Planet 9

I am posting this link to Bimmer forums regarding fatal crash at a Ferrari Club event last year. Certainly eye opening, especially for us that instruct and give rides to students. What is our liability if something unthinkable similar to this were to happen??Cal Speedway fatality case settled: $4.5e6 award - Bimmerforums - The Ultimate BMW Forum
Tom

That thing about the wall being moved...wow...that was not safe.

__________________

2007 Speed Yellow Cayman GT 2.7 (retired)
2008 Guards Red Cayman GT 3.4
"Carpe Cayman"

I think it was silly to claim the lack of psm was a design flaw.

__________________
resident comedienne

2006 Cayman S - Speed Yellow, Black Interior, Yellow Seat Belts
Sports Chrono Package, 6 Spd, PASM/PSM, Bi-Xenon headlamps
Carrera S wheels 19" - Mich PS2, Colored-crest wheel cap
Auto climate control, Heated seats
PCM 2.1 Nav, Denision ICE-Ipod, Bose Surround
De-snorked, Evo V-Flow, Clear Engine Cover
GT3 Bumper with LED Dayrunner lights (NR Auto)

Lack of PSM...not PASM. I agree. But as the guy in the article states, the average person on a jury who drives an SUV sees a Carrera GT as a dangerous toy for the irresponsible rich. Don't underestimate the power of envy and spite.

If you look at how the wall was moved and how it created a hard stop...now that is ridiculous. People die when they hit solid objects and decelerate quickly.

__________________

2007 Speed Yellow Cayman GT 2.7 (retired)
2008 Guards Red Cayman GT 3.4
"Carpe Cayman"

Must be a design flaw with the wall manufacturer. Surprised they didn't sue them too.



P.S. I could make a convincing argument on this point if I had to.

__________________
resident comedienne

2006 Cayman S - Speed Yellow, Black Interior, Yellow Seat Belts
Sports Chrono Package, 6 Spd, PASM/PSM, Bi-Xenon headlamps
Carrera S wheels 19" - Mich PS2, Colored-crest wheel cap
Auto climate control, Heated seats
PCM 2.1 Nav, Denision ICE-Ipod, Bose Surround
De-snorked, Evo V-Flow, Clear Engine Cover
GT3 Bumper with LED Dayrunner lights (NR Auto)

It is chilling to think that a track day could end like that...........

We who run our cars on track days with the PSM turned off, must also think about the adverse possibilities, and the view the courts would take of our 'reckless and willful negligence' in turning a safety feature off............

__________________
Cheers Karel



'Power is Nothing - Without Control..........'

One thing to remember is that this was a settlement and not a judgment. It is not unusual for large companies (read that as "deep pockets") to settle a case rather that risk a potentially larger jury verdict, additional legal fees and bad publicity. Porsche paid out $360000 for its part and it probably would have spent more on legal fees to try the case. As the most profitable auto company in the world this was nothing.

The picture of the wall jutting out like that so close to a straight just screams bad accident waiting to occur.

The plaintiff (the passenger) was right and had a very good case in almost all aspects. You'll notice the driver of the wrecked car was assigned the bulk of the responsibility, and major mistakes were committed by the track owners and event organizers. The only weak part was the psm, but that was a small part of it.

How others could be 'critical' of this lawsuit is just a brainless knee-jerk reaction against lawyers. The lovely insurance industry is busy playing on that response to get us to legislate away our rights in every state...beware of 'tort reform'.

__________________
996 GT3 lower control arms at all corners
997 GT3 front sway bar
Quaife TBD
DMC harness bar/G-force harness
Hawk HP Plus pads

I completely disagree. The passenger new what he was doing when decided to ride with the driver, nobody forced him to get in that car. Also he new it was a race track and that the speeds would be faster than your average freeway. The Ferrari pulled out infront of him, (a mistake). Cars pull out infront of other cars on freeways and people also loose their lives. You don't see passengers famillies suing the drivers when that happens. The driver lost his life...why should his familly be punished not to mention Porsche and the race track.

You don't agree to die just because you take a ride. That's like saying since you know car accidents can happen on public roads you have no complaint if you die in a wreck today. That's stupid. On the public road as well as on the track it depends on the circumstances.

