Actor Paul Walker Dead - Fiery Porsche Crash

[Doug_G]

The courts have a notion of "strict liability", meaning that you can be liable but not culpable. You can build a dangerous machine that someone else uses to kill themselves, but strict liability encourages you not to build dangerous machines.

Also courts tend to award damages as much on the basis of ability to pay as much as for responsibility.

 

[Canuck]

The courts have a notion of "strict liability", meaning that you can be liable but not culpable. You can build a dangerous machine that someone else uses to kill themselves, but strict liability encourages you not to build dangerous machines.

Also courts tend to award damages as much on the basis of ability to pay as much as for responsibility.

In tort law, ability to pay only has relevance when it comes to determining the amount of punitive damages. All other damages are based on placing the Plaintiff back into the position had the tort not occurred. Punitive damages are also prohibited at common-law if the defendant has already been punished in criminal proceedings.

 

[Auzie]

Are we sure her motive is money? I have no idea, not being a personal acquaintance. Trying to put myself in her shoes...being married to a thrill seeker and all that goes with that, I'd have to conclude that the possibility of an early death probably goes with the territory, and as an intelligent being with the means there should have been a rather large insurance policy in place.

Big difference between 55 and 100, but I believe even at 55 that would have still been speeding. Again, trying to imagine myself in this situation...how would I feel if this was my husband, would I be motivated to sue, and if so, for what reason? If there really was a mechanical failure in the car would I want to be compensated for the life of my loved one? Would I want to protect others from meeting the same possible end? In light of the whole GM ignition issue (of which I own one of those cars), it's a possibility.

As someone who believes that personal responsibility is entirely becoming more and more a rare experience instead of the norm, I also know that I would be seriously p.o'd (like off the charts) if someone else/entity had even a smidgen of responsibility in my spouse's premature death. Look the heck out because I'm coming for you and not necessarily (and likely not) for the money, but to put you out of business. Perhaps that's what's going through her mind?

I am with you on this.

Grief and depression are at the very bottom of feelgood scale of human emotion. It is understandable that people would rather be angry and blame someone than feel hopeless and without recourse. I'd cut a bit of slack to people in grief. The fight with "the guilty one" might help to keep life more bearable, so such fight has a useful purpose. Porsche will survive this small attack.

 

[dsm363]

Well even a Toyota Corolla can almost certainly go 100mph (although not in the short distance this likely happened in) so just because a car can go a certain high speed doesn't make it any more dangerous than a performance car. It's all about the driver and their skill.

 

[AnOutsider]

I am with you on this.

Grief and depression are at the very bottom of feelgood scale of human emotion. It is understandable that people would rather be angry and blame someone than feel hopeless and without recourse. I'd cut a bit of slack to people in grief. The fight with "the guilty one" might help to keep life more bearable, so such fight has a useful purpose. Porsche will survive this small attack.

This sort of reads like "Porsche has the money, so let them spend it defending (and perhaps paying) this woman, if it helps her deal with the repercussions of her husband's actions". I can't get behind that, regardless of how much it will or won't affect Porsche's bottom line.

 

[dsm363]

I'm surprised they don't have people sign forms saying they understand they are buying a high performance vehicle....Etc and don't hold Porsche, BMW... Responsible.

 

[lolachampcar]

I would prefer to raise people that understand they are buying a high performance vehicle when they buy a normally aspirated over 500 bhp V10 attached to a chassis that was developed for a Le Mans prototype and then hold those people to a high standard. Devaluing personal responsibility devalues people.

 

[Lloyd]

. Devaluing personal responsibility devalues people.

Perfectly said !

 

[Doug_G]

I'm surprised they don't have people sign forms saying they understand they are buying a high performance vehicle....Etc and don't hold Porsche, BMW... Responsible.

Probably wouldn't amount to much in a lawsuit. At best it might reduce the amount of damages awarded.

