Crown

nberry:

fritz:

nberry:

Generally, large car manufacturers are self insured though they usually have excess coverage with a private carrier.

More than likely the driver's insurance company has already paid its limits to the Walker estate.

Exactly what I thought. 

There is a different twist to this litigation. They are claiming defective seat belt design. Also, in today's climate most people are aware that stability systems are available and have been for years especially for high performance cars. That said, I believe this claim would be defensible.

The car,including its seat belts, will have been subjected to  -  and fulfilled  -  the crash tests required in the markets where it was sold. 

Finally there is what is known in the litigation field "nuisance value". Start suit, put several Porsche executives through depositions, hint at the falsifying of parent company VW emission test and let the jury decide. Porsche more than likely would want to settle for a substantially reduced amount and not face that.

Again, exactly what I thought.

Fritz, this is a day to remember. You agree with me without reservation. I must be slipping.

Put it down to you getting older and wiser, Nick.   

BTW, it is rumored that Porsche did pay something (very small amount compared to the total settlement) in Ben's case even though Porsche has a reputation as being very hardnose when it comes to litigation.

Hardnosed? Surely there is a very strong case for not encouraging the ambulance-chasers to initiate spurious claims by appearing to be a push-over?  

fritz

If I represented Porsche (I have represented other Auto manufacturers) I would love the hardnose approach. But in the client's interest, if a nominal settlement is attractive I would recommend it.

Of little, to make much: That is the dream of a human life.

nberry:

If I represented Porsche (I have represented other Auto manufacturers) I would love the hardnose approach. But in the client's interest, if a nominal settlement is attractive I would recommend it.

If a "nominal settlement" were to be made in this particular instance in respect of a nine-year old car (no evidence of an individual inherent manufacturing fault) just for the sake of peace-and-quiet, surely it would also have to be made to all 900 (or whatever number) other owners as well, regardless of whether they had crashed their cars or not?    

fritz

What Porsche would be paying for is relief from exorbitant legal fees required to defend the case. In the US, if a Plaintiff loses a lawsuit he is not required to pay for the Defendant legal bills. In other countries, that is not the case. If you lose you pay the other party legal bill.

Even though I defended corporations and individuals,  when I sat on a committee considering changing the rule I vote not to. There are many good reasons for keeping it as is.

Of little, to make much: That is the dream of a human life.

nberry:

Even though I defended corporations and individuals,  when I sat on a committee considering changing the rule I vote not to. There are many good reasons for keeping it as is.

If people had something to lose if the other party won, they would think twice before suing people wouldn't they? That would reduce frivolous lawsuits I would imagine.

JoeRockhead:

nberry:

Even though I defended corporations and individuals,  when I sat on a committee considering changing the rule I vote not to. There are many good reasons for keeping it as is.

If people had something to lose if the other party won, they would think twice before suing people wouldn't they? That would reduce frivolous lawsuits I would imagine.

And that would mean a lot less business for trial lawyers...................

JoeRockhead:

nberry:

Even though I defended corporations and individuals,  when I sat on a committee considering changing the rule I vote not to. There are many good reasons for keeping it as is.

If people had something to lose if the other party won, they would think twice before suing people wouldn't they? That would reduce frivolous lawsuits I would imagine.

The number of "frivolous" lawsuits is greatly exaggerated. The problem with "loser pays" is that it can make it difficult for people to seek redress through the law. If a defendant with substantial resources at their command threatens to pile up the legal fees with an army of lawyers, it can make it practically impossible for a plaintiff to continue with a case, since there is no guarantee of winning no matter how strong one's case seems. In this scenario, if the defendant loses, the cost is manageable but if the plaintiff loses it could be catastrophic. In other words, it discourages justice.

The tort system in the US works on average just fine, and there is no need for reform.

apias:

 

The number of "frivolous" lawsuits is greatly exaggerated. The problem with "loser pays" is that it can make it difficult for people to seek redress through the law. If a defendant with substantial resources at their command threatens to pile up the legal fees with an army of lawyers, it can make it practically impossible for a plaintiff to continue with a case, since there is no guarantee of winning no matter how strong one's case seems. In this scenario, if the defendant loses, the cost is manageable but if the plaintiff loses it could be catastrophic. In other words, it discourages justice.

