Actor Paul Walker's daughter sues Porsche over fatal crash

[Jonathan Fairfield]

Actor Paul Walker's daughter sues Porsche over fatal crash

ANTHONY McCARTNEY, AP Entertainment Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Paul Walker's daughter sued Porsche for wrongful death Monday, claiming the sports car that her father was in when he was killed suffered from numerous design defects.

The lawsuit filed by Meadow Rain Walker seeks unspecified damages for defects that her lawyers claim kept the actor trapped in the Porsche Carrera GT when it crashed and burst into flames in November 2013.

Walker was on a break from filming the seventh film in the "Fast & Furious" franchise when he was killed. He was riding in the Carrera GT driven by friend and business associate Roger Rodas when the car spun out of control, struck three trees and burst into flames on a street in Santa Clarita, California.

The wrongful-death suit claims the car, which was marketed as a street-legal race car, lacked a proper stability control system and safeguards to protect occupants and keep it from catching fire after a collision.

"Absent these defects in the Porsche Carrera GT, Paul Walker would be alive today," the lawsuit states.

An email sent to representatives of Porsche Cars North America was not immediately returned.

The 18-page lawsuit includes a detailed recounting of the crash and contends that the Porsche was traveling 63 to 71 mph (101 to 114 kph) when it spun out of control.

Investigators concluded the Porsche was going much faster — up to 94 mph (151 kph) — when it crashed.

The investigation by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and California Highway Patrol concluded that it was unsafe speed and not mechanical problems that caused the crash. That investigation was aided by engineers from Porsche, who evaluated the wreckage of the rare car.

Meadow Walker's lawsuit contends Porsche didn't include a stability control system in the Carrera GT model Rodas was driving but includes it in other models. It also claims the car lacked proper reinforcements in its doors and used rubber fuel lines that didn't break free to prevent a fire in a crash.

Similar allegations of design and safety defects were included in a wrongful death lawsuit by Rodas' widow, Kristine Rodas, that remains pending in a federal court in Los Angeles. Rodas was trained as a race car driver and was only driving 55 mph (89 kph), according to his wife's lawsuit. He left behind two young children when he died.

Walker, the star of the "Fast & Furious" film franchise, co-owned an auto racing team with Rodas named Always Evolving. Meadow Walker, 16, is the sole heir of his estate.

Walker's two brothers helped complete action scenes in "Furious 7," which earned more than $1.5 billion globally after it was released in April.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-09-29

[JoePai]

Stupid and total waste of time - typical American lawyer taking on this case

[peterjackson]

The lawyers should be countersued for wasting the courts time. Many of these 'frivalous' lawsuits are settled because the cost of defending them is too exorbitant, especially when a possible appeal is taken into consideration.

The UK has gone the same way as the USA with these types of lawsuits.

[stevenl]

Who approved the car for the roads? That agency should have been included in the law suits, this is just a half hearted job right now.

[fritzzz25]

I wonder if I can get a lawyer to sue McDonalds for making me fat?

[rws85]

Why did Paul Walker cross the road?

He wasn't wearing his seat belt.

[Steely Dan]

Frivolous lawsuits would be greatly discouraged if costs were awarded against the law firm making them in proportion to how much the plaintiff was asking for.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Steely Dan

[craigt3365]

They might actually have a point here. The car is basically a race car. Probably shouldn't even be street legal.

With that being said, you drive this car, at high speeds, you take your chances. They were breaking the law by going too fast anyway. RIP to these guys. But the lawsuit is ridiculous.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/03/us/paul-walker-crash-car/

Porsche Carrera GT: 5 reasons the car Paul Walker died in is different

[zaphod reborn]

Stupid and total waste of time - typical American lawyer taking on this case

No, safety standards in motor vehicles have dramatically improved of the last 30 years as a direct result of these kind of lawsuits. Would you rather have it be like Thailand where there are no such lawsuits (because the courts don't award sufficient damages for severe injuries and deaths) and the result is that Thailand offers absolutely no protection from unsafe products, despite having recently enacted a products liability law.

The lawyers should be countersued for wasting the courts time. Many of these 'frivalous' lawsuits are settled because the cost of defending them is too exorbitant, especially when a possible appeal is taken into consideration.

The UK has gone the same way as the USA with these types of lawsuits.

