ADVERTISEMENT

Paul Walker's Daughter Meadow Sues Porsche Over Actor's Wrongful Death: Tragic New Crash Details

alaskanseminole

alaskanseminole

Seminole Insider
Oct 20, 2002
26,579
2,217
853
Paul Walker’s 16-year-old daughter, Meadow Walker, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Porsche following her dad’s Nov. 30, 2013, death in Valencia, Calif. According to the lawsuit, obtained by Us Weekly, Meadow’s lawyers claim that Paul died after being trapped inside the 2005 Carrera GT he was riding in alongside friend Roger Rodas.

1443482419_169432024_paul-walker-467.jpg


LINK TO FULL STORY


"The bottom line is that the Porsche Carrera GT is a dangerous car,” Milam said in his statement. “It doesn't belong on the street. And we shouldn't be without Paul Walker or his friend, Roger Rodas."

This is no different than trying to regulate morality.

Furthermore, this is hogg'n up my news feed...where's my KIM DAVIS report! o_O
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed
Family has probably blown through his money already or he had a lot of debts. Obvious money grab.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dmm5157
alaskanseminole said:
Paul Walker’s 16-year-old daughter, Meadow Walker, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Porsche following her dad’s Nov. 30, 2013, death in Valencia, Calif. According to the lawsuit, obtained by Us Weekly, Meadow’s lawyers claim that Paul died after being trapped inside the 2005 Carrera GT he was riding in alongside friend Roger Rodas.

1443482419_169432024_paul-walker-467.jpg


LINK TO FULL STORY


"The bottom line is that the Porsche Carrera GT is a dangerous car,” Milam said in his statement. “It doesn't belong on the street. And we shouldn't be without Paul Walker or his friend, Roger Rodas."

This is no different than trying to regulate morality.

Furthermore, this is hogg'n up my news feed...where's my KIM DAVIS report! o_O
Click to expand...

When you look at the video of the car burning, the car is relatively intact yet in a rip roaring flame so I'm not surprised at all that the law suit was filed. If I were a relative, I would blame Porsche as well.
 
FSUTribe76 said:
When you look at the video of the car burning, the car is relatively intact yet in a rip roaring flame so I'm not surprised at all that the law suit was filed. If I were a relative, I would blame Porsche as well.
Click to expand...

Did Porsche drive it into the tree?

Also, it's likely we have different definitions for the word, "intact."

usa-paulwalker.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: runkpanole
That car has been known for years before this accident to be very, very, very hard to control even by the professionals. She is actually right, it does not belong on the street and should be on a controlled track.
 
I love that anytime someone makes a terrible decision, and is then forced to deal with the consequences, then it automatically must have been someone else's fault, and the only real option is to sue a company that was in no way involved in the decision-making that led to the bad decision. Yes, rather than spending her time increasing awareness of the dangers of street racing and driving recklessly, she's going to focus on blaming others for what happened.

It's understandable though - she's the entitled child of a rich actor. She's likely never had to learn about personal accountability before. Maybe she could sue her dad's estate for that? Or her mom?

I hope that she loses the case and the only thing that's accomplished is that she wastes all of what remains of her dad's money, so that she's forced to go out and get a job based solely on her skills in order to support herself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: osceola74, West Duval Nole, NoleFan2U and 4 others
alaskanseminole said:
Did Porsche drive it into the tree?

Also, it's likely we have different definitions for the word, "intact."

usa-paulwalker.jpg
Click to expand...

That's after it melted. Take a look at the video (I won't post it as it's graphic depending on the person looking at it and there's a possibility that Walker or the other guy was burning alive in it....Law Enforcement CLAIMS that it's just the roof melting and twisting from the heat of the flames BUT to the naked eye it looks like you can see a human shape struggling to get out of the flames for a few seconds) and you'll see the car was mostly intact and looking like a normal car....except with huge flames. I'm not even 100% convinced that pic is from the wreck (the pics are from onlookers while the the video definitely is legit as law enforcement used it in their report).
 
