So the wife of the driver is suing Porsche because the Carrera GT, "...lacked a proper crash cage and safety features in the gas tank that would have saved both men's lives". Furthermore she claims that a failure in the suspension system is what caused her husband to crash into a tree.
This first point about the crash cage is interesting because she claims her husband was only driving at 55mph. So I don't see why she doesn't sue all car makers for not having a crash cage equipped as standard since every car on sale today in the US can reach a damn slight more than 55mph. Hell, should I sue BMW? I mean I got up to 70mph today...
The comment on the gas tank is just so vague that I can't even address it. I mean by her logic I could sue Vovlo for not having a device that told a deer not to jump in front of my mom's car.
The claim that the suspension failed might be plausible. However to place Porsche at fault you have to, one,prove that it was a design fault (which is going to be hard given the condition of the car), and two, prove that Porsche knew about it and that theyactively tried to cover it up (which is very unlikely given the PR ramifications of having your flagship super car careening off the road, killing all the celebrity owners).