CGT lawsuit filed.

Les Quam · 02-13-2006, 05:50 PM

Using the passengers name in Ben's car(Corey Rudl) that was killed and looking in the San Diego Superior court sight I found the following lawsuit filed for wrongful death on December 20 , 2005

Rudl VS. Dr. Ing HCF Porsche

Case number GIC 858645
Plaintiff Tracy rudl

Defendants:
Dr. ING HCF Porsche.
California Speedway.
Porsche AG
Driving adventures Inc.
Driving ventures Inc.
Estate of Benjamin Miles Keaton.
Ferrari owners Club San Diego region.
Flavell
International speedway Inc.
Niles.
Niles.
Porsche North america
Sposato

It's my understanding Plaintiffs attorney is R. Craig McClellan the attroney who successfully won a lawsuit against Porsche circa 1979 for the 930 being unstable and having a design flaw.

The clerks office in SD was closed today so I couldn't get a copy of the complaint for more specific allegations that may be found in the complaint. I don't know anymore than what I have posted.

netburner · 02-13-2006, 06:11 PM

I only know the crash pics and that Ben was killed during that crash....

Is there any matter, why there is this now? I thought it was a crash at the racetrack because of a fault of another driver? So why is the Porsche AG involved in this now?

themarsman · 02-13-2006, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netburner

I only know the crash pics and that Ben was killed during that crash....

Is there any matter, why there is this now? I thought it was a crash at the racetrack because of a fault of another driver? So why is the Porsche AG involved in this now?

Money is the only reason, sad but true.

roberga · 02-13-2006, 06:29 PM

Because there is a chance of easy money for the attorney. They just shotgun every concievable company and hope they settle. I look forward to Porsche defending their car.

It is stuff like this that will keep many cars in Europe and not here. Wonder if this lawyer hunts quail?

Bob Rouleau · 02-13-2006, 06:37 PM

That's the deep pockets principle at work. A stupidity of american law in my opinion. A suit against Ben's estate - yeah, he was driving the car and at least involved. If the award is more than his insurance can cover, then the others will be in line to pay. That sucks and has always sucked.

DMin · 02-13-2006, 06:58 PM

That Ben's estate was included in the suit is so sad...

Les Quam · 02-13-2006, 08:38 PM

I have obtained a copy of the complaint and among other things it alleges the Porsche CGT crashed into a concrete barrier which was intruding into the runoff area of the track in order to create a play area for kids.

The complaint also alleges that Sposato the driver of the Ferrari negligently pulled onto the track in front of Ben.

That Robert Niles the flagman negligently waved Sposato out onto the track and that the event organizers were negligent in running the event.

Complaint alleges Ben had dangerous driving propensities and that the vehicle(CGT) had dangerous handling characteristics.

All of which were allegedly concealed from Corey which is why he signed the waiver.

No other particulars were alleged in the complaint. Nor does the complaint expound on the allegations.

Lizard1 · 02-13-2006, 08:39 PM

it's just like medicine. sue everybody that even had a remote encounter with the patient to get the most bucks out of the insurance company as possible. the american legal system seriously needs to be reformed. the only one who should MAYBE have been named is the company responsible for the track spotter who waived the ferrari on

Bob Rouleau · 02-13-2006, 10:42 PM

This is going to be interesting. Sounds like a shakedown to me. Was Ben negligent? The Ferrari driver? I'd vote for the flagger myself, and perhaps the flagger was an untrained person, pressed into service. I say shakedown because it appears that the lawyers are going after plaintiffs who have the largest ability to pay. Sad.

As to the C-GT being "dangerous" of course it is. Any car with that level of performance is dangerous. It seems to me this is like Stella winning a suit against a restaurant chain because their coffee was hot. A Carrera GT demands respect. Failure to do so may result in an accident. Duh!

Les Quam · 02-13-2006, 10:45 PM

Insurance for racing events is readily available from a number of companies. In Ben's case the insurance company I presume stated that Ben had a policy for the street and not for a race event. However there is precedent that they must honor the coverage if it is not a race event but a driving school type event. Nick must have somehow interceded on the Keaton family's behalf and convinced the insurance company that it was a driving school type event as opposed to a race? I don't have all the details but it is VERY difficult to get these insurance companies on board in these type of incidents. Kudo's to Nick.

Nick could fill in the details better than I if he wishes to comment. But I would imagine he is unable to comment since he represents the Keaton family and it is probably priviliged.

MJSpeed · 02-13-2006, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icon

...but why would state farm change their intention after nick intervened?

Maybe because it's easier for them to pay and handle everything than it would be to have all this dragged out in public. Which I suspect is the same thing the attorney filing this suit is hoping for from one, two, three or all of the parties involved. Just my $.02

People will do anything for money...this makes it very apparent!

eerie this is my 930th post!!

SciFrog · 02-13-2006, 10:48 PM

I hope the outcome will be that Porsche proves there is no malfunction/design problems with the car, but it needs to be proven. Once proven though all the expenses should be on the attacking party.

As for suing Ben's estate, this is sad. It is like saying Ben did this on purpose and his estate should pay for that.

SciFrog · 02-13-2006, 11:30 PM

Or else Porsche should have warned the driver/owner...