You can't "countersue" lawyers until the original case has been fully adjudicated, and you can show the underlying lawsuit was devoid of merit in fact or in law. The plaintiff has made some reasonably sound allegations (hardly frivolous) as to safety standards so you should allow them to prove through expert testimony that the car was unsafe. Having worked for VW-Porsche as a products liability lawyer, I can tell you that they do not settle cases because the cost of defense is too great. In some burn cases, such as this one, they might settle because the risk of going to trial can result in a huge damages award (even though Walker died, because they will be allowed to prove he had conscious pain and suffering prior to expiring). They will settle the case just before trial, if they feel that there is too great a risk of a high verdict.

Who approved the car for the roads? That agency should have been included in the law suits, this is just a half hearted job right now.

No one but the manufacturer "approves" a car for the road. The agencies responsible for safety standards are AASHTO and NHTSA, and they are immune from lawsuits as they only prescribe recommendations, and, if the manufacturer fails to meet those standards, and that failure causes injuries or death, then the manufacturer is strictly liable for the damages.

Frivolous lawsuits would be greatly discouraged if costs were awarded against the law firm making them in proportion to how much the plaintiff was asking for.

I do agree with cost-shifting which means the loser pays attorneys fees and costs to the winner of the lawsuit. In California, and many other states, you are prohibited from stating the amount of damages you are seeking in the plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, "making them proportional" to the claim wouldn't work. It would be possible to base such an award on what the plaintiff prays for at the end of trial, but less than 10% of cases make it that far, so that wouldn't work either.

Many, many years ago I worked for VW-Porsche doing this kind of products liability defense work. VW (much more than Porsche) had a fairly horrendous record for crashworthiness and electrically-caused automobile fires. Bear in mind that these involved cars manufactured in the late 70's and 80's when safety standards were just beginning to emerge.

The allegation about the stability mechanism for the Porsche will be difficult to prove, because the plaintiff would have to show that the equipment upgrade was required as a standard (by AASHTO or NHTSA), or should have been required. On the other hand, the crashworthiness and fire-resistance allegations may have merit, because things like reinforced steel bars in doors and breakaway fuel lines are within standards set by AASHTO and NHTSA.

As far as Walker's conduct is concerned, in a products liability case, the jury considers whether the misuse of the vehicle was foreseeable. If it is, then the jury can consider whether Porsche failed to make the car reasonably safe in light of the manufacturer's knowledge of that foreseeable misuse. That all comes down to weighing expert testimony and whether there were safety standards that were applicable and which would have prevented the death. You can't just jump to the conclusion that this is frivolous or others should pay, until you know all the facts. VW and other car manufacturers are not in a good spot right now, as there is going to be quite a fallout for falsifying fuel efficiency data (and not just VW's diesel emissions problem). http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-fines-hyundai-kia-for-overstating-fuel-economy-1415028646

Edited September 29, 2015 by zaphod reborn

[lifeincnx]

Stupid and total waste of time - typical American lawyer taking on this case

Stupid and total waste of time - typical American lawyer taking on this case

A touch Xenophobic today, are we?

[pkspeaker]

SHHESHH! are you serious? THEY WERE RACEING, OK? They could have hit a pregnant woman instead of those trees and poles.. there are plenty of racetracks where amatures can tear ass in an environment where no one else is put at risk and there are tires and gravel around the turns so you dont slam into a tree and explode.. these law breakers knew what they were doing, they knew they were putting themselves and worse, INNOCENT bystanders at risk by ass tearing in a 30mph zone at 90mph! I have almost been hit trwice by these racing idiots and i could be dead or paralysed now just for being at the wrong place .... this is worse than that mcdonalds hot coffee lawsuit by far.. this is the worst frivilous lawsuit i have ever seen..

No, safety standards in motor vehicles have dramatically improved of the last 30 years as a direct result of these kind of lawsuits. Would you rather have it be like Thailand where there are no such lawsuits (because the courts don't award sufficient damages for severe injuries and deaths) and the result is that Thailand offers absolutely no protection from unsafe products, despite having recently enacted a products liability law.

