Quote:
nberry said:
Quote:
SoCal Alan said:
And what proof would there be that PSM would have made a difference in this case. Probably none.
Certainly that will be the issue. If it would have made a difference, would that change your mind or anyone else? 
Nick, in this case, it wouldn't change my mind. I'll tell you why.
The reason Porsche did not include PSM on the CGT is strictly because of performance, not because they intentionally have withheld a safety feature, knowing that it would cause more accidents. There is no negligence here in my opinion because of it.
Can I use an analogy with you? What if a gun manufacturer discovered that they can cut down on accidents in the home if they enabled an additional safety device involving a sophisticated digital combination lock before the safety can be turned off. And that discovery was documented by an employee somewhere. Is that gun manufacturer now liable if they don't implement it and someone in the future is harmed or killed because of an accident?
On the other hand, what if this gun manufacturer found out that when the hammer strikes the bullet, there have been cases of the gun malfunctioning, thereby causing great harm. That is definitely a case of negligence if the manufactuere knew this and did nothing about it. Most reasonable people on this board will probably agree. Can you see which of these two scenarios our CGT accident would fall under?
In the Ferrari F430, there is an option to turn off the equivalent of PSM (CST). In fact, the ability to turn off CST is provided because it allows the F430 to be driven on "the track". It is expected that the driver use this CST mode to turn off the stability and traction control when you use this car on the track. That's what it's for. Of course, you can swith the manettino to whatever setting you want. Now, if someone loses control of their F430 on the track because of switching off CST, is Ferrari liable or the driver? If you answer no, continue reading.
In the case of the CGT, there is no equivalent of PSM. Since we are all talking about Ben's accident with his CGT then can we all agree as reasonable that Ben knew full well that his CGT did not have PSM? The history of his contributions on various Porsche forums will show that his expertise on this car is beyond anyone. Isn't this the same as driving a high performance car with the stablity control turned off (CST in F430 switched off). I believe so. So is Porsche liable in this case? I don't believe so.
Lastly, even if PSM was included on a CGT, do you think that PSM would be turned on or off in the case of this accident? We don't know. So how can Porsche be liable in this scenario?
Now, Nick, if you were open-minded, took your attorney hat off, and looked at the overall picture, you would see that there is no gross negligence here. Since you are looking at it from an attorney's point of view, I understand that you have to look at every possible angle in order to best represent your possible client. However, that's the problem and it's not really your fault, your just doing your job. But from the 10,000 foot level, it just looks like a money grab. Otherwise, you would concentrate on going after the other driver who might have cut Ben's car off or even the track which set up the concrete barriers in such a way that skidding off the track caused maximum impact. If I recall, the concrete barriers at that specific location were almost perpendicular to the path of a car that lost control from the track through the grass and onto the concrete barriers.
Anyways, can you at least see how the vast majority of posters on this thread and probably the public in general sees this?
