I began my professional career almost 35 years ago as an attorney handling criminal defense and personal injury cases and I quickly became disillusioned by people...not the legal system...for the types of things for which they sought compensation. However, I still have nothing but awe and tremendous respect for our system of justice...the wheels of justice may indeed turn slowly, but the law continues to level inequality and correct wrongs. People, though, will be people and be motivated by emotions such as greed, anger, and grief. It is truth that emotions blur clear thinking. I've been around long enough to know that the human condition will not change. But, it is for that, I believe, that the law exists. I don't think that the plaintiff here has much of a claim; however, I know that this plaintiff will have a hugely difficult task of establishing legal proof that the driver's negligence was not the proximate cause of this accident.

 

She could bring a civil suit against Mr Rodas for manslaughter. It amazes me in these times that crap like this doesn't even get off the ground. Still shaking my head at the women who sued years ago for the hot coffee in her lap.

Does California have car inspections? Maybe she should sue the garage that inspected the car.

Not a laughing matter, tragically 2 people died in this car. I think most of us have done stupid things in cars/bikes reminds us that the only safe place for speed is at the track.

 

Since you are an experienced litigator, what's your opinion on how much you think Porsche would have to spend to defend this suit? Considering that they may not want to set any kind of current legal precedent, I would think they would need to go all out to win or attempt to win, with all kinds of independent technical, engineering and safety analysis and expert testimony.

Four...five million dollars? Ten? More than that? Do you think the plaintiff's attorney (Mark Garegos) has a similar estimate or is he thinking even bigger? Safe to say that she didn't hire the "Legal Sound Bite Machine" just because he's a good attorney?

What's the going rate for an out-of-court settlement these days? Half of the estimated cost of defense? Three quarters?

Seems reasonable that that's their angle. Porsche has probably already set up a reserve number as the threshold for settlement. Whatever it is, once the estimate starts to reach or exceed the reserve, negotiations will begin.

 

How sure are you that the don't? And you live in SoCal where any slight much be righted no matter what the cost to the public, tax payers, etc!


I think that California is a comparative negligence state so even if there is an issue with the rear tires, that alone will not stop a suit that can show that other factors were more responsible. I am not a California attorney and not a products liability guy (merely patents, trademarks and copyrights). Someone with experience in that jurisdiction and in that area will be better able to address this. But, if discovery shows that there were known issues and Porsche did nothing to address them, who knows!

 

In my opinion, first and foremost this is about brand and reputation for Porsche so they are going to spend and do whatever it takes to completely exonerate the company. Based on what I know about the facts and circumstances (which most definitely not everything there is to know), I don't think there will be any consideration at all of settlement based on nuisance or cost of defense. Of course, if Porsche believes they are somehow responsible for this accident, they will calculate that esposure in context of the liklihood of losing the case and develop a number. However, if I were to bet, I would lay good money on Porsche coming out like Ali in his prime and treating this case like armageddon. One thing for sure is that the plaintiff will discover things about her husband she never knew.

 

For reference; I'm being sued by a guy who's injuries amount to a half inch cut on one forearm and 4 tiny puncture wounds. No stitches, minor scaring from the cut. The injuries are the result of another persons negligence who is also being sued but the incident happened on my property. My insurance company has spent a little over $150,000 defending me. If it goes to trial they will spend another $75,000-$150,000. He is asking for $2,100,000. Even though the suit is essentially frivolous the insurance has to fight it like its a real claim because he's asking so much. I hate ALL attorneys, my own only slightly less than the rest.

Like the other poster said everyone should have at LEAST a $3,000,000 umbrella policy. Mine costs $300 a year.

 

Agree with your thoughts on umbrella policy's and I purchased one also.

ChuckJ

 

Everyone? or everyone with a net worth over 3 million. What would be the point of having an umbrella policy for more then your net worth?

 

Extortion comes in many guises...

 

I agree with you there!

 

The beauty of an umbrella policy is that is forces your insurance company to defend you with good counsel. They are on the hook for the max on your homeowner or auto policy PLUS the 3-5 mil on your umbrella. They will aggressively fight for you under those circumstances. If you have a lower limit policy they will settle for the max($100-300,000 let's say) and you are on the hook for anything over that. Insurance companies do what's best for them, not the policy holder.

 

Thats the truth, Usually spoken as "OH sorry your policy does not cover that"