I have read it too, and don't agree with that argument. Porsche should just prove that car has no deffect, period.

prg · 02-13-2006, 11:58 PM

This is America and no one is responsible for the consequences of their own choices apparently. Going out onto a race track is inherently dangerous. Mr. Rudl undoubtedly signed a form accepting this risk. He made a choice that unfortunately had tragic consequences. I fail to see why his heirs should be enriched because of his decision to take this risk.

roberga · 02-14-2006, 12:09 AM

Not on a race track. Fricking lawyers. What pieces of Sh)t some of them can be. Go fter the parties involved. Maybe go after Chevron for providing the gas to make the car go.
My wife used to transcribe for depos. I could not believe the B.S. they go after. No different then the panhandlers on the street.

02-13-2006, 06:37 PM	#5
Bob Rouleau Administrator Still plays with cars. Lifetime Rennlist Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Montreal Posts: 12,895	That's the deep pockets principle at work. A stupidity of american law in my opinion. A suit against Ben's estate - yeah, he was driving the car and at least involved. If the award is more than his insurance can cover, then the others will be in line to pay. That sucks and has always sucked. __________________ ..Bob CI Rennsport Region PCA

02-13-2006, 10:42 PM	#9
Bob Rouleau Administrator Still plays with cars. Lifetime Rennlist Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Montreal Posts: 12,895	This is going to be interesting. Sounds like a shakedown to me. Was Ben negligent? The Ferrari driver? I'd vote for the flagger myself, and perhaps the flagger was an untrained person, pressed into service. I say shakedown because it appears that the lawyers are going after plaintiffs who have the largest ability to pay. Sad. As to the C-GT being "dangerous" of course it is. Any car with that level of performance is dangerous. It seems to me this is like Stella winning a suit against a restaurant chain because their coffee was hot. A Carrera GT demands respect. Failure to do so may result in an accident. Duh! __________________ ..Bob CI Rennsport Region PCA

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-13-2006, 06:11 PM	#2
netburner User Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 178	I only know the crash pics and that Ben was killed during that crash.... Is there any matter, why there is this now? I thought it was a crash at the racetrack because of a fault of another driver? So why is the Porsche AG involved in this now?

02-13-2006, 06:29 PM	#4
roberga Super User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: SEATTLE Posts: 4,981	Because there is a chance of easy money for the attorney. They just shotgun every concievable company and hope they settle. I look forward to Porsche defending their car. It is stuff like this that will keep many cars in Europe and not here. Wonder if this lawyer hunts quail?

02-13-2006, 06:58 PM	#6
DMin User Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 216	That Ben's estate was included in the suit is so sad...

02-13-2006, 08:38 PM	#7
Les Quam User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 720	I have obtained a copy of the complaint and among other things it alleges the Porsche CGT crashed into a concrete barrier which was intruding into the runoff area of the track in order to create a play area for kids. The complaint also alleges that Sposato the driver of the Ferrari negligently pulled onto the track in front of Ben. That Robert Niles the flagman negligently waved Sposato out onto the track and that the event organizers were negligent in running the event. Complaint alleges Ben had dangerous driving propensities and that the vehicle(CGT) had dangerous handling characteristics. All of which were allegedly concealed from Corey which is why he signed the waiver. No other particulars were alleged in the complaint. Nor does the complaint expound on the allegations.

02-13-2006, 08:39 PM	#8
Lizard1 User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 429	it's just like medicine. sue everybody that even had a remote encounter with the patient to get the most bucks out of the insurance company as possible. the american legal system seriously needs to be reformed. the only one who should MAYBE have been named is the company responsible for the track spotter who waived the ferrari on

02-13-2006, 10:45 PM	#10
Les Quam User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 720	Insurance for racing events is readily available from a number of companies. In Ben's case the insurance company I presume stated that Ben had a policy for the street and not for a race event. However there is precedent that they must honor the coverage if it is not a race event but a driving school type event. Nick must have somehow interceded on the Keaton family's behalf and convinced the insurance company that it was a driving school type event as opposed to a race? I don't have all the details but it is VERY difficult to get these insurance companies on board in these type of incidents. Kudo's to Nick. Nick could fill in the details better than I if he wishes to comment. But I would imagine he is unable to comment since he represents the Keaton family and it is probably priviliged.

02-13-2006, 10:48 PM	#12
SciFrog User Join Date: May 2005 Location: NY Posts: 261	I hope the outcome will be that Porsche proves there is no malfunction/design problems with the car, but it needs to be proven. Once proven though all the expenses should be on the attacking party. As for suing Ben's estate, this is sad. It is like saying Ben did this on purpose and his estate should pay for that.

02-13-2006, 11:30 PM	#13
SciFrog User Join Date: May 2005 Location: NY Posts: 261	Or else Porsche should have warned the driver/owner... I have read it too, and don't agree with that argument. Porsche should just prove that car has no deffect, period.

02-13-2006, 11:58 PM	#14
prg User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 506	This is America and no one is responsible for the consequences of their own choices apparently. Going out onto a race track is inherently dangerous. Mr. Rudl undoubtedly signed a form accepting this risk. He made a choice that unfortunately had tragic consequences. I fail to see why his heirs should be enriched because of his decision to take this risk.

02-14-2006, 12:09 AM	#15
roberga Super User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: SEATTLE Posts: 4,981	Not on a race track. Fricking lawyers. What pieces of Sh)t some of them can be. Go fter the parties involved. Maybe go after Chevron for providing the gas to make the car go. My wife used to transcribe for depos. I could not believe the B.S. they go after. No different then the panhandlers on the street.