In this case the retaining wall was moved, the event organizers failed to enforce their own rules, and the driver made a major error. These things combined to kill someone- maybe someone like you. Just suck it up and chalk it to experience? I don't think so.

Oh, and people sue all the time for deaths on public roadways- and they sue the driver too. And they are right to do so.

__________________
996 GT3 lower control arms at all corners
997 GT3 front sway bar
Quaife TBD
DMC harness bar/G-force harness
Hawk HP Plus pads

sad. I dont understand why they didnt move the wall back to normal after the nascar event. I wouldnt put the blame on porsche because of PSM thats silly. Wonder what would have happened if he had aftermarket parts on it and they were blamed.

__________________

Techart GT (X51)
RIP FASTCROC
2010 VW GTI
2009 VW Touareg
2006 Techart Cayman GT
2001 Audi A4 1.8TQ (RIP)
2001 VW Jetta 2.0
some people like the regular stock factory look, cool people modify the car.
http://www.planet-9.com/reviews/show...00&ppuser=3437

Fatal Carrera GT crash settled for $4.5 million - The BMW M Lounge

"They let it into that event anyway, and it spun out three to four times —one time the event organizer was even on board and became nauseous. But he didn’t tell anyone about the warnings and did not exclude Keaton from that event."



I have no problem if it's mandated when buying a car like the Carrera GT that owners without track experience have to attend driving schools (especially those offered by Porsche) before they ride solo on track. But to blame this on PASM is plain silly.

__________________
AFRIDI
Cayman S 2007

Clearly I don't know all of the facts in this case and there appears to be some exposure on the tracks behalf. But why punish the driver's familly and Porsche?

Porsche agreed to the settlement. That was a business decision. I bet as part of the settlement there is language where Porsche states that they are not admitting any fault in the accident.

Carrera GT Crash Settled at $4.5m



130 mph point of impact, play structure in background

Last summer, "Legal Files" reported about a lawsuit resulting from the fatal crash of a Porsche Carrera GT at a club track day at the California Speedway (June 2006, p. 30). The lawsuit was recently settled for a reported total of approximately $4.5 million. The contributions to the settlement were about 49% from the estate of the driver, 41% from the track owners and the event organizers, 8% from Porsche, and 2% from the driver of the Ferrari that was claimed to have triggered the crash.

"Legal Files" received numerous comments from SCM readers, all of which were critical of the lawsuit, plaintiff, and attorney. No doubt, many readers may have the same reaction to the settlement. But let’s take a closer look at the facts.

To refresh our memory, Tracy Rudl filed the lawsuit alleging the wrongful death of her husband, Corey Rudl, who was a passenger in the CGT owned and driven by Ben Keaton at the Ferrari Owners Club track day. Rudl was represented by attorney Craig McClellan, a former racer and a successful plaintiffs’ attorney from San Diego. As the CGT was traveling at about 130 mph on the straightaway, a Ferrari entered the track at a relatively slow speed. Keaton swerved to avoid it and the Porsche skidded into a concrete barrier wall, killing both men. The wall had been placed closer to the track than its original position, in order to enlarge the area behind it for use as a children’s play area during an earlier NASCAR race.

Discovery creates clearer picture
Extensive investigation, interviewing of witnesses, and other forms of legal discovery brought out more facts. Here is the bigger picture, according to McClellan.

The Track. The track suffered from two major design defects—the pit-out (exit onto the track) design and the concrete wall along the straightaway that was moved to accommodate the NASCAR race. The problem with the pit-out design was that it brought the drivers onto the track in the middle of the straightaway and the pit-out driver’s view of the straightaway was completely blocked by a guardrail, so the driver had to rely entirely on the flagger when entering.

The aerial view of the track shows how the concrete wall that normally ran parallel to the track was moved to enlarge the area behind it. A second photo shows the Carrera GT crashed in the worst possible place—right where the wall protruded. It looks as the CGT would normally have hit the wall and bounced back toward the track. Whatever happened then would have been better than a 130-mile near head-on crash.