The tort system in the US works on average just fine, and there is no need for reform.

Americans’ litigiousness and thirst for massive damages has been a boon to the legal profession. But some researchers and litigation experts warn that the abundance of lawsuits—many of them frivolous—flooding U.S. courts is severely weakening the economy.

According to consulting firm Towers Watson, the direct cost of the U.S. tort system in 2009 was approximately $250 billion, which was roughly 2 percent of the gross domestic product. The amount is double the estimated tort expenses in other countries, including the U.K. and Japan.

In May, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing that explored excessive litigation’s effect on the United States’ global competitiveness. During his testimony, Skadden Partner John Beisner explained that plaintiffs counsel engage in five types of litigation abuse that ultimately undermine economic growth: improperly recruiting plaintiffs, importing foreign claims, filing suits that piggyback off government investigations and actions (VW, anyone?), pursuing aggregate litigation and seeking third-party litigation financing.

“America’s litigious nature has caused serious damage to our country’s productivity and innovation. … The root cause is that we have created incentives to sue—and to invest in litigation—instead of establishing disincentives for invoking judicial process unless absolutely necessary. Other countries discourage litigation; we nuture it,” Beisner said at the hearing.

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2011/07/22/frivolous-lawsuits-clogging-us-courts-stalling-eco

Not to mention patent trolls. Whatever... not my country. 

Another way of stating that is, other countries discourage justice. So-called "tort reform" proposals in the US are an example of the worst kind of special interest propaganda, lobbying and money corrupting our democracy. Limiting or discouraging tort lawsuits and damage awards serves no purpose but to allow causing harm to become a predictable business expense.

And there is absolutely zero evidence that there is any harm to our economy caused by our current tort system. Statements to the contrary consist of nothing but outlandish and unsubstantiated assertions.

apias:

JoeRockhead:

nberry:

Even though I defended corporations and individuals,  when I sat on a committee considering changing the rule I vote not to. There are many good reasons for keeping it as is.

If people had something to lose if the other party won, they would think twice before suing people wouldn't they? That would reduce frivolous lawsuits I would imagine.

The number of "frivolous" lawsuits is greatly exaggerated. The problem with "loser pays" is that it can make it difficult for people to seek redress through the law. If a defendant with substantial resources at their command threatens to pile up the legal fees with an army of lawyers, it can make it practically impossible for a plaintiff to continue with a case, since there is no guarantee of winning no matter how strong one's case seems. In this scenario, if the defendant loses, the cost is manageable but if the plaintiff loses it could be catastrophic. In other words, it discourages justice.

The tort system in the US works on average just fine, and there is no need for reform.

It only depends on how solid the original case was. If a plaintiff has a rock solid case, then there is no way of not going forward with a case. Monetary terms would have no bearing. The defendants knows that and they would have settled before the trial. 

The US trial system is pretty much broken beyond repair in it's current form. Even Nick the trial lawyer would agreed. Great for business, but not so much for real justice. 

bridggar:

Better call Saul!!

Rarely is there real justice. Both sides lie, hide/fail to disclose damaging evidence and influence witness testimony. Expert witnesses are bought to testify favoring the side hiring them. Juries most of the time are clueless as to what is going on and decide on feelings and not the evidence despite claiming they do. 

 It is an ugly business which after years causing many of us to become jaded. But I would not change it. Despite all its failings it works though imperfectly.

Of little, to make much: That is the dream of a human life.

nberry:

Rarely is there real justice. Both sides lie, hide/fail to disclose damaging evidence and influence witness testimony. Expert witnesses are bought to testify favoring the side hiring them. Juries most of the time are clueless as to what is going on and decide on feelings and not the evidence despite claiming they do. 

 It is an ugly business which after years causing many of us to become jaded. But I would not change it. Despite all its failings it works though imperfectly.

Well, it feeds your family, so why would you want to change it?  

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Carrera 4 GTS Cabriolet, Porsche Macan Turbo, Ford Mustang GT500 Shelby SVT (2014), Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT (2014)

This is one of the things that are wrong in this country. Tort reform is urgent, but I imagine it will never happen.