You can't "countersue" lawyers until the original case has been fully adjudicated, and you can show the underlying lawsuit was devoid of merit in fact or in law. The plaintiff has made some reasonably sound allegations (hardly frivolous) as to safety standards so you should allow them to prove through expert testimony that the car was unsafe. Having worked for VW-Porsche as a products liability lawyer, I can tell you that they do not settle cases because the cost of defense is too great. In some burn cases, such as this one, they might settle because the risk of going to trial can result in a huge damages award (even though Walker died, because they will be allowed to prove he had conscious pain and suffering prior to expiring). They will settle the case just before trial, if they feel that there is too great a risk of a high verdict.

Who approved the car for the roads? That agency should have been included in the law suits, this is just a half hearted job right now.

No one but the manufacturer "approves" a car for the road. The agencies responsible for safety standards are AASHTO and NHTSA, and they are immune from lawsuits as they only prescribe recommendations, and, if the manufacturer fails to meet those standards, and that failure causes injuries or death, then the manufacturer is strictly liable for the damages.

Frivolous lawsuits would be greatly discouraged if costs were awarded against the law firm making them in proportion to how much the plaintiff was asking for.

I do agree with cost-shifting which means the loser pays attorneys fees and costs to the winner of the lawsuit. In California, and many other states, you are prohibited from stating the amount of damages you are seeking in the plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, "making them proportional" to the claim wouldn't work. It would be possible to base such an award on what the plaintiff prays for at the end of trial, but less than 10% of cases make it that far, so that wouldn't work either.

Many, many years ago I worked for VW-Porsche doing this kind of products liability defense work. VW (much more than Porsche) had a fairly horrendous record for crashworthiness and electrically-caused automobile fires. Bear in mind that these involved cars manufactured in the late 70's and 80's when safety standards were just beginning to emerge.

The allegation about the stability mechanism for the Porsche will be difficult to prove, because the plaintiff would have to show that the equipment upgrade was required as a standard (by AASHTO or NHTSA), or should have been required. On the other hand, the crashworthiness and fire-resistance allegations may have merit, because things like reinforced steel bars in doors and breakaway fuel lines are within standards set by AASHTO and NHTSA.

As far as Walker's conduct is concerned, in a products liability case, the jury considers whether the misuse of the vehicle was foreseeable. If it is, then the jury can consider whether Porsche failed to make the car reasonably safe in light of the manufacturer's knowledge of that foreseeable misuse. That all comes down to weighing expert testimony and whether there were safety standards that were applicable and which would have prevented the death. You can't just jump to the conclusion that this is frivolous or others should pay, until you know all the facts. VW and other car manufacturers are not in a good spot right now, as there is going to be quite a fallout for falsifying fuel efficiency data (and not just VW's diesel emissions problem). http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-fines-hyundai-kia-for-overstating-fuel-economy-1415028646

[metisdead]

A disruptive troll post has been removed as well as the replies.

[catinthehat]

Until theyn have tort reform in America these and other frivolous lawsuits like it will continue.

And the chance of tort reform is slim to none as 99% of all legislators are Lawyers.

[Sydebolle]

While it must be very traumatic for a girl who had just turned 15 years old to lose her father in an accident I seriously doubt, that it was the daughter's idea in the first place to sue. It looks more like a bandwagon exercise bashing on Volkswagen and whatever belongs to it.

Rodas (the driver) lost control over the car at 150kmh; sad, sad, sad but his own fault.

Next will be housewives suing knife producers for cutting themselves - welcome to America's legal system of impossible and endless loopholes.

[zaphod reborn]

SHHESHH! are you serious? THEY WERE RACEING, OK? They could have hit a pregnant woman instead of those trees and poles.. there are plenty of racetracks where amatures can tear ass in an environment where no one else is put at risk and there are tires and gravel around the turns so you dont slam into a tree and explode.. these law breakers knew what they were doing, they knew they were putting themselves and worse, INNOCENT bystanders at risk by ass tearing in a 30mph zone at 90mph! I have almost been hit trwice by these racing idiots and i could be dead or paralysed now just for being at the wrong place .... this is worse than that mcdonalds hot coffee lawsuit by far.. this is the worst frivilous lawsuit i have ever seen..

No, safety standards in motor vehicles have dramatically improved of the last 30 years as a direct result of these kind of lawsuits. Would you rather have it be like Thailand where there are no such lawsuits (because the courts don't award sufficient damages for severe injuries and deaths) and the result is that Thailand offers absolutely no protection from unsafe products, despite having recently enacted a products liability law.