The Organizers. The Ferrari Owners Club requires that all cars pass a technical inspection by an approved repair facility. At a previous event, the FOC President and organizer had been warned by one of their vehicle certifiers that he believed that something was wrong with the handling of Keaton’s car and it should not be allowed to run. They let it into that event anyway, and it spun out three to four times—one time the event organizer was even on board and became nauseous. But he didn’t tell anyone about the warnings and did not exclude Keaton from that event. (As you will see below, it appears the concerns the mechanic had were related to the oversteer inherent in the design of the car, not to any particular mechanical defect.)

Keaton did not have the CGT inspected before this event, but was allowed to sign his own tech inspection form stating that the car was fine. Investigation revealed the FOC had never denied a participant access to a track day on account of a failure to pass tech.

The organizers also failed to enforce the track safety rule about cars entering the track. Pit-out was in the middle of the straightaway, with entry on the left side. But cars on the straightaway tended to stay to the left to set up for the right-hander at the end. To avoid collisions, cars entering the track were required to move to the right side as soon as possible. However, at this event, cars were entering the track and staying on the left side.

The Driver. Keaton was warned about the handling problems with the CGT, ignored his mechanic’s advice, and invited Rudl for a ride without mentioning the problems. And, when the Ferrari came onto the track slowly, he overreacted and spun.

The Ferrari Driver. The Ferrari driver and the flagger blamed each other for what happened, but it was concluded that the Ferrari entered the track too slowly, forcing Keaton to evade him.

Porsche. The sole claim against Porsche was that the CGT was defective because it was designed without electronic stability control, which Porsche calls PSM. McClellan deposed two German engineers on the subject, and their answers were inconsistent. One testified that Porsche did not think that its PSM system would work on the CGT because the car’s frame structure and suspension mountings would create strong vibrations that would interfere with its operation. The other engineer testified that PSM was not offered because the customers didn’t want it.

McClellan suspects it was a marketing decision, as the CGT was marketed as a "race car for the streets," and race cars don’t have electronic stability control. He notes that during its development, the CGT had exhibited a tendency to oversteer during high lateral acceleration. Porsche made some adjustments, but did not fully correct the problem, which explained why the mechanic who drove Keaton’s car reported “handling problems.” PSM would have corrected the “tail happy” oversteer response to Keaton’s steering input to avoid the Ferrari.



What about the releases?

One of the primary matters addressed in the settlement negotiations was the release signed by Rudl. As all of us who have participated in a track day know, the release contained language that waived any claims against the organizers and participants, with Rudl assuming full risk of injury or death. Many SCM readers pointed out that the release should end the matter.
While the settlement was being negotiated, the California Supreme Court was considering a broadly similar case. The Court of Appeal had ruled that releases were effective as to negligence claims, but not as to claims of gross negligence. There was uncertainty about the outcome because this case was the first time this issue had been addressed by a California court. McClellan insisted that the Supreme Court would agree with the Court of Appeal, and that he could prove gross negligence against the various defendants. He also insisted that the release would not be effective against the driver, as Keaton had been warned about the car’s handling problems before the event and did not disclose them. Either way, the release had nothing to do with the claim against Porsche, as it was not a participant at the track day.

The Supreme Court’s opinion was issued shortly after the settlement and was what McClellan predicted. The case involved a release given by the parents of a developmentally disabled girl who participated in a City of Santa Barbara summer camp and drowned while swimming. With no prior California precedent, the Court looked to decisions from other states. Quite a number had addressed the issue, and the majority ruled that properly written releases would be effective against claims of ordinary negligence, but that public policy made them void as to claims of gross negligence. The Court noted that most of the handful of decisions that enforced releases in cases of gross negligence involved auto racing incidents, but also noted that several states had ruled that releases are ineffective against claims for ordinary negligence, even in auto racing situations.

Interestingly, the Court received amicus curiae briefs from a number of organizations, including NASCAR and the California Speedway Association, predicting the demise of spectator racing and numerous types of recreational activities if the Court adopted this rule. The Court brushed them off, pointing out that NASCAR holds three races each year in Virginia and New York, both of which have laws that bar releases even in cases of ordinary negligence.