Last edited:
NDallasRuss said:
If it was "known" to be hard to control, then he took an educated risk in getting into the car.
Click to expand...
FSUTribe76 said:
That's after it melted. Take a look at the video (I won't post it as it's graphic depending on the person looking at it and there's a possibility that Walker or the other guy was burning alive in it....Law Enforcement CLAIMS that it's just the roof melting and twisting from the heat of the flames BUT to the naked eye it looks like you can see a human shape struggling to get out of the flames for a few seconds) and you'll see the car was mostly intact and looking like a normal car....except with huge flames. I'm not even 100% convinced that pic is from the wreck (the pics are from onlookers while the the video definitely is legit as law enforcement used it in their report).
Click to expand...

Did Paul Walker (and the driver) enter the vehicle against their will?
 
noleclone2 said:
That car has been known for years before this accident to be very, very, very hard to control even by the professionals. She is actually right, it does not belong on the street and should be on a controlled track.
Click to expand...

It's not the only car like that. This nanny bull crap is getting out of hand. Mandatory tire pressure sensors, traction control, backup cameras, etc. People should be required to take care of themselves and learn about the machines they are driving. Believe it or not that Porsche has a throttle just like every other car and if you don't mash it to the floor it won't try to kill you. Vipers were the same way from their inception until the current gen. Lambo as well. While we are at it should we ban anything built before a certain year? We should also ban motorcycles, scooters, etc. while we are at it because those are dangerous. Oh, and so are bicycles. And people might get hurt walking on sidewalks so that's gotta go too.

The bottom line is you can't protect people from themselves. People have choices to make which is why some drive Volvos for safety and others take on more risk in a performance car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoleFan2U
The problem with the American legal system is that the judge seldom throws these cases out within 10 minutes of hitting the court's desk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Urban Cryer
LT4PLY said:
It's not the only car like that. This nanny bull crap is getting out of hand. Mandatory tire pressure sensors, traction control, backup cameras, etc. People should be required to take care of themselves and learn about the machines they are driving. Believe it or not that Porsche has a throttle just like every other car and if you don't mash it to the floor it won't try to kill you. Vipers were the same way from their inception until the current gen. Lambo as well. While we are at it should we ban anything built before a certain year? We should also ban motorcycles, scooters, etc. while we are at it because those are dangerous. Oh, and so are bicycles. And people might get hurt walking on sidewalks so that's gotta go too.

The bottom line is you can't protect people from themselves. People have choices to make which is why some drive Volvos for safety and others take on more risk in a performance car.
Click to expand...

motorcycles- no
scooters-no
bicycles-no.
sidewalks -no
Sports cars-no
Manufactures letting rich idiots drive basically a Racing cars (You probably don't know it began as a racing car design) on the street -yes.

I bet you would maybe not feel the same way if some rich idiot took out you and your family on a similar city street (instead of a tree) and you then found out afterwards the car is basically a racing car for the super rich and meant for a controlled environment like a track to be driven by professionals. It had a V10 600 HP engine is in the middle for quicker turning yet it has no stability control like most sports cars. Notorious for being vey hard to handle. And I don't think you should just let anyone drive around in those. Again, the issue is do they have a liability for gladly taking peoples $500,000 and giving them (and the unsuspecting public) way too dangerous a product to use.
 
Good read from the experts

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cul...-stability-control-is-a-feature-not-a-defect/

And while we'll never know if electronics could have saved walker and his loss is still tragic, the Carrera GT didn't lack stability control because of a defect. The lack of stability control was a feature. Here's why.






The Carrera GT had an unlikely rise. It was born out of a Le Mans program that was abandoned so the company could focus on its Cayenne SUV. Porsche had a V10 engine with nowhere to put it, but then the lightbulb went off that it should be a limited production supercar.

Brilliant.