You can't "countersue" lawyers until the original case has been fully adjudicated, and you can show the underlying lawsuit was devoid of merit in fact or in law. The plaintiff has made some reasonably sound allegations (hardly frivolous) as to safety standards so you should allow them to prove through expert testimony that the car was unsafe. Having worked for VW-Porsche as a products liability lawyer, I can tell you that they do not settle cases because the cost of defense is too great. In some burn cases, such as this one, they might settle because the risk of going to trial can result in a huge damages award (even though Walker died, because they will be allowed to prove he had conscious pain and suffering prior to expiring). They will settle the case just before trial, if they feel that there is too great a risk of a high verdict.

Who approved the car for the roads? That agency should have been included in the law suits, this is just a half hearted job right now.

No one but the manufacturer "approves" a car for the road. The agencies responsible for safety standards are AASHTO and NHTSA, and they are immune from lawsuits as they only prescribe recommendations, and, if the manufacturer fails to meet those standards, and that failure causes injuries or death, then the manufacturer is strictly liable for the damages.

Frivolous lawsuits would be greatly discouraged if costs were awarded against the law firm making them in proportion to how much the plaintiff was asking for.

I do agree with cost-shifting which means the loser pays attorneys fees and costs to the winner of the lawsuit. In California, and many other states, you are prohibited from stating the amount of damages you are seeking in the plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, "making them proportional" to the claim wouldn't work. It would be possible to base such an award on what the plaintiff prays for at the end of trial, but less than 10% of cases make it that far, so that wouldn't work either.

Many, many years ago I worked for VW-Porsche doing this kind of products liability defense work. VW (much more than Porsche) had a fairly horrendous record for crashworthiness and electrically-caused automobile fires. Bear in mind that these involved cars manufactured in the late 70's and 80's when safety standards were just beginning to emerge.

The allegation about the stability mechanism for the Porsche will be difficult to prove, because the plaintiff would have to show that the equipment upgrade was required as a standard (by AASHTO or NHTSA), or should have been required. On the other hand, the crashworthiness and fire-resistance allegations may have merit, because things like reinforced steel bars in doors and breakaway fuel lines are within standards set by AASHTO and NHTSA.

As far as Walker's conduct is concerned, in a products liability case, the jury considers whether the misuse of the vehicle was foreseeable. If it is, then the jury can consider whether Porsche failed to make the car reasonably safe in light of the manufacturer's knowledge of that foreseeable misuse. That all comes down to weighing expert testimony and whether there were safety standards that were applicable and which would have prevented the death. You can't just jump to the conclusion that this is frivolous or others should pay, until you know all the facts. VW and other car manufacturers are not in a good spot right now, as there is going to be quite a fallout for falsifying fuel efficiency data (and not just VW's diesel emissions problem). http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-fines-hyundai-kia-for-overstating-fuel-economy-1415028646

You do realize that Walker was a passenger and was not the driver. Hence, he cannot be charged with racing. Cal. Penal Code Sect. 23109(a) provides "A person shall not engage in a motor vehicle speed contest on a highway. As used in this section, a motor vehicle speed contest includes a motor vehicle race against another vehicle, a clock, or other timing device. For purposes of this section, an event in which the time to cover a prescribed route of more than 20 miles is measured, but where the vehicle does not exceed the speed limits, is not a speed contest." A non-driver can be charged if he "aids or abets" the street racing.

I haven't seen any evidence of that there was a speed contest or that Walker was somehow involved in setting up a speed contest. Just consenting by being a passenger in a vehicle has been held numerous times not to be complicit in the driver's illegal or negligent conduct. Interesting point you raise because illegal racing would perhaps push this into product unforeseeable product misuse, but not really applicable, because there's no evidence Walker was involved as a driver or an aide to street racing.

Edited September 29, 2015 by zaphod reborn

[Berkshire]

Stupid and total waste of time - typical American lawyer taking on this case

Stupid and total waste of time - typical American lawyer taking on this case

A touch Xenophobic today, are we?

You do have to admit that the US has a reputation of being rather litigious and that American lawyers are well known for frivolous lawsuits. Even American lawyers will concede. I'm an American, by the way.

