HPDE passenger's widow wins $4.5 million settlement
 

I wonder how big the impact (no pun intended) of this will be:

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/content/carrera

(Sorry if this is old news - it was the first time I've seen the results of the legal action regarding the fatal Carrera GT incident at California Speedway several months ago.)

Our racing club is currently discussing this settlement and how it impacts our rules and liability. I am sure we aren't alone.

^you arnt

this is complete bs. Porsche shouldnt have to fork a penny over. The only people i feel could be remotely responsible are the track owners since the wall should have been removed. But ultimately, it was driver error which is unpredictable and no ones fault but his own. The passenger knew the risk of getting in a 600hp oversteer happy exotic supercar.

It sucks they died, buck giving the widow 4.5m will not bring them back.

damn.... a 130mph head on crash. I didn't even hear about this.

sucks that all that came down to a lawsuit:icon20:
taking money away from people does nothing.
what is she going to do with the money to help hpde

if the driver would have listened in driving schools --hit the brakes in a straight line and hit what ever you have to at a slower speed:o(taken from the panoz instructors)

according to this there is no problem


Among the car’s unique features are its 5.7-liter, 605-horsepower V10 engine, its monocoque chassis with Porsche-patented engine and transmission mounts made of carbon-reinforced plastic and the first use of a ceramic composite clutch in a production car. The Carrera GT’s aerodynamic and race-bred suspension package provides safe and stable travel at speeds of up to 205 mph (330 km/h). The Carrera GT features the extensive use of lightweight materials, such as magnesium for the car’s substantial wheels and the frames of its special sport seats.

taken from http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/carrera_gt.asp

Don't forget that the owner had his car inspected previously and failed because of concerns over handling but did nothing about it. The club knew about it and let him run anyway. Looks like the jury got it right by spreading it around to the driver, Porsche, the organizers and the track.

i turn off my vdc on the track.
if i crash should i sue nissan for putting in the switch WTF

From what the article says, the handling concerns that were mentioned were related to the way the car was designed, rather than to any actual mechanical defect with the car. That's the first time I've heard of a tech inspection including car design/factory-specified handling characteristics in the inspection criteria, rather than being limitied to general mechanical upkeep.

It would seem to be okay for a tech inspector to mention a concern with handling, but to expect the driver to change something about the way his car was delivered before being allowed on track goes a bit far, in my opinion.

It's not too old... Monday or Tuesday I think is when the settlement was made public.

There are a few points to make sure are clear:

1. This is an out-of-court settlement, not a verdict or ruling. It has no LEGAL bearing on anything (court of public opinion is different however)
2. The percentages probably don't correlate to "blame", but more than likely to insurance coverage
3. Many, many small mistakes (and some larger ones) added up to this tragedy
4. Yes, it seems silly that Porsche got dragged into the settlement, but I think getting riled up about that doesn't help anything. The $350k or so they will pay amounts to damage control, nothing else
5. No one's really said it here, but I know it'll come... don't be so quick to judge the plaintiffs harshly on this matter. Put yourself in your family's shoes if something were to happen to you.

Now... my personal feelings on the matter is that the club running the event is most at fault here (assuming the info is mostly accurate). Most of the small, and some of the large mistakes seem to be originating with them. There was some unsubstantiated info that might have shifted most of the blame to the driver of the Carrera GT, but that was probably just internet speculation.

The track created the hazard of the wall placement, but it was the club that put drivers in harms way (so-to-speak)

That's a frightening scenario. A pit-out area where you cannot see oncoming cars. And they were entering on the fast side of the track. This would scare the hell out of me!

No because YOU made the choice to turn it off. What got Porsche included in this was that they chose not to include a VDC equivalent in the first place.

Then I can sue if I crash my base model Z?

I disagree with the argument that Porsche has an obligation to provide electronic aids on all their cars. He chose to buy a car without stability control, just like people choose to turn of their electronic nannies at the track.

I think this was the weakest claim in the suit. He bought a car that didn't have stability control and even if Porsche had included stability control, the driver would have most likely turned it off. (The fact that he was willing to buy a fast car without it gives us some insight into how he felt about such gadgets. Reasonable people could conclude he would not have used it at the track.)

A dose of reality here:

I have been to too many open track days with too little instructors and too many egos. Most drivers “did not need” (their own opinions) instructors, I know cause I ask them. Reality is they have no business being on the track by themselves or with friends.

Like to call these people unguided projectiles.

i hope you realize i was joking :D
i am one of the last to sue
it would take something very grossly negligent for me to sue any one
keep in mind i still have my lemon of an 03':icon38:

have to agree there was driver error but the wall and track entry were also wrong
car design was great, driver design not so great

I know at the next speed ventures event they are requiring a fee for passengers. I wonder if that is a result ( only at Cali speedway)

Chin Motorsports charged a fee for passengers at Sebring earlier this month. It sounded like it was their normal policy.

Just a sad result really..

I think they got it right, gross negligence on the part of the driver, track design, and allowing a car which failed inspection to race.

What I didn't understand is why the Porsche not being equipped with stability control was an issue at a track event. On a public road sure but not on the track.

I think track event organizers will defiantly learn from this making the sport safer.

When you die and someone else can be sued, your loved will pursue the lawsuit no matter how you feel about it!

Some people need to learn to READ the entire article plus the original accident article before making a judgment. At first I thought it was unfair but after seeing how the parties neglected safety rules and regulation I am siding with the vitim's family.