What Porsche built was an uncompromising race car for the road. It had carbon brakes, a manual gearbox, a carbon clutch that was notoriously hard to use, no electronic aids, and a V10 engine that was meant for a race car.
 
noleclone2 said:
motorcycles- no
scooters-no
bicycles-no.
sidewalks -no
Sports cars-no
Manufactures letting rich idiots drive basically a Racing cars (You probably don't know it began as a racing car design) on the street -yes.

I bet you would maybe not feel the same way if some rich idiot took out you and your family on a similar city street (instead of a tree) and you then found out afterwards the car is basically a racing car for the super rich and meant for a controlled environment like a track to be driven by professionals. It had a V10 600 HP engine is in the middle for quicker turning yet it has no stability control like most sports cars. Notorious for being vey hard to handle. And I don't think you should just let anyone drive around in those. Again, the issue is do they have a liability for gladly taking peoples $500,000 and giving them (and the unsuspecting public) way too dangerous a product to use.
Click to expand...
I'd then likely sue the rich idiots estate. But then again, the rich idiots estate's pockets are likely not as big as the manufacturer's so, living within the money grubbing spirit of those who try to get made whole by blaming the wrong people, yeah I'd probably sue the manufacturer as well.
 
If this car was the most dangerous car in the world, I think it would be irrelevant in this case. Walker raced cars as a hobby and I can guarantee you that he knew the car was unsafe to road race the way his buddy was racing.
 
His friend was driving 81 to 90 mph down a street with a rated speed limit of 45 mph. It began to drift as it came out of a turn and the driver lost control. If the jury finds that the car was defectively designed because it was a V10 performance vehicle sold for street use, but did not account for uplift -- causing a driver to lose control-- the jury will apportion fault amongst the driver and the manufacturer. This is the jury finds the car was defectively designed. However, why isn't the "personal responsibility" mantra applied to manufacturers. Porche dumped a huge engine into a street car that it sold for the general public, but, potentially, did not design it to account for the forces applied during street driving. It is foreseeable that a driver of this car will exceed the speed limit. Hell, most of you on this board brag about how fast you drive. The car should have been designed to account for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FSUTribe76
noleclone2 said:
motorcycles- no
scooters-no
bicycles-no.
sidewalks -no
Sports cars-no
Manufactures letting rich idiots drive basically a Racing cars (You probably don't know it began as a racing car design) on the street -yes.

I bet you would maybe not feel the same way if some rich idiot took out you and your family on a similar city street (instead of a tree) and you then found out afterwards the car is basically a racing car for the super rich and meant for a controlled environment like a track to be driven by professionals. It had a V10 600 HP engine is in the middle for quicker turning yet it has no stability control like most sports cars. Notorious for being vey hard to handle. And I don't think you should just let anyone drive around in those. Again, the issue is do they have a liability for gladly taking peoples $500,000 and giving them (and the unsuspecting public) way too dangerous a product to use.
Click to expand...

Personally, I wouldn't go after the car manufacturer for killing my family. I would go after the driver (if he/she were still alive). Much in the same way I wouldn't go after S&W if a guy shot a family member.

If I choose to stab myself in the ear with a VERY SHARP and EXTREMELY DANGEROUS (if in the wrong hands) kitchen knife, should kitchen knives be banned?

You may have a better argument if you petitioned to have regulations changed regarding what is allowable on the streets. As is, Porsche didn't put an illegal vehicle on the streets (or did they?). Porsche didn't drive the vehicle recklessly into a tree. Porsche isn't liable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noleclone2
I agree with much of the last several posts above. Just playing devil's advocate and pointing out it is not as silly as it may first sound. Porsche has already paid out money due to the mayhem created by this race car. I do agree the better question is should there be a bit more regulation on what is allowed on the street. Suppose such a thing would be a hard thing to regulate.

It is an extremely dangerous car in all but a very, very, very few hands.
 
alaskanseminole said:
Personally, I wouldn't go after the car manufacturer for killing my family. I would go after the driver (if he/she were still alive). Much in the same way I wouldn't go after S&W if a guy shot a family member.

If I choose to stab myself in the ear with a VERY SHARP and EXTREMELY DANGEROUS (if in the wrong hands) kitchen knife, should kitchen knives be banned?

