based on what, common sense. porsche absolutely was not at fault, it was the drivers fault for speeding thru a curve, period.

when this hits the national news showing the families, all the other crashes, etc etc everyone will jump on board that the GT is "dangerous", its absurd but it will happen IMO. having it splashed on every news channel will make them settle to put it behind them IMO

 

Shady. You said Porche will settle. I said not likely, unless there is something there we don't know about. Common sense about the cause is just some misdirection changing the subject bs.

 

shady? dunno what you mean. misdirections, absolutely that will happen, thats what good attorneys do

 

I think that's what your overlooking. It's not going to be a simple "car wreck" case.

 

That's exactly what I've been saying all along. It's going to happen, and I wouldn't be surprised if more lawsuits arise along the way. Porsche will be cutting a check or two in the next year, if not sooner. It's too risky not to.

 

Definitely!!

 

Good attorneys do??? Really? No, good trial lawyers are not afraid to go to trial. Those that are not afraid to go trial command more respect and get much better outcomes for their clients. A large part of how I reserve cases is whether the other side is a good trial lawyer willing to tee it up. If not, the settle value is perhaps 1/2 what it should be when there is liability. When there is no liability, I will try it every time and have done so over 100 times.

 

Definitely? No, good defense lawyers will be willing to go to trial. Deterrence value. Anyone can settle. Only the top few percent can actually try cases and are willing to try cases and get optimal outcomes. Cuts both ways. Plaintiff lawyers only looking for a settlement will get about 50 cents in the dollar of what their case is worth. Defense lawyers that are all talk and no go will end up paying much more than their cases are worth when their adversary is a skilled trial lawyer. Porsche can hire the best and they won't pay unless there is exposure.

 

Single car accident on a street with no third party construction work and etc liability. Easy and simple case from my perspective. I charge $750 an hour. That over 6,500 hours! I have multiple complex civil RICO commercial litigation cases involving 10 to 15 parties in each case and involving several thousand fraudulent conveyances and fraudulent real estate transfers. I have taken 2 of these through trial in the last tear for around a million in fees over the entire course of litigation and through trial which was about 18 months for each case in federal court.

I would budget $500,000 for the Rodas case through trial and perhaps $75k in expert fees through trial.

 

I agree with everything you say, and have said. But, I think you are missing the point. This is/will be a high profile case and you keep saying "they won't pay unless there is exposure". My question to you is, do you really think this case won't attract national, or even world wide exposure? It's not about being a skilled trial lawyer, or even the point that Porsche can hire the best Lawyers money can buy, it's about the exposure the case will attract, to make Porsche look bad.

 

This has nothing to do with attorney fees or who can they can hire as attorneys. Its about misconception of what the puplic will think about Porsche and there "dangerous" GT. Its a marketing nightmare to overcome if it drags out and its cheaper to write a check for a few million and close this chapter.

Has nothing to do about whats right or wrong and it most definitely does not have anything to do with attorney fees.

The woman hired one of the highest profile lawyers in the country who knows every trick.

 

It is only high profile and risky if Walker estate sues. Unfortunately, The party suing now will be viewed as the party at fault. If Walker joined Rodas lawsuit against Porsche, it would be more problematic for Porsche.

 

Facts are facts. The key is what the experts say and what the data logger says. It would speak volumes in Walker estate did not join. I have had a couple of horrendous crashes with many deaths against construction companies I represented and they only get tricky when both the clearly innocents are joined by those that are allegedly speeding or operating in a negligent manner. Always concerned that jury will want to compensate those completely innocent regardless of apportionment of fault between the remaining parties.

Candidly, I am both surprised and disappointed with the suit. I, however, do not know all of the facts. Nevertheless, I don't think someone like Roger would have wanted this suit unless something really blatant happened.

 

Perfect example of the "bad exposure" that Porsche will endure. Even though the Walker estate technically isn't involved in the law suit, his name will be in the main headline, every time. "Widow of Driver in Paul Walker Crash Sues Porsche Over Carrera GT Design “Defects” If the headline simply read "widow of Roger Rodas sues Porsche over Carrara GT design" then it probably wouldn't even be a headline but throw in the name "Paul Walker" and it will be on the front page.

 

This is a tragedy like most catastrophic injury cases where a combination of factors leads to the end result...there is rarely just simple negligence by one party when all the factors are analyzed by a top notch expert. Let's let this unfold and see where it ends up. I would like to hear the evidence before I ever consider buying a CGT, and also out of professional curiosity. I am not sure Porsche would be wise to try a high profile celebrity case against Geregos in LA county if they could get out reasonably. With all due respect, I'm not sure it's just about 'whether they did anything right' Doug...jurisdiction is a big consideration, as well as lawyer expertise, strength of evidence etc. Some things we can surmise...If the data log recorded excessive speed I doubt that Geregos would have alleged 55 mph speed in the complaint, or PCNA would have even been consulted by the Coroner. The expertise with materials used on the car..to judge crash speed was probably why they were called and it's doubtful they looked at every detail of the car. You can bet Geregos had a top investigative team all over it. The fact that Walker estate not involved isn't surprising as Geregos can't represent both due to the obvious conflict of interest. Porsche might quietly settle with Walkers estate, which claim would be much risker for it bcz the Walker damages would dwarf the Rojas estate claim (death case damages are based on a lifetime earnings analysis). Rojas Estate settlement offer was probably already rejected by PCNA...the threat of a lawsuit would have carried some weight and obviously PCNA isn't willing to pay whatever was asked to avoid it.