 

[Auzie]

This sort of reads like "Porsche has the money, so let them spend it defending (and perhaps paying) this woman, if it helps her deal with the repercussions of her husband's actions". I can't get behind that, regardless of how much it will or won't affect Porsche's bottom line.

"Porsche has the money, so let them spend it defending (and perhaps paying) this woman, if it helps her deal with the repercussions of her husband's actions" is not even close to what I said. Not sure why you chose to interpret it that way.

People in grief often leash out at whoever happens to be nearby or is a convenient target. I would cut them slack even if their attack is unjustified, simply because their reasoning capacity is temporarily diminished and being angry at someone is a relief. Porsche is not likely to suffer from such an attack. The suit will be decided on its merit.

 

[Canuck]

What if there is something inherently wrong with the vehicle that caused the accident? It might only be brought to light by way of this lawsuit and it could save lives in the future, even for those travelling at high or excessive speeds. I know this was a limited production run vehicle but what if the problem discovered is found to apply to other vehicles? This has happened before, many times, with product liability cases and it's not unheard of for companies to bury these types of problems. Having been to many third world countries, I am always glad to return to the safety and comfort of Canada/USA because what goes on in places with no tort actions, won't take place here. Tort laws make individuals and corporations more accountable. I agree that they are out of control in some cases but overall they serve a public purpose. You are fooling yourselves if you think corporations will make products safe out of the goodness of their heart. I have no problem with this lawsuit. There is a risk of significant costs if they lose so no one should go into a lawsuit blindly. They will have to establish by way of expert evidence the exact problem. That's a good thing, in my opinion. If it's proven to be driver error, that's fine too but everyone has a right to their day in court. I agree with personal responsibility but it's a two way street and if I lose a loved one to a potentially defective product, I would be the first to sue.

 

[dsm363]

"Porsche has the money, so let them spend it defending (and perhaps paying) this woman, if it helps her deal with the repercussions of her husband's actions" is not even close to what I said. Not sure why you chose to interpret it that way.

People in grief often leash out at whoever happens to be nearby or is a convenient target. I would cut them slack even if their attack is unjustified, simply because their reasoning capacity is temporarily diminished and being angry at someone is a relief. Porsche is not likely to suffer from such an attack. The suit will be decided on its merit.

While Porsche may not suffer and the family's displaced anger is understandable, Porsche giving out even a dollar if it isn't justified raises the costs for everyone else. Assuming the car was functioning correctly and the driver simply went 0-100 on city streets losing control I don't see why Porsche should have to pay.

 

[lolachampcar]

I do not want to downplay the grief of anyone that has lost a loved one but you take risks walking through this world. When something like this happens and you blame (in this case) Porsche, damage is done to the fabric of society. Excusing it because of grief is only acceptable if you can accept the damage done. When those blaming finally outweigh those being blamed, the cycle will be complete and we will have nothing.

Canuck,
That car is a very neutral handling high horsepower machine that must be handled with respect. I believe it killed someone at Fontana within the first year of being shipped. I've been in one a few times and was amazed at just how nicely balanced the car was for a street car and just how dangerous such a car is in the hands of a novice.

We are all born with the instinct to lift off that which is making something go faster when we are going fast enough. Doing so in that car will send it backwards into whatever you are pointing at. This precision handling is why the car was built and why people are attracted by it. The down side is there is little margin should you run out of talent. The decision is the driver's only and it is incumbent upon the driver to drive within her/his capabilities.

I've run out of talent before and I know exactly who was responsible.

 

[Canuck]

While Porsche may not suffer and the family's displaced anger is understandable, Porsche giving out even a dollar if it isn't justified raises the costs for everyone else. Assuming the car was functioning correctly and the driver simply went 0-100 on city streets losing control I don't see why Porsche should have to pay.

Porshe won't have to pay damages unless they are found liable but of course they will have to pay defence costs, only a portion of which may be recoverable if they win, but that's called 'the cost of doing business' since the only other option is not to allow people to sue and abolish tort laws. They have that in some countries. Is that what is being advocated here in order to "avoid avoid raising costs for everyone else?" Otherwise, what is the issue?

