Weren't these dudes on the street doing whatever it is they were doing ?

 

technically speaking the driver was driving way too fast on the street in a place where, even if it werent for the speed limit, it wasnt safe to do so.
Blaming the car is just stupid but I guess people like to sue...

 

The hot coffee/McD's law suit was a valid one. They were legitimately serving coffee that was way too hot, had gotten several complaints, and did nothing about it. The lady that finally sued rcvd 3RD DEGREE BURNS. She spent weeks in the hospital. She initially asked for McD's to only pay her medical expenses, when they refused is when she sued. She also did not sue for what she was rewarded. The jury awarded a lot of extra money to make it really hurt for McD's. Look up the true facts of the case..




As far as the Walker estate suing Porsche, they had no right IMO. Porsche settled out of court because they figured it would cost them less money to do so. Which is why a lot of corporations settle out of court, the risk and expense of trial isn't worth it.

 

Lets say you are an Air Force fighter jock and new budget cutting regulations come out. You now fly in street clothes, no need for a parachute and the ejection set is replaced with a flimsy narrow seat with a seat belt. If things go horribly wrong you get to ride it all the way down. Well, that's the way we all travel on airlines that meet Federal standards. Safety standards on airlines amount to replacing peanuts with pretzels. The FAA and airlines have known for years that overhead bins fall in event of a hard landing, injuring passengers and blocking aisles and seats, but nothing is done.

I remember a TV show where NASCAR drivers would come on to talk about the weekend's events and what they were doing during the week. Some of these guys were in a race practically every day and now you hear of their retirement from racing.

Safety in professional racing has been perfected to the point where a driver being killed in an accident is big news because it is so rare. That's why these guys are around to retire. Meanwhile, we are driving cars that meet all the Federal standards. I'm just suggesting that maybe it is about time for us to think about incorporating into normal cars some of what professional racing has learned.

 

Most of the difference between a road car and a street car is occupant restraint. The safety cells in modern roads cars have gotten really really good. But, not drives around in a carbon fiber containment seat, in a 3 layer fire suit, a carbon fiber helmet, and a carbon fiber Hans device with 6 point seat belts.


Also, race tracks don't have trees and poles to run into. The main contributing factor in this accident was the car being cut in half by a tree. There is simply no designing around that. If the crash had happened at a race track, the car would have gone through a gravel trap, then in to a tire barrier. Or it would have hit a wall at some kind of angle, reducing the impact. As for stability and traction control. You can't fix stupid, or people who don't respect what they're driving. Cars from that era didn't really have that stuff yet, nor was it mandated.


What happened here does not speak to the lack of safety in automobiles. What does speak to safety in car is that since the 1960's, annual car accident deaths have not changed (around 30k), while our population has more than tripled.

 

When I auto-x or do track days I scoot my seat back a notch or two. Then fasten my seat belt and pull it all the way out until it ratchets. I then pull it so it is snug and then scoot my seat back up a to where it typically is. This further tightens it so it holds me in place very well. It is a little difficult to reach the seat adjustment bar and sometimes takes a few tries to get it just right but works well enough.

 

This case gets cited again and again for all the wrong reasons.

The infamous hot coffee was tort law at work; it was a case of justice actually happening.

McDonald's was warned repeatedly that they kept their coffee at a ludicrous temperature, well above industry standards. I think they were even fined for it because it was so hot, it would cause injury. They didn't care and kept it scalding hot. Now why did they do this? Money. Extremely hot coffee meant that no customer could ever complain that it was cold, even if they drove 30 min or more to work before tasting it.

The Plaintiff purchased the coffee in store. The lid wasn't on right so it spilled on her. She suffered serious burns over a large part of her body. She asked McDonalds to cover her medical bills, that's it. They told her to get ****ed. She sued. A jury found McDonald's conduct before and during the trial so callous that they awarded the Plaintiff millions to teach McDonald's a lesson. The award was reduced on appeal.

Here, I suspect Porsche settled out of Court because a trial would be expensive, public and even if they won the trial, they'd lose public opinion because I think a large part of their defence would require that they blame a dead guy for causing his own death.

 

Lose/lose situation for Porsche. They took the avenue of least damage.

Now, If the car was supposed to have something installed/equipped but Porsche failed to? No bueno. I suppose I could see the reason for a lawsuit, not that it would have helped them avoid the crash. I'm not a lawyer, just seems the common sense approach.
I don't see how the lawsuit helps anyone.

 

This is super interesting stuff, and I had no idea about the truth. Cool to hear a lawyer's perspective.

 

Yeah, the McD's lawsuit was def valid. IIRC McD's had received several complaints of their overly hot coffee (its was 180-190*F or hotter), and it was also much hotter than industry standards for "hot" coffee. And they finally seriously injured someone and got what was coming to them.