fun, but this is very disappointing, and something that can lead to "decafinating" sportcars in the future because of the greediness of a few
Quote:
nberry said:
Try flying any airplane without training and approved licensing. .
Feb 8, 2006 8:53:54 PM
Quote:
SoCal Alan said:Quote:
nberry said:
First let me make one thing clear. I have spent most of my law career DEFENDING people and companies in personal injuries litigation.
Good to know that, Nick. You're not such a bad guy after all.
Feb 8, 2006 10:18:21 PM
Quote:
nberry said:
Carlos, or anyone please answer the five following questions.
1. If a car manufacturer has safety devices which control vehicle stability especially in a high powered sport car which has performance levels never before offered, should the law require the car manufacturer to install them?
Quote:
nberry said:
2. If your answer is no, then should the manufacturer make it available to buyers?
Quote:
nberry said:
3. If the answer is no, then should the manufacturer warn the buyer of the risk and hazards of driving a vehicle of this nature?
Quote:
nberry said:
4. If no then should the manufacturer offer training in driving a vehicle of this nature?
Quote:
nberry said:
5. If the answer is no then is it foreseeable for the manufacturer that this vehicle will cuase injuries as a result of driver inexperience and skill?
Quote:
nberry said:
FWIW, which ever way you answer these questions Porsche loses.
Feb 8, 2006 10:30:32 PM
Feb 8, 2006 10:49:23 PM
Quote:
fritz said:Quote:
SoCal Alan said:Quote:
nberry said:
First let me make one thing clear. I have spent most of my law career DEFENDING people and companies in personal injuries litigation.
Good to know that, Nick. You're not such a bad guy after all.
You are being much too generous, Alan.
In view of all we read about the outcome of personal injuries litigation in the USA, this is just another example of Nick's unerring ability to choose the wrong side to back in an argument!
About Rennteam | Help | Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Support | Contact | Imprint | Archive
Powered by
Community
and