[bangkokheat]

lacked a proper stability control system

ummm, the driver

[stevenl]

SHHESHH! are you serious? THEY WERE RACEING, OK? They could have hit a pregnant woman instead of those trees and poles.. there are plenty of racetracks where amatures can tear ass in an environment where no one else is put at risk and there are tires and gravel around the turns so you dont slam into a tree and explode.. these law breakers knew what they were doing, they knew they were putting themselves and worse, INNOCENT bystanders at risk by ass tearing in a 30mph zone at 90mph! I have almost been hit trwice by these racing idiots and i could be dead or paralysed now just for being at the wrong place .... this is worse than that mcdonalds hot coffee lawsuit by far.. this is the worst frivilous lawsuit i have ever seen..

No, safety standards in motor vehicles have dramatically improved of the last 30 years as a direct result of these kind of lawsuits. Would you rather have it be like Thailand where there are no such lawsuits (because the courts don't award sufficient damages for severe injuries and deaths) and the result is that Thailand offers absolutely no protection from unsafe products, despite having recently enacted a products liability law.

You can't "countersue" lawyers until the original case has been fully adjudicated, and you can show the underlying lawsuit was devoid of merit in fact or in law. The plaintiff has made some reasonably sound allegations (hardly frivolous) as to safety standards so you should allow them to prove through expert testimony that the car was unsafe. Having worked for VW-Porsche as a products liability lawyer, I can tell you that they do not settle cases because the cost of defense is too great. In some burn cases, such as this one, they might settle because the risk of going to trial can result in a huge damages award (even though Walker died, because they will be allowed to prove he had conscious pain and suffering prior to expiring). They will settle the case just before trial, if they feel that there is too great a risk of a high verdict.

No one but the manufacturer "approves" a car for the road. The agencies responsible for safety standards are AASHTO and NHTSA, and they are immune from lawsuits as they only prescribe recommendations, and, if the manufacturer fails to meet those standards, and that failure causes injuries or death, then the manufacturer is strictly liable for the damages.

Frivolous lawsuits would be greatly discouraged if costs were awarded against the law firm making them in proportion to how much the plaintiff was asking for.

I do agree with cost-shifting which means the loser pays attorneys fees and costs to the winner of the lawsuit. In California, and many other states, you are prohibited from stating the amount of damages you are seeking in the plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, "making them proportional" to the claim wouldn't work. It would be possible to base such an award on what the plaintiff prays for at the end of trial, but less than 10% of cases make it that far, so that wouldn't work either.

Many, many years ago I worked for VW-Porsche doing this kind of products liability defense work. VW (much more than Porsche) had a fairly horrendous record for crashworthiness and electrically-caused automobile fires. Bear in mind that these involved cars manufactured in the late 70's and 80's when safety standards were just beginning to emerge.

The allegation about the stability mechanism for the Porsche will be difficult to prove, because the plaintiff would have to show that the equipment upgrade was required as a standard (by AASHTO or NHTSA), or should have been required. On the other hand, the crashworthiness and fire-resistance allegations may have merit, because things like reinforced steel bars in doors and breakaway fuel lines are within standards set by AASHTO and NHTSA.

As far as Walker's conduct is concerned, in a products liability case, the jury considers whether the misuse of the vehicle was foreseeable. If it is, then the jury can consider whether Porsche failed to make the car reasonably safe in light of the manufacturer's knowledge of that foreseeable misuse. That all comes down to weighing expert testimony and whether there were safety standards that were applicable and which would have prevented the death. You can't just jump to the conclusion that this is frivolous or others should pay, until you know all the facts. VW and other car manufacturers are not in a good spot right now, as there is going to be quite a fallout for falsifying fuel efficiency data (and not just VW's diesel emissions problem). http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-fines-hyundai-kia-for-overstating-fuel-economy-1415028646

You do realize that Walker was a passenger and was not the driver. Hence, he cannot be charged with racing. Cal. Penal Code Sect. 23109(a) provides "A person shall not engage in a motor vehicle speed contest on a highway. As used in this section, a motor vehicle speed contest includes a motor vehicle race against another vehicle, a clock, or other timing device. For purposes of this section, an event in which the time to cover a prescribed route of more than 20 miles is measured, but where the vehicle does not exceed the speed limits, is not a speed contest." A non-driver can be charged if he "aids or abets" the street racing.

