>tfw I buy a motorcycle
>tfw I start doing wheelies n shit because it's fun bro
>tfw my 10 year old tires cause me to fall off my bike during a wheelie and die
>tfw my daughter tries to sue the motorcycle manufacturer for lack of safety features
Kek
>>13879115
Lol wtf Porsche is right tho.
...
Wasn't he the passanger
>>13879185
Passenger. Autocorrect what are you even doing
>>13879189
yes, doesn't mean the friend wasn't driving like a retard. if anything the daughter should sue the friend.
>>13879115
His daughter should sue michelin for making 10 year old tires :^)
>>13879115
Well all of the safety features in the car failed according to that lawsuit.
If you crash your car and defective seat belts break off, it bursts into flames because of a defect and you die then the car had something to do with it...
Assuming the suit is correct and the equipment designed to protect him failed then I'd say Porsche had a bit of responsibility on their end too.
It would be like if your bikes fork was known to randomly break off under heavy breaking.
>>13879229
bullshit
>>13879239
>bullshit
>hey guys i just punched a guy in the face and now he's trying to sue me. isn't that bullshit? he's responsible for his own shit.
>>13879229
Except that legal crash testing happens at predetermined speeds, and if the car offers adequate protection at those speeds it's approved for sale. It's not Porsche's fault that the morons wrapped themselves around a tree at a hundred miles an hour.
So what is the actual events that lead to the crash?
Was he speeding?
Did the rear end go?
How did the seatbelts fail?
How can they know?
Does any of that matter if the car lit on fire?
>Mfw this lawsuit goes through and ALL cars will require always on drivers aid.
>>13879247
It maximum damage protection because he is some retarded movie star. Porsche doesn't know of any fucking failure before the accident but suddenly it porsche's fault that some retard raced a car with 10yo tires into a tree.
>>13879272
unless the tires failed and nothing else, it is their fault. saying your car has safety features when they don't activate is pretty much fraudulent advertising.
>>13879229
Yeah, but if you are driving unlawfully and recklessly, the manufacturer has zero culpability. It's a frivolous lawsuit.
> I'd say Porsche had a bit of responsibility on their end too.
But they DON'T. Safety features that are mandatory in cars are not certified for, tested for or guaranteed for doing triple digits down the highway then wrapping your car around a tree.
>>13879284
At what point in history did Porsche advertise that you can slide the Carrera GT sideways into a tree at 100 mph and survive?
>people ITT are actually suggesting a car company has any responsibility for your safety when you decide to hoon like a maniac until you smash into a stationary object and die
>>13879284
What safety features ? A seatbelt ? Try crashing your car into a tree at 100mph and see if doesn't fail. Fuel cutoff ? Doesn't help shit when the tank is damaged.
>>13879253
so much this
>>13879201
Yeah she should go and dig up the bottom left half that is still intact and drag it to court. IT might actually fit in a backpack so should wouldn't even need to drag it.
>>13879201
The friend had no money.
