Paul Walker and the responsibility of the dead


Paul Walker and his daughter Meadow, the only heir of his legacy (file)

Hac almost two years that Paul Walker and Roger Rodas died in a road traffic accident. The 2005 Porsche Carrera GT, driven by Rodas, crashed against a post following a loss of control difficult to avoid. The car was not in a mechanical state optimal, and at least circulated to 140 km/h in an area limited to 75 km/h. The fire subsequent to collision completed the tragedy.

The complainants considered that the car was not going so fast, just over 100 km/h, and the car had design flaws that made him insecure. Specifically, they cite the lack of stability control and a faulty design of the seat belts. Therefore, the car was not controllable, nor the victims were able to get out of the car before the fire.

, the manufacturer is defending itself on two fronts:

  • In the first place, a driver and an occupant ran a risk volunteer, and reckless; they knew what they were doing
  • In the second place, the car had been modified and not had the maintenance to the day. The tire was nine years old, although the drawing was in good condition, the rubber surely lost its original properties


Rodas and Walker are dead, and that already has no remedy. That Porsche you win or lose depends on how you interpret the jury and the judge who was responsible for what. For the moment, the report of the sheriff county gives the reason to the manufacturer: there was no mechanical failure and circulated at a speed clearly excessive.

in Addition, we must consider self-evident that both Rhodes Walker were aware that the Porsche Carrera GT does not have stability control. Not only that, this car was everything but a mount tamer. Who has led describes his driving as difficult, with little margin for getting it wrong, and wild.

therefore, we must understand that both Rhodes as Walker knew, what there are, is a car for pure driving without electronic aids. The errors can be pay very expensive, especially at 140 km/h in a residential area. Inside of a racing circuit, with its loopholes and security measures, the outcome would have been different.


¿What about seat belts? have Fulfilled their function, the occupants remained in their seats, avoiding to leave made redundant or suffering a second collision inside the car. Possibly have suffered serious injuries by the deceleration, is what has given a cake as fast against an object that causes so much damage to the car, an obstacle side very stiff.

A lot of people it seems wrong to blame those who are not already nor you can defend, but the case seems pretty clear, and endorse the police. The victims ran risks fully voluntary, unless that Rhodes had suicidal intentions and carried his friend to another neighborhood, without asking permission. It may seem a nonsensical theory, but, is it impossible?

there is No judgment in this case, and surely the worst thing that will happen to Porsche is that you have to shell out a few million in a settlement agreement, even if not supported by responsibilities. I’d Bet on a ruling in favor of the manufacturer and the dismissal of both claims.

¿What can make a manufacturer if your customers make a bad use of their cars and not maintained properly? are Not talking about a car that has been maintained in an official department, with everything up to date. If it had been, the lawyers of Porsche it would be really difficult, but nor is it the case that occupies to us.