I haven't seen any evidence of that there was a speed contest or that Walker was somehow involved in setting up a speed contest. Just consenting by being a passenger in a vehicle has been held numerous times not to be complicit in the driver's illegal or negligent conduct. Interesting point you raise because illegal racing would perhaps push this into product unforeseeable product misuse, but not really applicable, because there's no evidence Walker was involved as a driver or an aide to street racing.

Maybe you missed the other lawsuit, pending, from the wife of the driver?

[lifeincnx]

Stupid and total waste of time - typical American lawyer taking on this case

Stupid and total waste of time - typical American lawyer taking on this case

A touch Xenophobic today, are we?

You do have to admit that the US has a reputation of being rather litigious and that American lawyers are well known for frivolous lawsuits. Even American lawyers will concede. I'm an American, by the way.

My lawyer has instructed me to demand that you cease and desist from taking such a position.

Granted that reputation is somewhat true. But in actuality these days, most Americans don't sue because they simply can't afford to. That said, the USA, UK, and Germany all have high litigation.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/24/america-litigious-society-myth

[elgordo38]

While it must be very traumatic for a girl who had just turned 15 years old to lose her father in an accident I seriously doubt, that it was the daughter's idea in the first place to sue. It looks more like a bandwagon exercise bashing on Volkswagen and whatever belongs to it.

Rodas (the driver) lost control over the car at 150kmh; sad, sad, sad but his own fault.

Next will be housewives suing knife producers for cutting themselves - welcome to America's legal system of impossible and endless loopholes.

She could get something. There is a website you can Google showing all the ridiculous settlements of the past. Some are really asinine.

[pkspeaker]

a passenger who makes 6 movies called "fast & furious", a passenger who in interviews often talked about his zest for racing cars. The preponderance of the evidence will show that Walker knew exactly what they were about to do, when they took off from a charity event to goto no particular place and engage in a joy ride in a pimped out car. He wasn't driving so the fault is his friends who also died, in that case Walker's family can sue the estate of the dead drivers, Porche has nothing to do with this accident; the buyer of these superspeed cars knows that they are made of lightweight materials, they do not have the same steel frames as real race cars and that you are required to obey the law when you are driving it on public streets. The car was manufactured to meet the standards that the law requires. The auto manufacturers are not required to make their cars indestructible when driven this way, the car hit a tree/pole at very high speed with it's engines reving, it exploded, nothing can prevent that as you see even real racecars explode.

Also, Walker could have purchased and wore a fire retardant suit and helmet just like real race car drivers wore, then maybe he would not have died in the explosion, if your gonna do that crazy shit then wear the suit.. I have seen funnycar dragsters hit the side of the track or the other dragster and explode in a ball of flame, the drivers walk away because they are wearing those suits.

If I am in a car and the driver starts doing stuff like that, then i demand he pull over and let me out..

SHHESHH! are you serious? THEY WERE RACEING, OK? They could have hit a pregnant woman instead of those trees and poles.. there are plenty of racetracks where amatures can tear ass in an environment where no one else is put at risk and there are tires and gravel around the turns so you dont slam into a tree and explode.. these law breakers knew what they were doing, they knew they were putting themselves and worse, INNOCENT bystanders at risk by ass tearing in a 30mph zone at 90mph! I have almost been hit trwice by these racing idiots and i could be dead or paralysed now just for being at the wrong place .... this is worse than that mcdonalds hot coffee lawsuit by far.. this is the worst frivilous lawsuit i have ever seen..

No, safety standards in motor vehicles have dramatically improved of the last 30 years as a direct result of these kind of lawsuits. Would you rather have it be like Thailand where there are no such lawsuits (because the courts don't award sufficient damages for severe injuries and deaths) and the result is that Thailand offers absolutely no protection from unsafe products, despite having recently enacted a products liability law.

You can't "countersue" lawyers until the original case has been fully adjudicated, and you can show the underlying lawsuit was devoid of merit in fact or in law. The plaintiff has made some reasonably sound allegations (hardly frivolous) as to safety standards so you should allow them to prove through expert testimony that the car was unsafe. Having worked for VW-Porsche as a products liability lawyer, I can tell you that they do not settle cases because the cost of defense is too great. In some burn cases, such as this one, they might settle because the risk of going to trial can result in a huge damages award (even though Walker died, because they will be allowed to prove he had conscious pain and suffering prior to expiring). They will settle the case just before trial, if they feel that there is too great a risk of a high verdict.

