CloseQuote:
JimFlat6 said:
Nick is not the "930" lawyer.
Feb 10, 2006 11:32:36 PM
Feb 10, 2006 11:49:35 PM
Feb 10, 2006 11:54:33 PM
Quote:
fritz said:
It's ironic that this situation has driven many companies out of the once-thriving general aviation industry in the USA and stifled innovation in light aircraft manufacture. Private flyers have to fall back on old aircraft or old-tech aircraft as a result, which is not going to improve the safety of this form of transport.
How long will it be before ambulance-chasing lawyers do the same to sportscars?
Quote:
fritz said:
It's ironic that this situation has driven many companies out of the once-thriving general aviation industry in the USA and stifled innovation in light aircraft manufacture. Private flyers have to fall back on old aircraft or old-tech aircraft as a result, which is not going to improve the safety of this form of transport.
How long will it be before ambulance-chasing lawyers do the same to sportscars?
Feb 11, 2006 12:18:46 AM
Quote:
SciFrog said:
Or until you can find a decent doctor? Have you seen the malpracticie insurance premiums these days... In europe, they was a doctor (OB Gyn) on TV the other day who said he was going to stop doing surgery and pregnancy diagnostics when his insurance runs out in a few months because he couldn't afford it anymore
Feb 11, 2006 12:22:17 AM
Quote:
Carlos from Spain said:Quote:
JimFlat6 said:Quote:
fritz said:
The only upside to any of this nonsense is that eventually
the cost of legal malpractice insurance may the cost for exceed medical malpractice insurance.
I'd love to see that!!
.... and Nick would still be making a buck out of it.
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. .
A beautiful woman sunbathing topless on a huge beach, beach patrol handles this case like if somebody just robbed half of the people on the beach. My wife not wearing a bra at Disney World in summer time (at 105* F) and trust me, you couldn't see a thing through her shirt...a fat 300 pounds guard comes over and violently threatens her to throw her out of the park like as if she just molested a 5-year old boy or something.
I could give you more examples.
Quote:
Turbo Al said:Quote:
JMShrink said:Quote:
JimFlat6 said:
While America as a revolutionary country was founded around what can joe average get from the guys at the top, or from the next guy over.
Actually no. America was founded around joe average revolting to being EXPLOITED by the guys at the top..
Doctor (and Nick),
This mentality (a perception-whether valid or not-many Americans have that they are being "exploited" by others) is THE primary explanation for our legal system's litigation phenomenon, to wit: jurors' (representing American citizens) preconceptions supporting enthusiasm for blaming someone or something else for their misfortune before they are selected by plaintiffs' and defendants' attorneys for trial are the most important determinant of a jury's decisions. So Nick and other attorneys and judges are not responsible for America's liability "crisis," instead Americans themselves are-and this phenomenon is spreading to European countries.
Quote:
ajcastaneda said:Quote:
vinnie said:
For those who have not seen how tricky the CGT can be, even for professional drivers have a look at this video, it's a repost.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5956630212110957109&q=Porsche+GT
It's quite surprising that there was no PASM on the CGT.
Enzo and the Zonda both have stability management.
I agree with Jeremy that the CGT is the most exciting, the best looking, the most expensive and the fastest road going Porsche ever made even though as RC said, it has the soul of a Ferrari.
You mean PSM?
Slightly OT -- I was one of those New Yorkers that could not least my P because of that liability law. I was forced to go through Options, and two months after I purchased the car, the damn law was repealed. I don't know if Porsche has any plans to reinstate leasing in NY however.
I meant PASM (Porsche active suspension management.)
Quote:
vinnie said:Quote:
ajcastaneda said:Quote:
vinnie said:
For those who have not seen how tricky the CGT can be, even for professional drivers have a look at this video, it's a repost.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5956630212110957109&q=Porsche+GT
It's quite surprising that there was no PASM on the CGT.
Enzo and the Zonda both have stability management.
