Filed under: Government/Legal, Supercars, Porsche
$4.5 million awarded in Porsche Carrera GT case
Over two years ago a crash involving a Porsche Carrera GT during a Ferrari Owner's Club track day killed two event participants when they hit the wall at over 100 mph while trying to avoid a Ferrari merging onto the front straightaway. The driver and Carrera GT owner was Ben Keaton, an avid automotive enthusiast who regularly shared his wisdom on the website 6SpeedOnline.com. The car's passenger was Corey Rudl, a prospective Carrera GT buyer who wanted to take a ride. The tragic loss of these two lives brought out a great debate in the safety of California Speedway's tight infield road course, the responsibility of the event organizers, and the design of the Porsche Carrera GT itself.
While the track event participates signed waivers noting that they were aware of the inherent dangers associated with driving at high speeds on a closed course, those waivers were dependent on who was found to be negligent in the event of an incident. Tracy Rudl, the wife of passenger Corey Rudl, filed a lawsuit claiming gross negligence by many parties associated with the track event. She recently received a settlement of approximately $4.5 million. The contributing parties to the settlement fund were 2% from the merging Ferrari driver, 8% from Porsche, 41% from California Speedway and Ferrari Owner's Club and finally 49% from the Carrera GT driver's estate.
[Source: Sports Car Market Magazine]Stories such as this one can greatly divide opinion. On one hand, two guys lost their lives voluntarily participating in a dangerous event. On the other hand, the extent of the damage could have been reduced, if not completely avoided, by greater thought and care on the part of the race track and event organizers in the areas of visibility and pit-in/pit-out coordination. Then there's the debate about how safe the Porsche Carrera GT is to drive at high speeds. Hopefully the result of this lawsuit will not scare off other event organizers due to liability, but merely cause them to put more thought into eliminating potential safety issues.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Billy 12:47PM (10/24/2007)
As both a plaintiff's lawyer and racer, I gotta say this sucks, we can all watch track day prices skyrocket now.
Reply
James 12:54PM (10/24/2007)
This may be why they stopped Carrera GT production then,
http://www.sybarites.org/2006/05/11/porsche-announce-the-end-of-carrera-gt-production/
Osman Ullah 1:02PM (10/24/2007)
Porsche won't end production because someone died hitting a wall at 100mph. I'm sure the car is safe and Porsche just settled to avoid a nasty lawsuit.
Porsche has always said there would be a limited run of Carrera GTs.
no_slushbox 1:39PM (10/24/2007)
Poor worthless trophy whore, she thought she had it all lined up but then he went and died on her. At least it will be worth it for the track owners to appeal.
no_slushbox 1:43PM (10/24/2007)
Oops, it says settlement, not verdict. Hopefully the golddigger's purse dog kills her in her sleep.
no_slushbox 3:32PM (10/24/2007)
Here is what the skank looks like:
http://www.ameraway.com/coreyrudl.htm
He made his money selling get rich quick schemes to invalids, and she, with this settlement, she has gone on to make money by even less legitimate means.
vice 9:42PM (10/24/2007)
The real whore is the plaintiff's attorney.
This is the same guy who has sued Porsche before, and NOT the driver, simply because that driver was the wife of the passenger killed. The dead husband's estate isn't going to sue the driver -- since the driver is the estate.
This time he goes for the wealthy driver since Porsche has since beefed up its ability to fend off lawsuits.
He's a freaking hypocrite attorney looking ONLY for big bucks. Don't believe otherwise.
Johnny Rotten 12:49PM (10/24/2007)
That PROspective, not PERspective.
Reply
AutoXN 12:49PM (10/24/2007)
Money relieves all sorrow.
Obviously the track and the driver were at fault for reckless endangerment and someone should have been fined but she shouldn't get the money.
Reply
paul34 2:03PM (10/24/2007)
So, basically, they swerved to avoid hitting another vehicle that was going in their same direction and instead chose a solid wall? Huh?
Anyway, I'm glad to see the price of a human life has risen. $4.5 million now! I guess rich people are worth more.
I wonder how many people the $1 and some receipts in my wallet can buy me? Maybe some African refugees? Apparently they don't mean anything, you know.
Johnny Rotten 12:51PM (10/24/2007)
I don't know why on earth you are upset. It is plaintiff's lawyers that brought this ungodly frivolous suit. Suits like this give all lawyers bad names.
Reply
saimin 12:55PM (10/24/2007)
Goes to show that those waviers don't mean much if you've got the green for a lawyer to get you more green. If the woman's late husband was in the market for a Carerra GT, money probably wasn't in short supply. Quite selfish to further punish the deceased driver's family
Reply
Jon 12:56PM (10/24/2007)
Money is not going to bring her husband back. It really annoys me when people sue everyone and everything they possibly can. She is now making money off of her husbands death. Jeez...
Reply
Christian 12:58PM (10/24/2007)
Another great case won. I don't get how Corey Rudl is not 100% responsible for getting into that car.
Reply
Johnny Rotten 1:02PM (10/24/2007)
Because nobody in America takes personal responsibility anymore and we have a huge class of plaintiffs attorneys willing to exploit the fact that juries are made up only of people too stupid to get out of jury duty. They don't call them ambulance chasers for nothing.
acidic 12:59PM (10/24/2007)
By going on a race track in a high performance car you always accept the risks of being seriously injured or killed. Period.
The passenger was voluntarily aboard the vehicle and knew (or should have known) the risks involved. I doubt that he was telling the driver to slow down. You can never know the level of skill a driver has unless you are in the car with that person.
Also, I can't see how Porsche can be held negligent in a case like this. They build a car that goes like stink. That is it's sole purpose. The people that buy them do not expect to be able to survive a 100MPH+ crash, and if they do I suggest they wake up.
Reply
Allan 1:00PM (10/24/2007)
By signing such a waiver... shouldn't one also take into consideration the course and vehicle that they're driving?
It's unfortunate, no doubt. But I disagree with the lawsuit completely. Yes... it probably could have been avoided or reduced given certain circumstances... but those circumstances were not in place and this should have been taken into consideration when participating in the event.
Of course I can say that from here with no direct relation to any party involved. It's just my opinion... and it could have even been the opinion of the driver/passenger, but this obviously wasn't brought on by either one of them.
Just makes me feel like I need to find a way to sue someone for something to get some money that I feel like I deserve for anything.
Reply
Aki 1:02PM (10/24/2007)
Waivers don't give 100% immunity from lawsuits. They never did, never will.
I think the lawsuit was valid. You have a barrier moved up unsafely for the sake of a play area. A driver that was pokey in getting out of the left side of the track, and a pit flagger who didn't do his job. Yes the driver of the CGT probably didn't driver the car sufficiently, but the fact remains that there were a lot of avoidable factors besides the driver's error.
Reply
Toy Yoda 1:44PM (10/24/2007)
You mention things which Porsche is not responsible for. So why is Porsche getting sued?
Bryan 4:33PM (10/24/2007)
Why is the Ferrari club getting sued? The whole thing is for the sake of money and that's it.