Investigations undertaken by local law enforcement may have vindicated Porsche from any wrongdoing in the crash that killed actor Paul Walker and racing driver Roger Rodas last year, but the latter's widow is apparently not convinced. According to emerging reports, Kristine Rodas has filed a lawsuit seeking unspecified damages from Porsche Cars North America.

In her suit filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court, Rodas' attorney Mark Geragos reportedly disputes the findings of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, which asserted that the vehicle was traveling at an unsafe speed of 90 miles per hour on city streets, identifying the speed as the cause of the accident. Instead the lawsuit claims that the vehicle was only going 55 mph and that the cause of the crash was improper equipment – namely a faulty right rear suspension and the lack of a crash cage and proper fuel tank.

"The Carrera GT was unsafe for its intended use by reason of defects in its manufacture, design, testing, component and constituents, so that it would not safely serve its purpose," according to the specifics of the suit obtained by the Los Angeles Times. When reached for comment, Porsche Cars North America spokesman Nick Twork told Autoblog:

We are very sorry for the Rodas and Walker family's loss. The crash was the subject of a detailed investigation by the proper authorities (L.A. County Sheriff and California Highway Patrol), and their investigation disproves the allegations in the lawsuit. The investigation found that driving at a high speed in a negligent manner caused the crash and concluded that there was no mechanical defect.

The Carrera GT is known as a difficult car to drive. As the LA Times report points out, Jay Leno spun one at Talladega in 2005, and the following year, Porsche paid part of a multi-million-dollar settlement after two were killed on a track when their Carrera GT struck a slower-moving Ferrari. The Rodas lawsuit could very well point to that previous suit from San Diego Superior Court. Whether the court in LA will hand down a similar ruling remains to be seen.



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 109 Comments
      Timothy Tibbetts
      • 7 Months Ago
      Hope it's thrown out. Porsche has deep pockets, not responsibility. Even if the car WAS faulty, at 55 or 90 MPH in that area, it's driver negligence.
      IBx27
      • 7 Months Ago
      Your husband was a moron who drove a supercar with bald, dry-rotted tires, at three times the legal speed limit, and removed from this world one of the few good people in the movie business. Shut up and go away.
      drew
      • 7 Months Ago
      Is this person seriously charging that a $400k+ Porsche is fundamentally unsafe to drive at 55mph? My head hurts.
      henryhbk
      • 7 Months Ago
      So the two cited examples are from races on tracks. What does that have to do with driving under "normal" conditions on a city street. If you choose to drive illegally at very high speed on a city street, then hardly are you driving under the expected conditions of a street car. Demanding a crash cage and fuel cell in a street car is silly.
      raughle1
      • 7 Months Ago
      It's always someone else's fault.
      Pat
      • 7 Months Ago
      Her arguments is that the car is unsafe in a racing situation ... however, the crash did not occur on a racing circuit. Maybe as a result, cars will all be fitted with a chip to limit performance when not on a race tracker ... You never know ... it's idiots/abusers like this that turn this country into a nanny state.
        username
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Pat
        This is why I always buy used cars. I refuse to be a part of the black box, limiting, hybrid mandatory nanny s*** our cars will inevitably become
      CarCrazy24
      • 7 Months Ago
      Yes, let's remove all personal responsibility. Reminds me of when people sued McDonalds for making scalding hot coffee...
      fordskydog
      • 7 Months Ago
      Nice try. This is retarded and I hope the judge throws out the case with extreme prejudice. The car was not faulty, the mark not negligent. Driver error and driver negligence caused the crash and the other fatality. Own up to it.
      what
      • 7 Months Ago
      California is a pure comparative fault jurisdiction. If Porsche is found to be 1% at fault, they owe 1% of the damages. Depending on this guys net worth and potential future earnings etc, 1% of a boatload might still make it worth it. That being said, unsafe speed on old tires = bad things
      Max Deranged Max
      • 7 Months Ago
      Roger, get an LFA in your next life. Even Paris Hilton can drive it.
      Steve K
      • 7 Months Ago
      Once again proof positive that 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean is a "good start." During the mid-1980s dairy farmers decided there was too much cheap milk at the supermarket. So the government bought and slaughtered 1.6 million cows. How come the government never does anything like this with lawyers? - P.J. O'Rourke
      Bill
      • 7 Months Ago
      Now I know why when the Chinese Revolution took place the first thing they did was kill all the Drug Dealers and Lawyers !!! They should sue the gasoline company that fueled that car or perhaps the folks that planted the tree they hit !!!
    • Load More Comments