Caterham being sued??
Discussion
How has nearly everyone in this thread managed to miss this!?
It doesn't matter what random guesses we all make about the legal status of the Nurburgring, the state of the oil hose, the sharpness of the kerbs....
Caterham have already payed out in one respect, so will probably have to pay out for this latest amount.
I believe AGTlaw is involved in many of the UK based nurburgring cases, and is very knowledgeable about whether people are or aren't insured there...
I did wonder as the article clearly states that Caterham accepted responsibility in 2009...but why does he seem to be the only driver to experience this?
It doesn't matter what random guesses we all make about the legal status of the Nurburgring, the state of the oil hose, the sharpness of the kerbs....
Caterham have already payed out in one respect, so will probably have to pay out for this latest amount.
I believe AGTlaw is involved in many of the UK based nurburgring cases, and is very knowledgeable about whether people are or aren't insured there...
Munich said:
Mastiff said:
agtlaw said:
i acted for the driver in this case. i won't go into details save to say that there was a very favourable settlement in 2009.
Nearly missed this.I did wonder as the article clearly states that Caterham accepted responsibility in 2009...
ok 8 pages of speculation and theories and counter theories...and yawn, im bored....i feel sorry for the chap who has the injuries, but my PERSONAL OPINION, is that if you go to any location where you are pushing the envelope of the car and or driver, then you are dicing with death.
I am obviously not of the right age or size to even fit in a caterham, but when you start sacrificing safety devices and crumple zones in the interests of pure speed, and the annual budget of the manufacturer and tweakers of said vehicles is probably lower than the annual salary costs of all the employees at a small/smallish car company such as eg Aston (only mentioned to highlight the costs of developing vehicles that might save your life in the event of a catostrophe), then you know you really are hoping the man above is looking after you !
everybody to their own, but i'm out!
I am obviously not of the right age or size to even fit in a caterham, but when you start sacrificing safety devices and crumple zones in the interests of pure speed, and the annual budget of the manufacturer and tweakers of said vehicles is probably lower than the annual salary costs of all the employees at a small/smallish car company such as eg Aston (only mentioned to highlight the costs of developing vehicles that might save your life in the event of a catostrophe), then you know you really are hoping the man above is looking after you !
everybody to their own, but i'm out!
Irrotational said:
How has nearly everyone in this thread managed to miss this!?
It doesn't matter what random guesses we all make about the legal status of the Nurburgring, the state of the oil hose, the sharpness of the kerbs....
Caterham have already payed out in one respect, so will probably have to pay out for this latest amount.
I believe AGTlaw is involved in many of the UK based nurburgring cases, and is very knowledgeable about whether people are or aren't insured there...
I did wonder as the article clearly states that Caterham accepted responsibility in 2009...but why does he seem to be the only driver to experience this?
Not sure we did miss it.It doesn't matter what random guesses we all make about the legal status of the Nurburgring, the state of the oil hose, the sharpness of the kerbs....
Caterham have already payed out in one respect, so will probably have to pay out for this latest amount.
I believe AGTlaw is involved in many of the UK based nurburgring cases, and is very knowledgeable about whether people are or aren't insured there...
Munich said:
Mastiff said:
agtlaw said:
i acted for the driver in this case. i won't go into details save to say that there was a very favourable settlement in 2009.
Nearly missed this.I did wonder as the article clearly states that Caterham accepted responsibility in 2009...
I'm fairly certain that I stated in one of my posts that with the addtional info from agtlaw the picture changed somewhat.
However, considering Andrew Thompsons post (and the fact that he/they have posted at all) and the fact that the previous settlement was made in 2009, I suspect that this is not as clear and given as that. One assumes that AT & Co are not involved in the current case otherwise they surely wouldn't have posted.
Also, as we all know, making a settlement does not necessarily mean an admission of liability and there may be any number of reasons why a business may decide to agree a settlement rather than fight a case.
It's also worth noting that a solicitor getting a 'favourable result' and them being in the right with the law on their side are nothing to do with each other at all.
As with all the legal community's behaviour, most cases end with some sort of settlement before either party is entirely ruined by the slimy-so-and-sos...
This will likely end the same way - one side caving-in and offering monies rather than single-handedly funding another round of shiny shoes and Porsches...
As with all the legal community's behaviour, most cases end with some sort of settlement before either party is entirely ruined by the slimy-so-and-sos...
This will likely end the same way - one side caving-in and offering monies rather than single-handedly funding another round of shiny shoes and Porsches...
Edited by johnpeat on Tuesday 6th September 21:59
johnpeat said:
It's also worth noting that a solicitor getting a 'favourable result' and them being in the right with the law on their side are nothing to do with each other at all.
As with all the legal community's behaviour, most cases end with some sort of settlement before either party is entirely ruined by the slimy-so-and-sos...
This will likely end the same way - one side caving-in and offering monies rather than single-handedly funding another round of shiny shoes and Porsches...
But aren't settlements more to do with what the parties want rather than the lawyers? Parties can settle on day one, but often decide to settle on the court steps. If someone 'caves in', it is probably on legal advice.As with all the legal community's behaviour, most cases end with some sort of settlement before either party is entirely ruined by the slimy-so-and-sos...