You may have a better argument if you petitioned to have regulations changed regarding what is allowable on the streets. As is, Porsche didn't put an illegal vehicle on the streets (or did they?). Porsche didn't drive the vehicle recklessly into a tree. Porsche isn't liable.
Click to expand...

How do you know he drove it into the tree? How do you know that the car designed caused the driver to lose control at 85 mph? The knife analogy is a very bad one. The knife was not defectively designed. It was made as it was designed and you intentionally stabbed yourself. Let's say, instead, you were using the knife to chop onions (as knives are designed; and similar to the driver driving the Porche at 85 mph, because that was what this car was designed to do), let's say you had the FSU game on and had been drinking a few beers while chopping the onions (a totally foreseeable thing because people drink and watch tv when they cook, but it is behavior that is negligent, i.e, you shouldn't drink and be distracted when you use a knife); let's say the knife is designed with a flexible riveted handle to improve chopping performance, but the knife blade can slip when chopping to fast. Low and behold, Golston throws a beautiful pass for a 60 yd pass - you look up, kife blade starts chopping fast because of your excitement and knife flexes and slips -- cutting into your gut. The jury may find that the knife was defective, and they may also find that your were contributory negligent. 12 people with apportion responsibility amongst you and the manufacturer -- see how it works.

The driver may bear some or a lot of responsibility; thus, the judicial system allows juries to apportion responsibility amongst the actors.
 
The driver bears all of the responsibility. They both knew the the car, it's horsepower, and it's capabilities. He screwed up and lost control of it.
 
How are you able to make that determination at this point? It may be right, but 81 to 90 mph is not overly excessive for this car. If, because of a poor design, the car becomes unstable at the speeds it is marketed and sold to run at, shouldn't the manufacturer be partially responsible.
 
Walker was not driving. Your wife would have to be chopping the onions then accidentally cuts your ear off and/or guts you.

Seriously, Walker was not driving. It was not his mistake. He could have been telling his friend to slow the #$%^ down. If he was trapped in the car and could not escape, there may be something there. Of course, it appears that a tree was blocking his escape, and not a poorly designed jammed door.
 
noleclone2 said:
I agree with much of the last several posts above. Just playing devil's advocate and pointing out it is not as silly as it may first sound. Porsche has already paid out money due to the mayhem created by this race car. I do agree the better question is should there be a bit more regulation on what is allowed on the street. Suppose such a thing would be a hard thing to regulate.

It is an extremely dangerous car in all but a very, very, very few hands.
Click to expand...

No.

Maybe you should ask if all cars should be governed at 60 mph instead.
 
Fijimn said:
...but 81 to 90 mph is not overly excessive for this car.
Click to expand...
For the area in which they were driving it, it was. Hence the speed limit.

"According to the report, the car was traveling 93 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour zone when it crashed and killed both Walker, 40, and the car's driver, his friend Roger Rodas, 38. The report also determined that mechanical failure did not contribute to the crash, but two 9-year-old tires did."

http://www.etonline.com/news/144772_New_Report_93_MPH_Speed_Old_Tires_Caused_Paul_Walker_Crash/
 
No; just because its zoned for 45 miles an hour does not mean exceeding that speed is dangerous. it was in the city, it was likely rated that due to pedestrians and traffic. Had they nailed another car or a pedestrian, then I would be on board. There are a ton of streets in my area that a zoned for 30 or 45 miles an hour that you could drive 100 mph on with no problem.

The car was reported to have drifted -- potentially due to uplift -- as it was going out of the turn. Was the rate of speed to much for the turn. Possibly, I do not know. I do not know the angle of turn.

That's the first I have read about old tires. It just says the tires were 9 years old, but doesn't say the amount of tread on the tires. Further, if the tread was determine to be too low to grip, how did the expert from the sheriffs office eliminate the possibility that a significant amount of tread eroded during the accident and ensuing fire.
 
Guy makes movies about dangerous cars, modified to be more dangerous, and then driven dangerously.