_________________________________________________________________ 

"Dream as impractical, irrational and unnecessary as that may be... Here's to the Dreamers!" -- Porsche AG.

ADias:

This is one of the things that are wrong in this country. Tort reform is urgent, but I imagine it will never happen.

Let's assume, solely for the sake of argument, that the crash was Porsche's fault. That they were so utterly negligent in the design of the CGT that it was unsafe at any speed, that it was a death trap just inviting people to come into it and die, and they knew it was a death trap but sold it to unwitting customers anyway.

Are you saying we should legislate away the ability of people to sue for damages when their loved ones are seduced into entering this death trap and die at the hands of this (entirely hypothetical) monstrously callous negligence?

http://www.zigwheels.com/autogasm/porsche-responds-to-lawsuit-filed-by-paul-walker%E2%80%99s-daughter-meadow/23255/

"Things turn out best for people who make the best of the way things turn out."

Scumbag layers who clearly are just squeezing this kid for some insane bills. WTF would a kid do and sue a car maker on her own? This case has ZERO ground but the scumbag lawyers will have a nice bill ready for this kid. Porsche responds perfectly, 9 YEAR OLD TIRES?? Are you stupid? That is insane to claim that Porsche produced an unsafe car. Only in the US would this even be an argument... pathetic. 

1991 BMW 535i Granitsilber/White Leather

Ex: '91 BMW 318i, '89 BMW 525i, '74 Mercedes-Benz 280E, '87 BMW 325is, '86 BMW 325e, '05 Ford Focus ZX4 S, '85.5 Porsche 944

apias:

ADias:

This is one of the things that are wrong in this country. Tort reform is urgent, but I imagine it will never happen.

Let's assume, solely for the sake of argument, that the crash was Porsche's fault. That they were so utterly negligent in the design of the CGT that it was unsafe at any speed, that it was a death trap just inviting people to come into it and die, and they knew it was a death trap but sold it to unwitting customers anyway.

Are you saying we should legislate away the ability of people to sue for damages when their loved ones are seduced into entering this death trap and die at the hands of this (entirely hypothetical) monstrously callous negligence?

No. I am saying there should be limits and penalties for frivolous lawsuits. Re your last paragraph - people should be free to enter death traps if they wish to take their chances. And common sense should tell them what the limits of the 'traps' are. The over protected society we live in is ridiculous.

_________________________________________________________________ 

"Dream as impractical, irrational and unnecessary as that may be... Here's to the Dreamers!" -- Porsche AG.

Who determines if a lawsuit is frivolous? Should legislators attempt to define 'frivolous'? Frankly, I don't see how they could possibly do that. The only way to determine if it's frivolous is to take it before a judge who will dismiss it if he thinks it's frivolous.

People can't always tell that they are "entering a death trap". How would they necessarily know that before the fact? That's why we have regulations, and a process to determine who, if anyone, was at fault. But, you can't not have regulations and not allow damage recovery. You have to choose which you will have and what the balance between them will be. Our current tort system isn't perfect, but, like democracy, it may be the worst system except for all the others.

And how can you possibly set limits that will be appropriate in all cases? How much is an arm worth, a leg, a life, pain and suffering? How much is a child's life worth or a parent's? How can you possibly set limits that would be appropriate in all cases?

Again, this would just be entirely arbitrary. Lack of limits itself also acts as a check. If you can calculate the cost of doing harm before the fact, then, doing harm can become simply a business decision: will we make more money or less if we sell a dangerous product or commit a harmful act? Without limits, that calculation becomes problematic, at least. The lack of limits, the unpredictability of consequences from doing harm actually acts a deterrent to doing harm. The only other option would be to specifically criminalize specific acts, but that might create loopholes where one could get away with certain other acts. The current system acts more broadly to eliminate loopholes and deter bad behavior.

apias:

... Our current tort system isn't perfect, but, like democracy, it may be the worst system except for all the others.

"Tort isn't perfect..." It's rotten. A huge dead weight on the economy at all levels.

_________________________________________________________________ 

"Dream as impractical, irrational and unnecessary as that may be... Here's to the Dreamers!" -- Porsche AG.

A statement often made, but never substantiated.

apias:

A statement often made, but never substantiated.

