20 captured repliesPartial discussion capture · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHPorsche Lawsuit - 986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners
Leading reported evidence
Check (no offense
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
It's California, after all...the nutcases would cost PCNA considerably more and the shyster lawyer walks away with a fat check (no offense to our CA Pelicans, but it is what it is).
Porsche Lawsuit - 986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners
Read full discussion summary
Leading evidence: 'Check (no offense' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check (no offense' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Unfortunately, it's easier for Porsche to write a check than subject themselves to negative
Porsche Lawsuit - 986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners
Frequently discussed actions (2)
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
Check (no offense
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
It's California, after all...the nutcases would cost PCNA considerably more and the shyster lawyer walks away with a fat check (no offense to our CA Pelicans, but it is what it is).
Porsche Lawsuit - 986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners
Coverage and how to read this overview
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
20 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
986Forum: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261027T035758Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Like we didn't see this one coming:
Porsche Sued Over Crash That Killed Paul Walker - TIME
Let the BS begin. Nobody is responsible for their actions anymore.
Just sayin'................
TO
Yeah, 55mph. Sure.
How would she know? Was she following it? Nothing more than a money grab.
Speeding over double posted limit? Check. Old unsafe tires? Check. Overcorrected into a tree? Check.
Not like the police investigators or Porsche engineers know anything.
Porsche's attorney is going to walk in the courtroom holding up a picture of this and then proceed to walk back out with both middle fingers in the air. lol
Those little court room beggars..... lol cute as always
I'm 100% sure it wasn't the idea of the widow to sue the automaker. Most modern lawyers these days "feeds-off" from these exact type of unfortunate events and take great advantage without any remorse of the consequences this has on the victims. Vulture stuff, and disgusting
Next step:
The lawyer to become a public nuisance for Porsche Co
bringing in more bad publicity to the already bad-gone-worst case. When Porsche had enough of wasting their time, or sick of being blackmailed, they will make him an offer financially and everybody will shake hands and go home.
Feel sorry for the Rodas family to be dragged into that this way. I bet they are hopeless and would grab any rope given to them at this very moment.
idle's/loafs along at 55 mph in first gear
. I know porsche will probably settle to some extent, but I would love to see them fight this case all the way.
I hope this bimbo not only loses the suit, but has to pay Porsche's court costs. But, the fact the suit was filed in California pretty much guarantees this idiot a big settlement.
Why doesn't she sue the driver? He caused the accident with his reckless driving and he has deep pockets.
Maybe some unwritten law that stars don't sue stars.
She needs financial support since her idiot husband killed himself. I mean, what is she supposed to do? Get a job and be responsible for herself? Sheesh
Because that would entail suing her dead husband, the driver.
If this isn't a screaming example of why this country is in dire need of tort reform / loser pays system I don't know what is. Since the vast majority of politicians are also lawyers that will never happen, ever.
Forgot to mention, Porsche got sued several times in the late 70's over "wrongful deaths" caused by the 930 Turbo, that is why it wasn't imported from 1981 through 1985 into the States.
Unfortunately, it's easier for Porsche to write a check than subject themselves to negative
PR
about their High Performance models. Not saying it's right, but better to continue selling boatloads of Panameras, Cayennes and soon, Macans. It's California, after all...the nutcases would cost PCNA considerably more and the shyster lawyer walks away with a fat check (no offense to our CA Pelicans, but it is what it is).