No one but the manufacturer "approves" a car for the road. The agencies responsible for safety standards are AASHTO and NHTSA, and they are immune from lawsuits as they only prescribe recommendations, and, if the manufacturer fails to meet those standards, and that failure causes injuries or death, then the manufacturer is strictly liable for the damages.

I do agree with cost-shifting which means the loser pays attorneys fees and costs to the winner of the lawsuit. In California, and many other states, you are prohibited from stating the amount of damages you are seeking in the plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, "making them proportional" to the claim wouldn't work. It would be possible to base such an award on what the plaintiff prays for at the end of trial, but less than 10% of cases make it that far, so that wouldn't work either.

Many, many years ago I worked for VW-Porsche doing this kind of products liability defense work. VW (much more than Porsche) had a fairly horrendous record for crashworthiness and electrically-caused automobile fires. Bear in mind that these involved cars manufactured in the late 70's and 80's when safety standards were just beginning to emerge.

The allegation about the stability mechanism for the Porsche will be difficult to prove, because the plaintiff would have to show that the equipment upgrade was required as a standard (by AASHTO or NHTSA), or should have been required. On the other hand, the crashworthiness and fire-resistance allegations may have merit, because things like reinforced steel bars in doors and breakaway fuel lines are within standards set by AASHTO and NHTSA.

As far as Walker's conduct is concerned, in a products liability case, the jury considers whether the misuse of the vehicle was foreseeable. If it is, then the jury can consider whether Porsche failed to make the car reasonably safe in light of the manufacturer's knowledge of that foreseeable misuse. That all comes down to weighing expert testimony and whether there were safety standards that were applicable and which would have prevented the death. You can't just jump to the conclusion that this is frivolous or others should pay, until you know all the facts. VW and other car manufacturers are not in a good spot right now, as there is going to be quite a fallout for falsifying fuel efficiency data (and not just VW's diesel emissions problem). http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-fines-hyundai-kia-for-overstating-fuel-economy-1415028646

You do realize that Walker was a passenger and was not the driver. Hence, he cannot be charged with racing. Cal. Penal Code Sect. 23109(a) provides "A person shall not engage in a motor vehicle speed contest on a highway. As used in this section, a motor vehicle speed contest includes a motor vehicle race against another vehicle, a clock, or other timing device. For purposes of this section, an event in which the time to cover a prescribed route of more than 20 miles is measured, but where the vehicle does not exceed the speed limits, is not a speed contest." A non-driver can be charged if he "aids or abets" the street racing.

I haven't seen any evidence of that there was a speed contest or that Walker was somehow involved in setting up a speed contest. Just consenting by being a passenger in a vehicle has been held numerous times not to be complicit in the driver's illegal or negligent conduct. Interesting point you raise because illegal racing would perhaps push this into product unforeseeable product misuse, but not really applicable, because there's no evidence Walker was involved as a driver or an aide to street racing.

Edited September 29, 2015 by pkspeaker

[zaphod reborn]

You do realize that Walker was a passenger and was not the driver. Hence, he cannot be charged with racing. Cal. Penal Code Sect. 23109(a) provides "A person shall not engage in a motor vehicle speed contest on a highway. As used in this section, a motor vehicle speed contest includes a motor vehicle race against another vehicle, a clock, or other timing device. For purposes of this section, an event in which the time to cover a prescribed route of more than 20 miles is measured, but where the vehicle does not exceed the speed limits, is not a speed contest." A non-driver can be charged if he "aids or abets" the street racing.

I haven't seen any evidence of that there was a speed contest or that Walker was somehow involved in setting up a speed contest. Just consenting by being a passenger in a vehicle has been held numerous times not to be complicit in the driver's illegal or negligent conduct. Interesting point you raise because illegal racing would perhaps push this into product unforeseeable product misuse, but not really applicable, because there's no evidence Walker was involved as a driver or an aide to street racing.

Maybe you missed the other lawsuit, pending, from the wife of the driver?

No, I didn't miss it. She filed prior to Walker's estate. What does that have to do with Walker's claim?