(In reality, it's likely insurance that pays defence and indemnity, so really it's increased insurance premiums we are dealing with, which spreads the risk even more, but I guess the argument is that increased insurance rates are passed along to consumers. That's better than no insurance, in my opinion, since that's what you find in many countries where there are no tort actions.)

 

[lolachampcar]

Like most things in life, tort law is a good idea. Tort without common sense is a very bad idea.

 

[Canuck]

Canuck,
That car is a very neutral handling high horsepower machine that must be handled with respect. I believe it killed someone at Fontana within the first year of being shipped. I've been in one a few times and was amazed at just how nicely balanced the car was for a street car and just how dangerous such a car is in the hands of a novice.

We are all born with the instinct to lift off that which is making something go faster when we are going fast enough. Doing so in that car will send it backwards into whatever you are pointing at. This precision handling is why the car was built and why people are attracted by it. The down side is there is little margin should you run out of talent. The decision is the driver's only and it is incumbent upon the driver to drive within her/his capabilities.

I've run out of talent before and I know exactly who was responsible.

You're probably right, but the question as I see it is what do we do about it? Not allow people to sue? Porshe can bring a Summary Trial to dismiss the action if it is without merit. Our Rules of Court allow for cases without merit, or that are frivolous, to be thrown out summarily. If you are right, it will be thrown out. But perhaps there is something wrong with the car? It is possible and they should be entitled to their day in court, and I am all for our tort laws that allows for this legal action. That's all I'm saying.

- - - Updated - - -

Like most things in life, tort law is a good idea. Tort without common sense is a very bad idea.

Agreed!

 

[dsm363]

Like most things in life, tort law is a good idea. Tort without common sense is a very bad idea.

That is what I meant to say. Well said.

 

[Lloyd]

Like most things in life, tort law is a good idea. Tort without common sense is a very bad idea.

We should adopt the european style of torts, where the loser has to automatically pay costs and fees. Thus if Porsche is found not to be at fault, then the plaintiff would have to pay their defense costs. It would stop frivolous suits, and prevent payments just to settle cases. Better all around IMO.

 

[Canuck]

We should adopt the european style of torts, where the loser has to automatically pay costs and fees. Thus if Porsche is found not to be at fault, then the plaintiff would have to pay their defense costs. It would stop frivolous suits, and prevent payments just to settle cases. Better all around IMO.

I'm not sure what European countries you are referring to since it is my understanding that the costs awards in the States are higher (every State is different but in general) than in all Europe countries, where they have tariff based systems, as we do in Canada. But leaving that aside, your proposal would have a "chilling effect" on tort law and give a significant advantage to deep pocket corporations. As it stands, the defence practice with legitimate cases is to wear down shallow pocket Plaintiff and it's a very effective strategy.

 

[Auzie]

While Porsche may not suffer and the family's displaced anger is understandable, Porsche giving out even a dollar if it isn't justified raises the costs for everyone else. Assuming the car was functioning correctly and the driver simply went 0-100 on city streets losing control I don't see why Porsche should have to pay.

The case will be decided on its merits.

Even if the case is decided on its merits, there is a downside to Porsche. No one enjoys being scrutinized and forced to defend themselves in court. There is a cost to being sued.

We need to weigh that downside against the loss suffered by the other party.

The accident happened to both parties (Porsche and the driver). Maybe both parties did not contribute equally to that accident. It is impossible to be sure of the exact cause of the accident without thorough investigation.

The odds of who was at fault may be very skewed.

The party that suffered a huge loss deserves to know the facts, they deserve their day in court, regardless of their long odds of being in the right. In my view their right to know trumps the right of the other party to be spared the inconvenience of the lawsuit, regardless of the skewed odds.

If Porsche is found to be not at fault in this accident, they can consider the whole unfortunate event as an accident that their car was unlucky to participate in.

Accidents happen and if we are party to it, we are likely to suffer a cost of being in an accident, even if someone else caused it.