Oh it is. 30% of health care costs is due to malpractice costs (lawsuits and insurance).

_________________________________________________________________ 

"Dream as impractical, irrational and unnecessary as that may be... Here's to the Dreamers!" -- Porsche AG.

That number is simply false. Independent studies have established that the actual impact of malpractice suits on the cost of medical care is minuscule. And, they have also shown that the cost of malpractice insurance is not actually driven by awards. (And that the size of awards, as well as overall cost, in medical malpractice and other areas, is greatly exaggerated.)

But, the idea that incompetent or negligent doctors should get a free pass, simply because they are working as doctors is abhorrent. I don't know why it is that people want to throw all accountability out the door because someone makes up statistics that accountability is costing them money. If anything, there isn't enough accountability in medical practice, and you're suggesting we have even less. Less accountability where people's lives and well being are directly at stake? That just sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Like most tort reform proposals, this one is pushed by people with vested interests in not being held accountable, and propped up by misleading propaganda.

Of course, your mind seems made up on this subject, so I won't argue with you.

But, tell us, what's your proposal for maintaining accountability and keeping bad actors from doing whatever they want without a functioning and meaningful torts system, which you propose gutting?

The CGT is a tool, Porsche is a tool maker. When did a tool becomes a target of a lawsuit? A tool is only as dangerous as the person using it. Yes a car can kill, but only when operated by an individual. So ultimately, the person using the tool should be the one getting sued. 

I believe there are precedents in the US court of law that the tool maker is not liable to be sued. Like gun makers.

US government certified the CGT as road legal during import, that alone already relief Porsche of any responsibility. Maybe she and her lawyers should sue the Department of Transportation instead as they were the one certifying the CGT as safe to operate on US soil. 

Nick, if the plaintiffs prove there is a defect whether in design, manufacturing or failure to warn they have a credible claim for damages. 

Also, it should be stated that generally if an attorney takes a case he assumes all costs in the event of no recovery. A defective auto case is very expensive to pursue and rarely does an attorney take it unless there is a good chance of some recovery.

Of little, to make much: That is the dream of a human life.

There is no good chance of recovery here, so this guy is just going for some "cheap" publicity.. 

Why doesn't he sue the US department of transportation? That's exactly right, aren't they supposed to find out if a car is allowed to sell or not for safety of the public? 

My old BMWs don't have any electronic aids, an e30 with a 3.5L is mighty fast. If I were completely stupid and speed in an urban setting on 9 YEAR OLD!!!! tires, than I am 100% at fault. If I had new tires I am still 100% at fault for speeding like an idiot. I don't get how the car maker is responsible. There isn't even any warranty on any parts at this point... 

How can they ever prove a defect in design? Not having TC or ABS isn't a design flaw?? Failure to warn? Are you kidding me... that's why there are stickers all over the US. It's just insane to even go down this road given the tragic circumstances of this fatal and unnecessary deadly crash. 

Sue the tire manufacturers for failing to warn that 9 year old tires are 4 years past garbage.. 
Sue mother nature for creating fire when heat comes into close proximity to a combustible material.. 

This is just upsetting because simple logic on this case should all point the finger in the same direction. 

1991 BMW 535i Granitsilber/White Leather

Ex: '91 BMW 318i, '89 BMW 525i, '74 Mercedes-Benz 280E, '87 BMW 325is, '86 BMW 325e, '05 Ford Focus ZX4 S, '85.5 Porsche 944

That is precisely it. This girl sues PAG for a defective product because it lacks some nannies... wins, gets a high value early 911, crashes and sues again because the car oversteers... Wrong in both cases, but so goes the world.

--

_________________________________________________________________ 

"Dream as impractical, irrational and unnecessary as that may be... Here's to the Dreamers!" -- Porsche AG.

Well, given the circumstances of the case, I think it's unlikely that Porsche would lose in court, but the fact that someone filed a suit anyway is not a reason to throw out the entire system.

ADias:

That is precisely it. This girl sues PAG for a defective product because it lacks some nannies... wins, gets a high value early 911, crashes and sues again because the car oversteers... Wrong in both cases, but so goes the world.

You're acting like Porsche has already lost when the case hasn't even gone before a judge yet.