Ben (the driver of the CGT) was a very active member on Rennlist and from all accounts an incredibly considerate and fantastic individual. There are many threads about this particular incident on Rennlist. I have never seen a good thread with anyone that really knows the suspension/steering issue. There is speculation that the CGT was actually functioning properly and as designed and there was no real malfunction but instead was a situation where the laws of physics took over for a driver error. While mid engined cars like the CGT, Enzo (and the Cayman and F430) have great handling and fantastic turn in they also are very difficult to correct once really out of shape. These low inertia designs spin like a top. Most drivers don't have the skills to really drive these car at the edge (I have no idea what type of driver Ben was) and sudden steering inputs can be catastrophic (note all the Enzo and CGT accidents).

As for the handling problem of the CGT the stories I have read are contradictory. I have seen reports the car was perfectly fine and just exhibited the natural oversteer characteristics of the car and others that say something wasn't quite right. The mechanics that I have all seen quoted specialized in Ferraris and my not have experience with the CGT. Nothing in the reports I have read persuades me to think there was a malfunction.

If no malfunction and it was just driver error the question then becomes rather interesting from a legal standpoint...is a driver error under these circumstances (i.e. high speed event when someone knows what is going on) "negligence" or "gross negligence"? It gets interesting from a purely legal perspective given the recent CA Supreme Court ruling on waivers. The other factor in the analysis to consider is that I have read that the passenager (the plaintiff in the law suit) was trying to decide between an Enzo and CGT and wanted to see how the CGT performed.

__________________
Brian

Ultimately I would not feel to bad for the driver's estate because of the settlement numbers because I would think insurance covered most of it. At least I hope so.

__________________
resident comedienne

2006 Cayman S - Speed Yellow, Black Interior, Yellow Seat Belts
Sports Chrono Package, 6 Spd, PASM/PSM, Bi-Xenon headlamps
Carrera S wheels 19" - Mich PS2, Colored-crest wheel cap
Auto climate control, Heated seats
PCM 2.1 Nav, Denision ICE-Ipod, Bose Surround
De-snorked, Evo V-Flow, Clear Engine Cover

I agree with Brian (bet), the reported "problem" was simply that the car oversteers by design. I also agree that midengine cars allow a driver to more easily get up close to the limit of adhesion, but once exceeded, spin like tops, the downside of a low polar moment of inertia. Naturally, this is also true for the Boxster/Cayman. The NTSB describes accidents as a chain of events, not just one event, that results in tragedy. It's clear that Mr. Keaton's driving was not the sole and proximate cause of the accident, but as the owner of the car his estate bore the brunt of the litigation.

I, like Brian (bet), well remember all the posts on Rennlist (where Ben, the CGT driver, was active) right after this incident. All the speculation about what happened and what would happen. All the inconsistent eye witness reports. All the talk about Ben's survivors perhaps suing Porsche for producing an inherently dangerous, unstable car best suited for professional drivers, but sold to unprepared amateurs.

A problem with opining on stories like this is that such cases are usually very fact specific, and this thread offers an abundance of comments by posters who are ignorant of most of the underlying facts. As such, it does a disservice to those whose lives were changed by the incident.

1. E.g., just what do we know about the future economic losses to the passenger's survivors? The passenger was in the car because he had expressed interest in buying a CGT and the "experienced" driver offered to take him out to show him what the car can do. Any idea of the income level of that prospective CGT buyer?

2. You're dreaming if you think a 130mph impact into a nearly immovable object is survivable with air bags. Organs and large blood vessels can be torn apart at those G forces. Besides, the impact, as I understand it, was on the passenger side in a more lateral direction.

The real lesson here is that when we track our cars we are engaging in a dangerous sport which takes us a moment away from death or serious injury. With head in the sand we all take our high speed play far too casually, until something like this. Then, although we may reflect for a moment, we're back on the gas.

When we take a passenger with us we are morally, if not legally, responsible for that passenger's safety. The decision we make about how hard we push on the track must recognize that fact, as well as our safety equipment, experience level, track configuration, etc. When a car hits a wall at speed it makes no difference to the occupants that it was "just a DE."

__________________
Dan

That has much more to do with strong patent laws and corporate greed. Take pharmaceuticals- The industry rakes in 20-25% profits every year for the past 20. That's incredible. Obviously lawsuits aren't causing the skyrocketing prices...

- The lawsuit boogeyman is a scape goat for billionaire insurance carriers and the Republicans (with insurance co donations) trying to stir their base. This irritating to me since I am a republican.

They are. First, the odds are heavily stacked against plaintiffs even if they have an excellent case- so many good cases get no award at all. Second, the judge can vacate any award the jury proposes if he thinks (right or wrong) that it is out of line. Third, the company can always appeal. This makes the plaintiff end up agreeing to a lesser amount.

Insurance companies love to get laws limiting the award because that means the plaintiff will always have to settle for much less than the limit- or take the crapshoot chance of going to trial and getting nothing. And they try to write the law so that limits are low enough that it isn't a good financial decision on the part of the plaintiff lawyer to pay the costs of a case at all- thereby increasing the number of good cases that never get taken. The guilty get away with the crime.