Was anything accomplished?
A lot of money changed hands in this settlement, but did anything of lasting societal value get accomplished here? McClellan thinks a lot of good may have been accomplished. He points out that the California Speedway is now safer. The guardrail blocking the view from pit-out has been moved, and the track may move pit-out to the end of the straightaway. He is confident that the Ferrari Owners Club will institute better safety procedures at track days, and he is hopeful that Porsche and other manufacturers will never again build a supercar without electronic stability control. McClellan thinks that the manufacturers’ greatest exposure in this regard may not be crashes on racetracks, but what might happen on the street. Imagine a CGT driver who gets in over his head on a public road, the rear end comes around, and he spins into an oncoming car, killing its occupant. Faced with expert testimony that electronic stability control could have prevented the spin, what will the jury think?

McClellan points out that the typical SCM subscriber, a car enthusiast who holds fast cars and racetracks dear, will never make it onto this jury. The jurors will be more ordinary citizens. "Most people, especially those with children on the streets and highways, would fear a vehicle like the Carrera GT, with its tricky handling characteristics, 600-plus horsepower, and unskilled, unqualified drivers. When a 'race car for the streets' is sold to anyone with enough money, regardless of his ability to drive it, and it doesn’t even incorporate modern electronic safety devices that correct driver errors, then maybe the manufacturer should accept some responsibility for the foreseeable deaths that will result."

Tracy Rudl also believes that the lawsuit will benefit others. "My loving husband was an innocent passenger in an expensive sports car that inexplicably failed to incorporate a modern, life-saving safety feature. He was a passenger on a racetrack that was dangerously designed. While driving on racetracks always involves risks, the result of this case and the redesign of the track will help eliminate unnecessary risks and make the sport of high speed driving safer."

JOHN DRANEAS is an attorney and a car collector in Oregon. His comments are general in nature and are not intended to substitute for consultation with an attorney.

There was negligence and arrogance all over this incident without invoking lack of PSM on the CGT. Evidently the insurance company for the CGT driver will foot the 49% share of the tab (per rennteam thread). There is no question that gross negligence should be punished; however, had this very same accident occured on the same track involving econoboxes driven by ordinary Joes the absence of such unusually deep pockets would have garnered much less high powered legal attention. That's another corollary of the tort system which revolves around compensation not justice.

Here is another thread running on this issue: Viewing a thread

The POC is a racing club that hosts multiple events at this track.

This case points out why medical equipment manufacturers charge the US facilities and MDs who use them twice as much as one has to pay in less litiginous societies. (Assuming the device/medication can get thru the red tape to begin with). Bottom line, some unique and great cars will not be developed for the US market by auto companies. And insurance rates climb thru the roof. The family of the driver I hope did not have to liquidate all their assets or declare bankruptcy. Think what the settlement would have been had the passenger lived but was disabled.

Reasonable award llimits need to be set.

Question? Does the CGT have air bags? If so did they deploy correctly? Seems that they would have prevented this type of death unless some unusual circumstances were involved.

The picture is after the people have been removed, my understanding is that the car ended up upside down on top of the concrete with the passenger compartment on the edge. Air bags would not have been any use. But to blame that car did not have PSM is crazy. people think that all of these aids will save their butt if they get in over there head but they are wrong. If you try really hard you will still wreck. The has been studies about ABS and a lot of people were letting up on the brakes when the felt the pedal pulsating instead of holding it down as hard as they can. To say that the lack of PSM contributed to the accident, who knows if the driver would have not turned it off. Lets just hope that rulings like this don't force Porsche to remove the PSM button.

__________________
Red 06 Cayman S
White 01 Ford Ranger
Blue 73 914
Did not try, just happened

I think the argument against the driver was not just his driving, but more importantly, his failure to disclose a reported steering problem with his car, which could be related to how the car handled in the emergency change of direction that resulted in the crash.

__________________
resident comedienne

2006 Cayman S - Speed Yellow, Black Interior, Yellow Seat Belts
Sports Chrono Package, 6 Spd, PASM/PSM, Bi-Xenon headlamps
Carrera S wheels 19" - Mich PS2, Colored-crest wheel cap
Auto climate control, Heated seats
PCM 2.1 Nav, Denision ICE-Ipod, Bose Surround
De-snorked, Evo V-Flow, Clear Engine Cover
GT3 Bumper with LED Dayrunner lights (NR Auto)