+1,000

My brother got 3 tickets and 2 accidents in a 6 month period when he was 18. Parents made him TURN HIS LICENSE IN for a year, he had to skate to college. He hasn't gotten a single ticket since, and one accident which was the other guy's fault. Parents have lost the ability to instill HUMILITY into their children.

What may be true for you is not, unfortunately, true for others. Many teenagers just could not resist letting everyone know that there could outrun anything else and would feel the need to prove it at any opportunity. You have been and continue to be more mature and have a better understanding of fast cars than many young people.

In contrast, your friend sounds like he needs some sense slapped into him. Have a word.

[QUOTE=ItalianStallion;2624351]Would you guys view this as any different if the car was an M5 or a 528i? I'm just curious if this would be treated differently by these forum members if the car only had 250hp, yet was still traveling at 140+-mph.QUOTE]

In my opinion, it's just much easier to get into a hairy situation in a much shorter period of time with an M5. Just a guess, but I would think that a 528 or something similar isn't capable of quite reaching those speeds in that distance. Just in the 1st 1/4 mile, the M5 will have 25-30 MPH on a 528 and it should only get worse from there.

I think that we would still view this as a horrible tragedy, but with a lot more sympathy for the parents of the driver if they hadn't given him the car that they did.

[QUOTE=ItalianStallion;2624351]Would you guys view this as any different if the car was an M5 or a 528i? I'm just curious if this would be treated differently by these forum members if the car only had 250hp, yet was still traveling at 140+-mph.

QUOTE]

It would of taken the whole runway just to get to 140+, different animal. We lost a comrade in arms in the field, that hits home for many of us. People who drive a below 400 HP car cannot relate to this, nor should they.

Wow this is just a sad sad story. RIP to all the parties involved in this tragedy!!!

I agree with some board members and disagree at the same time. You really cant put the blame on the car, it is the driver 100% of the time. You can have 50hp or 1000hp, it is the driver that has full control of the vehicle. I do not agree with the fact that the parents let their son be out that late with such a car at that age. But then again the parents are not to blame either. In my opinion it is a complete lack of judgment on the drivers part in the whole disaster. It was not well planned out and it was mentioned to the driver that it would not be in his best interest to even begin to atempt such a crazy top speed run by other board members.

It is a complete shame that 5 young children had to lose their lives over such an idiotic stunt with nothing to prove at the end. That is why we have quarter mile tracks to take full advantage of. We may not be able to reach the top speed of our machines but we still get the same rush under a controlled enviroment.

We can blame the car, the parents, the driver, etc but the whole thing was almost damed from the begining. Just reading his final posts made my skin crawl.....it was almost like everyone predicted the outcome of that night.

May it be a lesson to all of us....do not drink and drive, enjoy the car dont abuse it, and if u have the itch to push it just go to the track on a sunday and run ***** out. At the end it will be well worth it.

[QUOTE=skooby;2624442]Go on any highway and you can get whatever car you wish up to 130+. I've taken my Ford Explorer past 120 before. What I meant was, if 5 teens died in a regular 5 series, would this get the same amount of attention on these forums? I personally feel much more comfortable in driving at 140 in an M or AMG than a regular model. They seem much more responsive and stable at those high speeds, plus the superior braking power drastically helps.

Great points and questions.

This is a state law matter, and specifically a "tort" matter: namely it would fall under the "negligence" umbrella of tort "common law" (rulings and resultant "law" developed over time by judges, as opposed to "statutory" law created by legislature). The "cause of action" (if there are any) would be "wrongful death." Tort ruliings can vary state to state, as does the "age of majority" or adulthood.

But your instincts are correct: unless the parents participated in some way, such as
1. actually serving the booze
2. actually encouraging the boys to "go out there and haul *** around and see what she can do!!"
3. OR was aware of their son's proclivity to do just that....

then I see it unlikely they would lose in a lawsuit.

The real pain, however, is often NOT "will we lose?" but rather, just being sued in the first place, even if ultimately prevailing, is so expensive and traumatic. The U.S. is way behind the EU folks in terms of proper disincentives to bring suits that the plaintiff knows or should know is not well founded. In the U.S. it is hard to impose "sanctions and attorneys fees" for cases that should not have been brought. So, while my view is ultimately, the parents would prevail (absent special facts, like the ones above), it is frightenly NOT hard for a plaintiff's lawyer to find/twist facts so that it is a "close enough" case such that sanctions will not be brought against the plaintiff, and therefore, the "hassle" factor is such that the parents might be "encouraged" to pay some settlement.