And finally; big awards are not solely for compensation but are also a deterent for continued corporate misdeeds. It is fact that Ford cold bloodedly decided to market Pintos with known defects because they calculated that it was cheaper to pay and awards than fix the problem. They chose to let an estimated 300 or so people burn to death rather than do the right thing. The ONLY way you stop that is with punitive awards.

__________________
996 GT3 lower control arms at all corners
997 GT3 front sway bar
Quaife TBD
DMC harness bar/G-force harness

I am just saying that moving a wall and creating a impact surface is not a good idea. Something to keep your eyes open for. Like the ruts in the hard pack dirt that will flip your car at Laguna if you go off sideways. Makes you dial it back a tenth or two.

__________________

2007 Speed Yellow Cayman GT 2.7 (retired)
2008 Guards Red Cayman GT 3.4
"Carpe Cayman"

"The real lesson here is that when we track our cars we are engaging in a dangerous sport which takes us a moment away from death or serious injury. With head in the sand we all take our high speed play far too casually, until something like this. Then, although we may reflect for a moment, we're back on the gas.

When we take a passenger with us we are morally, if not legally, responsible for that passenger's safety. The decision we make about how hard we push on the track must recognize that fact, as well as our safety equipment, experience level, track configuration, etc. When a car hits a wall at speed it makes no difference to the occupants that it was "just a DE."" - Dan (STLPCA)

Very well summarized and I totally agree.
That is exactly why I posted this link. We as students and instructors are taking other peoples lives into our hands. When I am giving a ride to a student I feel like I am going about 8/10 of my normal solo speed which is still faster than most in the instructor group. This sobering incident makes me think I need to slow down even more and also makes me question how hard I want students to push. Do I have them leave "stability control" on to protect both of us?? Sort of makes you rethink the whole instructing thing, doesn't it. I, and most instructors in BMWCCA, PCA, Audi Club etc. have ZERO professional driver training, much less professional training on how to teach driving skills. We do this because it is our passion and our hobby. Todays cars are so capable and with such high limits that when they are exceeded the consequences can be very grave. Example: 3 GT3s wrecked at the Memorial Day weekend PCA event at Road America accorrding to a friend that attended that event. Those cars are reaching speeds of 160mph in the 2 long straights at RA. I am not sure I want to be the passenger in a car that capable that has only the stock seatbelts and air bags to protect me, with a novice driver with more money and ego than skill piloting it.
Food for thought....
Tom

All I know is that the exact same device made in Germany, and utilized in Thailand costs 50% as much as it does in US. Supply and demand doesn't explain it, so perhaps greed (where there is demand in medicine, charge more in the well to do countries) does play in here. I still think companies consider strongly the litiginous nature of the US over other countries when pricing their products. Especially automotive companies.

BUT, MD malpractice insurance premiums in California have risen at much more reasonable rates since limits on damages/awards was enforced by the state, and in return has moderated Physician private practice fees and cost of medical care to a degree.

(In the atmosphere of managed care, it has allowed physicians to stay in private practice vs hanging it up due to outrageous malpractice insurance premiums.)

Perhaps lawsuits don't cause "skyrocketing prices" but they do cause increasing prices.

Quote: Lawsuits force the average American family to pay
an additional $3,520 per year in goods and services.

Frivolous Lawsuits Cost You Thousands Annually - Workplace Excellence - Dan Bobinski talks about Skills for Workplace Excellence

Oh, you are right, there is a cost associated with lawsuits, but there's a cost associated with any kind of justice. We could save a lot of money by letting murderers out of prison...

And as far as articles about the cost, be careful as many of them have been funded by the insurance lobby- one rather famous one says it costs 8-$9000 per family or something like that. That was a figure the insurance companies calculated that they spend on every person and overhead, regardless of whether their function had anything to do with lawsuits. The funny thing about 'frivolous' lawsuits is that the reforms pushed by insurance don't affect them- they affect ALL lawsuits, good or bad- and the vast majority that go anywhere are valid. In my 16 or so years of experience I have seen many many more frivolous DEFENSES put up by guilty defendants than I ever see frivolous plaintiff actions.

That said, I've been on both sides and hate BS going either way. But I really worry when one side tries to rig the game permanently. Here in Oklahoma MD insurance rates have gone down too- but we didn't enact the reforms the insurance companies wanted. It has to do with the stockmarket, not real lawsuits. The insurance cos are heavily invested and were hurt a few years back- that was when they started the tort reform lobby state by state.

I'm not on the medical side of things, but one big problem I understand with MD lawsuits: the insurers let the MD decide when and if to settle- he's not the best judge and has a conflicting interest. Also, they don't punish a bad MD by raising just his rate, they raise everyone's rate.

__________________
996 GT3 lower control arms at all corners
997 GT3 front sway bar
Quaife TBD
DMC harness bar/G-force harness