[zaphod reborn]

a passenger who makes 6 movies called "fast & furious", a passenger who in interviews often talked about his zest for racing cars. The preponderance of the evidence will show that Walker knew exactly what they were about to do, when they took off from a charity event to goto no particular place and engage in a joy ride in a pimped out car. He wasn't driving so the fault is his friends who also died, in that case Walker's family can sue the estate of the dead drivers, Porche has nothing to do with this accident; the buyer of these superspeed cars knows that they are made of lightweight materials, they do not have the same steel frames as real race cars and that you are required to obey the law when you are driving it on public streets. The car was manufactured to meet the standards that the law requires. The auto manufacturers are not required to make their cars indestructible when driven this way, the car hit a tree/pole at very high speed with it's engines reving, it exploded, nothing can prevent that as you see even real racecars explode.

Also, Walker could have purchased and wore a fire retardant suit and helmet just like real race car drivers wore, then maybe he would not have died in the explosion, if your gonna do that crazy shit then wear the suit.. I have seen funnycar dragsters hit the side of the track or the other dragster and explode in a ball of flame, the drivers walk away because they are wearing those suits.

If I am in a car and the driver starts doing stuff like that, then i demand he pull over and let me out..

You do realize that Walker was a passenger and was not the driver. Hence, he cannot be charged with racing. Cal. Penal Code Sect. 23109(a) provides "A person shall not engage in a motor vehicle speed contest on a highway. As used in this section, a motor vehicle speed contest includes a motor vehicle race against another vehicle, a clock, or other timing device. For purposes of this section, an event in which the time to cover a prescribed route of more than 20 miles is measured, but where the vehicle does not exceed the speed limits, is not a speed contest." A non-driver can be charged if he "aids or abets" the street racing.

I haven't seen any evidence of that there was a speed contest or that Walker was somehow involved in setting up a speed contest. Just consenting by being a passenger in a vehicle has been held numerous times not to be complicit in the driver's illegal or negligent conduct. Interesting point you raise because illegal racing would perhaps push this into product unforeseeable product misuse, but not really applicable, because there's no evidence Walker was involved as a driver or an aide to street racing.

OK, let's get the rules of evidence clear. You can't prove conduct specific to this accident, based upon past conduct, unless the past conduct is substantially the same and performed under the same conditions (sometimes called "prior bad acts"). Appearing in fictional movies as an actor can't be used to prove his conduct in this crash. As for the crash helmet, fire extinguisher, etc., in order to submit evidence of the lack of that safety equipment, you would have to show that a reasonably prudent car passenger needs to have such equipment. There's no such standard, and your argument suggests that Walker knew he was going out racing in order to require such equipment. There's no evidence of that.

By the way, I've never seen a Fast and Furious film and never heard of this Walker guy until he died in this collision. I have no stake in this, but just want to keep the thread straight so that we don't have a debate over myths about the legal system.

[Nemesis7]

Only in USA....

Sue bloody anything that crosses your mind about.

[pkspeaker]

The movies are about guys who race tripped out cars on the street for no other reason than to race cars, they glorify such behavior..its not like a 'bourne supramacy' or type thriller where the protagonist engages in chases to avoid bad guys, or himself chases bad guys to achive a a higher purpose.. fast and furious is more of a kill bill only with racing.. and his past conduct is he has raced cars on public streets.. he had a fascination with street racing simple as that and ofcource it can be used by the defense or better yet to throw the case out (not likly ;().. his luck ran out

and in a civil case you don't have to 'prove' anything, since you talk like a lawyer you know that, it's a preponderance of the evidence thing.

Edited September 29, 2015 by pkspeaker

[Chicog]

If anyone is liable for Walker's death it's the idiot that drove him into a tree.

Ludicrously, they are also trying to blame the seatbelt!

The suit also states that when Porsche Carrera GT crashed, Paul's seat belt "snapped Walker's torso back with thousands of pounds of force, thereby breaking his ribs and pelvis," and trapping him in the passenger seat.

[sawadee1947]

absolutely nonsense and rediculous.

If you are not able to control a Porsche GT.........take off your hands. Or buy a tank....

[Basil B]

The car manufacture have a great defence, it was never sold as fool proof...

[robertthebruce]

Your Father was driving too fast.. Speed Kills.. don't blame the Car...

sad but true...

[bendejo]

Sounds like some lawyers convinced her to go along with this. If they win they'll get half+expenses.

I have no idea what (if anything) she gets from dad's estate. If it's nine figures or more she shouldn't consent to this.