I agree with Jeremy that the CGT is the most exciting, the best looking, the most expensive and the fastest road going Porsche ever made even though as RC said, it has the soul of a Ferrari.
You mean PSM?
Slightly OT -- I was one of those New Yorkers that could not least my P because of that liability law. I was forced to go through Options, and two months after I purchased the car, the damn law was repealed. I don't know if Porsche has any plans to reinstate leasing in NY however.
I don't know what you mean by PSM
Quote:
RC said:
...
What Americans really need is less lawyers, a little bit more common sense and a little bit more flexibility regarding certain legal situations. ...
My Spider is a little over two months old and has 1600 miles. 
Quote:
JMShrink said:Quote:
Turbo Al said:Quote:
JMShrink said:Quote:
JimFlat6 said:
While America as a revolutionary country was founded around what can joe average get from the guys at the top, or from the next guy over.
Actually no. America was founded around joe average revolting to being EXPLOITED by the guys at the top..
Doctor (and Nick),
This mentality (a perception-whether valid or not-many Americans have that they are being "exploited" by others) is THE primary explanation for our legal system's litigation phenomenon, to wit: jurors' (representing American citizens) preconceptions supporting enthusiasm for blaming someone or something else for their misfortune before they are selected by plaintiffs' and defendants' attorneys for trial are the most important determinant of a jury's decisions. So Nick and other attorneys and judges are not responsible for America's liability "crisis," instead Americans themselves are-and this phenomenon is spreading to European countries.
Hey there Turbo Al. I think you may have jumped to the wrong conclusion about where I stand. When it was mentioned about America being founded, my response was regarding 18th century Americans being exploited. NOT modern day Americans. There's quite a difference in the mentality as a culture between 18th century Americans and 21st century Americans.
O.K. now, regarding this whole current American culture of litigation. EVERYBODY pays in one way or another for this sue happy culture. We pay for it in the products we purchase, our health care, etc. Many Americans have NO CLUE about how good they have it in the U.S. Many Americans have never even visited a third world country. Basically this whole discussion can be distilled down to this...projection of blame, lack of a sense of responsibilty, and the "I'm a victim" mindset. It's not a government's job IMO to protect people from their own stupidity. But I'm sure the liberals disagree.
As far as addressing your response to me and Nick, I'm quite disappointed. As far as Nick goes, I can see where he may be coming from... he mentions being involved in DEFENSE of such claims, but guess what...he still benefits from such. Think about it. If there weren't such cases, there'd be no cases to DEFEND. I'm sure Carlos is probably saying, "Ah ha!!" about now.
How's that for a response Al?
But since I'm an Anglophile and don't feel a need to justify our Declaration of Independence from the British, I'll end my post here....
Quote:
vtrader said:
The US has always valued the loss of a life due to an accident higher than the rest of the world. If I died because someone screwed up, I hope it is in the US because my heirs will be compensated much higher. You would be suprised on how many court cases are filed in the US for deaths in other parts of the world.
Feb 11, 2006 5:58:44 PM
Feb 11, 2006 7:19:59 PM
Quote:
nberry said:
Trundle 997S in fact all the litigants had sign waivers. Generally,they are valid and upheld by the courts. However, the waivers do not apply to Porsche because none were signed regarding Porsche.
Quote:
Crash said:
Nick, please answer me this:
If you go to a track, let's say California Speedway, with your F430, and you end up in the same situation Ben and Cory did; you are racing down the straight at close to 150 mph, when another car pulls out in front of you. You swerve, slide, hit the concrete barrier and you die. After you've been buried 20 feet deep, since deep down you lawyers are really nice guys, would you want your wife to sue Ferrari?
Answer honestly, please.
And yes, please answer honestly, dropping your lawyer glasses for a second and answering with your heart, not the lawyer inside you.
About Rennteam | Help | Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Support | Contact | Imprint | Archive
Powered by
Community
and