Guy owns garage that takes dangerous cars and makes them more dangerous.

Guy collects some of the most dangerous cars (930 turbos, m1, GT3RS, GT40, E36 M3 lightweights, all manner of Saleen Mustangs) and modifies them to be more dangerous.

Guy lets his business partner who he runs this garage with him drive his 10-year old, likely heavily tuned dangerous car 50 mph over the speed limit. He dies.

Guy's family sues business partner's family for the dangerous car collection, so that they can sell his dangerous, and now dangerously modified cars to others.

Now that there's no one left to sue, the family is going after Porsche. The car was either crash tested and passed, or it was meant for show and display. Paul Walker knew exactly what that car was.
 
Fijimn said:
No; just because its zoned for 45 miles an hour does not mean exceeding that speed is dangerous.
Click to expand...
But the reason for the speed limit could be because of the risk associated with exceeding that speed on that road, and throughout that turn, right?

I haven't seen any evidence where the speed limit was set where it was due to traffic or pedestrians, but I have seen at least one example where the speed was set where it was to avoid being burned alive in a fiery crash.

When coupled with the quote "The law enforcement officials concluded that speed going into a tight curve was too much for Rodas, though he was a veteran race car driver.", it could reasonably be inferred that he was driving a) faster than the law allowed, b) faster than the tires allowed, c) faster than the speed in which the car could be safely controlled, and d) faster than the speed under which the driver could maintain control. None of these are the fault of the car manufacturer, and to me it's crazy to postulate that they are in any way responsible for it. Otherwise, you could extrapolate it out to say that every car manufacturer is responsible for every speeding ticket that anyone has ever gotten - because it was reckless of them to make a car that could exceed the speed limits.

And if they're going to apportion liability, then why don't the apportion it out to everyone that was part of the process, but also didn't really cause them to drive the car too fast and crash it? Maybe the company that laid the asphalt could be found partially liable for not installing a type of asphalt with more grip/traction. Perhaps the person/dealership that sold the guy the car should be found partially liable for selling him the car. And you could find the owner of the tree into which they crashed partially liable for choosing to plant and maintain a tree at such a critical juncture of the turn - they could have know that a skidding car could leave the road at that point in the turn, based on speed, centrifugal force, etc. And the car wouldn't have gone anywhere if it hadn't have been for the fuel that someone chose to allow the guy to pump into this car - it's akin to selling the uranium that goes inside the nuclear bomb.

And yes, I've taken this to the extreme, ludicrous end, because that's what the whole thing is to me - ludicrous. The guy bought a fast car. Paul Walker chose to get in the guy's fast car. The guy drove the fast car fast, and it crashed. There's no one else at fault except for the guy driving too fast, and the guy that chose to get in the car with him. Maybe she could sue the estate of the guy that was driving, but that's it, in my opinion.
 
NDallasRuss said:
But the reason for the speed limit could be because of the risk associated with exceeding that speed on that road, and throughout that turn, right?

I haven't seen any evidence where the speed limit was set where it was due to traffic or pedestrians, but I have seen at least one example where the speed was set where it was to avoid being burned alive in a fiery crash.

When coupled with the quote "The law enforcement officials concluded that speed going into a tight curve was too much for Rodas, though he was a veteran race car driver.", it could reasonably be inferred that he was driving a) faster than the law allowed, b) faster than the tires allowed, c) faster than the speed in which the car could be safely controlled, and d) faster than the speed under which the driver could maintain control. None of these are the fault of the car manufacturer, and to me it's crazy to postulate that they are in any way responsible for it. Otherwise, you could extrapolate it out to say that every car manufacturer is responsible for every speeding ticket that anyone has ever gotten - because it was reckless of them to make a car that could exceed the speed limits.