Oh, and then there is the insurance company's lawyers. ........

You should have loaned him the scooter. That would instill humility in anyone.

Almost anyone.

[QUOTE=skooby;2624442]"We lost A comrade in arms in the field". Are you kidding? He wasn't a soldier who went off to battle and died.

And

My guess is that this indicates "proclivity". Like Cylinder Head's brother, they should have been doing speed runs on roller skates

It is not how it used to be!!!! Growing up we had cars with alot less horsepower from the factory. We all basically had baby steps to take that led us to the cars that we drive today. These kids all have these high horsepower cars and act like they are professional race car drivers. At the end of the day everyone needs to swallow their pride and take lessons if need be (just like some of the other board members have stated)! There is nothing to prove by taking it to 170 mph but we all have done it i am sure. Basically start of with something your size and then work your way up to the big boys toys so to speak.

iNot trying to be hostile and m not exactly sure when you were born dblnikel, but what kind of safety features did those cars come with from the factory?

I know when I was much younger I was pretty reckless. I don't plan on allowing my son to have access to any of my fast cars until he becomes more responsible with the HP.

In FL, the owner of a vehicle is liable for damages caused by the vehicle along with the driver, even if unrelated, unless the car has been stolen or some such.

The parents are on the hook, big-time.

What does safety features have to do with this topic. The safety features from 15 years ago till now are far more advanced but when u are traveling at high rates of speed nothing is gonna save you. So hostile or not what doe sit have to do with anyting???

Cars had less horsepower but also had less safety measures, generally werent as stable at speed, braking was inferior, used heavier materials ect. The braking and handling ability could play a part when traveling at high rates of speed. Again not trying to be hostile

Not answering for him, but in the "old" days almost no safety features. This taught you two things: One, you couldn't rely on ABS, traction control, etc. to save your a$$. You learned how to drive the car and not let the car drive you and two, because of the lack of safety features I don't think you felt quite as invincible as you do in today's cars.

Like the other guy said I'm also not sure what you're trying to get at in relation to the crash in Fl.

Anyway, you may be interested in trying to find the top gear episode (I think it was TG) where they tested today's "supercars" against those of yesteryear. The car's really haven't gotten any better performance wise, and in fact some of the older cars were faster. With supposed heavier materials (but the cars were lighter due to none of those safety features LOL), inferior brakes etc. This is also with less HP.

Iagree with what you are both saying! Handeling as well as saftey are far more advanced now then the olden days. But wouldn't u guys agree that the lack of those features then has made us better drivers today? There are cars that can park themselves now a days, thatsays it all. These cars do make people think that they are invincible and is probably making more people overlook the lack of driving ability. I am not trying to be hostile either but it is just upsetting that todays youth acts and does things that just boggle my mind, wouldn't u guys agree?

I was just saying just because the cars had less horsepower didnt make them any safer then they are today. You could just as easily kill yourself in a 15 year old car as you could in a car today. Maybe i missed the point being made.

It's very unfortunate that five young lives are lost in such an unfortunate tragedy.

The question is; what will the public learn from this?

Will they learn:
1. Young immature children should not be given access to 500 hp cars.
2. Young children shouldn't drink.
3. Young children shouldn't drive after drinking.
4. A combination of the above.

[QUOTE=cte430;2624705]
I love the road and love is a battlefield?

Yeah i do completely agree. Some kids now a days are doing things that just completely defy common sense. I think that parenting has alot to do with it, as well as life experiences. I have very cool parents that i didnt always get along with when i was in highschool, but i was also doing alot of things no one should be doing then. My senior year i grew up alot though, and i feel a combination of my own life experiences and my parents actually being parents instead of trying to be my friend led me to who i am today. Some people just shouldnt be raising kids.

the public probably wont learn anything

I sue kids and their parents all the time for a lot less, but the parent's assets are directly exposed above and beyond their auto liability policy. The insurance company could argue assumption of the risk by the passengers as a defense, but they will not given the gravity of the horrible deaths that ensued.

The parents are exposed under what is called the Family Purpose Doctrine....

Family Purpose Doctrine (n. Regulation that makes an automobile's owner responsible for damages to anyone who is injured which the automobile is driven by a family member, either with or without the owner's permission. This rule of law is applied under the theory that the vehicle is owned for family purposes. Some states use this law instead of requiring a registered owner to be liable for damages caused by anyone who drives his/her car with permission. )

....all of their personal assets including the Parent's home and bank accounts are exposed to a Wrongful Death Judgment.