And if they're going to apportion liability, then why don't the apportion it out to everyone that was part of the process, but also didn't really cause them to drive the car too fast and crash it? Maybe the company that laid the asphalt could be found partially liable for not installing a type of asphalt with more grip/traction. Perhaps the person/dealership that sold the guy the car should be found partially liable for selling him the car. And you could find the owner of the tree into which they crashed partially liable for choosing to plant and maintain a tree at such a critical juncture of the turn - they could have know that a skidding car could leave the road at that point in the turn, based on speed, centrifugal force, etc. And the car wouldn't have gone anywhere if it hadn't have been for the fuel that someone chose to allow the guy to pump into this car - it's akin to selling the uranium that goes inside the nuclear bomb.

And yes, I've taken this to the extreme, ludicrous end, because that's what the whole thing is to me - ludicrous. The guy bought a fast car. Paul Walker chose to get in the guy's fast car. The guy drove the fast car fast, and it crashed. There's no one else at fault except for the guy driving too fast, and the guy that chose to get in the car with him. Maybe she could sue the estate of the guy that was driving, but that's it, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

1.You have never been in a school zone?
2. Obviously, through the years the law has developed legal standards that does not make these viable claims -- i.e, no cause of action.

3. Again, the driver may have been going too fast for that turn and that caused the driver to lose control. It was reported that the car began to drift - was that solely the function of the speed? To know this, I would need to know the angle of turn, speed.
 
What is this "uplift" you keep talking about? The faster that car goes, the more downforce it makes.
The tread depth on the tires doesn't mean a thing. It's the age of the tires. 9 year old tires are dangerous tires, even if they still have their full tread depth left. Classic car guys and motorhome owners run into this problem all the time. Our tires time out before they are worn out.

It's a high perfomance, exotic sportscar with no traction control. Vipers didn't have traction control until this latest model. They knew that and he over drove the car for the conditions and they died.
 
Fijimn said:
How do you know he drove it into the tree? How do you know that the car designed caused the driver to lose control at 85 mph? The knife analogy is a very bad one. The knife was not defectively designed. It was made as it was designed and you intentionally stabbed yourself. Let's say, instead, you were using the knife to chop onions (as knives are designed; and similar to the driver driving the Porche at 85 mph, because that was what this car was designed to do), let's say you had the FSU game on and had been drinking a few beers while chopping the onions (a totally foreseeable thing because people drink and watch tv when they cook, but it is behavior that is negligent, i.e, you shouldn't drink and be distracted when you use a knife); let's say the knife is designed with a flexible riveted handle to improve chopping performance, but the knife blade can slip when chopping to fast. Low and behold, Golston throws a beautiful pass for a 60 yd pass - you look up, kife blade starts chopping fast because of your excitement and knife flexes and slips -- cutting into your gut. The jury may find that the knife was defective, and they may also find that your were contributory negligent. 12 people with apportion responsibility amongst you and the manufacturer -- see how it works.

The driver may bear some or a lot of responsibility; thus, the judicial system allows juries to apportion responsibility amongst the actors.
Click to expand...
I know you are a great lawyer fiji but my god you lost a ton of credibility by using any analogy where Golson throws a beautiful 60 yard pass. Clearly you haven't watched the first three games
 
Someone is auditioning to be the Porsche AG attorney or the MSN celeb reporter. I might add, quite successfully.

15927994094_5b16eeb7aa_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: noleclone2
mnole03 said:
Guy makes movies about dangerous cars, modified to be more dangerous, and then driven dangerously.

Guy owns garage that takes dangerous cars and makes them more dangerous.

Guy collects some of the most dangerous cars (930 turbos, m1, GT3RS, GT40, E36 M3 lightweights, all manner of Saleen Mustangs) and modifies them to be more dangerous.

Guy lets his business partner who he runs this garage with him drive his 10-year old, likely heavily tuned dangerous car 50 mph over the speed limit. He dies.

Guy's family sues business partner's family for the dangerous car collection, so that they can sell his dangerous, and now dangerously modified cars to others.

Now that there's no one left to sue, the family is going after Porsche. The car was either crash tested and passed, or it was meant for show and display. Paul Walker knew exactly what that car was.
Click to expand...

This is the correct answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back