This will likely end the same way - one side caving-in and offering monies rather than single-handedly funding another round of shiny shoes and Porsches...
Edited by johnpeat on Tuesday 6th September 21:59
Noger said:
Nifty said:
dazco said:
Nifty said:
Whilst I wish no harm to either driver or passenger, I feel this is an attempt to lay blame and therefore claim damages where they should not be due - personal opinion only.
.
How can you possibly come to that conclusion without knowing ANY of the facts?.
And we do know some facts, he was at the 'Ring in an R500 and he did not check or did not appreciate the dangers of the low hanging oil pipe, therefore he did not prep his car sufficiently for his intended use (he being the driver and/or passenger in this case).
Anyway, I think *we* know who this is and he would seem to be a track regular and pretty experienced ? Still has a Caterham and had an R400 before the R500 ? He is still a member of the club .... so maybe someone should ask him ?
No mistaking of opinion for fact.
He was at the 'Ring in an R500 - Fact
Taking the claimant's own claims, there was an oil line on the car that was dangerously low, therefore the oil line/engine bay/undercar was either not assessed at all before going out on track or an assessment was made and the assessor did not appreciate the danger of the low pipe - Fact ...
... unless we consider a third option, the oil pipe was noticed, was considered to be a potential problem but the car went out anyway .. in which case the assessor/driver should be held responsible for allowing the car to go out in an unfit state.
I think the general gist of this whole thread is that some of us believe that commonsense and fairness would suggest that the unfortunate passenger needs to accept responsibility for gamblign with placing himself in a known dangerous position without adequate insurance cover for all eventualities and he lost the bet. Obviously others disagree and I fear that it is likely that the legal process will also disagree because as we all know justice tends not to be fair.
I would like to think that were I in a similar position then I would accept that I accepted the risk and chose to endanger myself (as infact I do frequently ... though not yet at the 'Ring).
However, I also fully acknowledge that it's easy to be so altruistic when you're not faced with the situation and my reaction may turn out to be totally different if I were to be. - I'd just like to think not.
Any attempts to discuss this on the Lotus 7 Club forum seem to result in the thread being deleted by the Club management - So whilst I doint usually post on this forum, I am as a Caterham owner interested in this thread
FWIW, whilst not exactly the same issue, my K series 7 has a dry sump and one of the oil hoses 'naturally' sags well below the sump (as designed and as original equipement supplied) and if not zip tied to the chassis would invariably (in my view) scrape along the floor and potentially fail
This surely is poor design and whilst I have the good sense to check the zip ties (among other things) there will be many that maybe buy an R500 ('built for racing') or similar and then go and hoon it around a circuit / road etc without making such checks?
If the Lotus 7 club are worried enough to prevent an open discussion on this issue then its my opinion that Caterham must be worried about this claim?
FWIW, whilst not exactly the same issue, my K series 7 has a dry sump and one of the oil hoses 'naturally' sags well below the sump (as designed and as original equipement supplied) and if not zip tied to the chassis would invariably (in my view) scrape along the floor and potentially fail
This surely is poor design and whilst I have the good sense to check the zip ties (among other things) there will be many that maybe buy an R500 ('built for racing') or similar and then go and hoon it around a circuit / road etc without making such checks?
If the Lotus 7 club are worried enough to prevent an open discussion on this issue then its my opinion that Caterham must be worried about this claim?
djsasltd said:
Any attempts to discuss this on the Lotus 7 Club forum seem to result in the thread being deleted by the Club management...
If the Lotus 7 club are worried enough to prevent an open discussion on this issue then its my opinion that Caterham must be worried about this claim?
I'm not sure that you can link the actions of the L7 Club and Caterham Cars; the club's excessive moderation of BlatChat just indicates that the club has no backbone - their actions over the Capesthorne Chronics threads is an indication of their mindset when it comes to discussions regarding commercial operations - just don't have them!If the Lotus 7 club are worried enough to prevent an open discussion on this issue then its my opinion that Caterham must be worried about this claim?
Q
Was a disclaimer form signed before going onto the track?
Did any track official do a safety check before the car went out?
Was the car built for road or track?
A
Disclaimer would remove liability?
Duty of care by track owners?
car used outside design/build criteria?
I haven't read all the posts here so..... has anyone with a similar car checked to see if they have the same issue with oil pipe being too low?
How old was the car and what had owner done to it re service/mods/checks?
Was a disclaimer form signed before going onto the track?
Did any track official do a safety check before the car went out?
Was the car built for road or track?
A
Disclaimer would remove liability?
Duty of care by track owners?
car used outside design/build criteria?
I haven't read all the posts here so..... has anyone with a similar car checked to see if they have the same issue with oil pipe being too low?
How old was the car and what had owner done to it re service/mods/checks?
final thought.
Was track day insurance taken out?
Under normal circumstances if you are a passenger and injured in a ROAD RTC then you sue the driver who uses his insurance company as paymaster.
The insurance company are then the ones to fight the car company.
This can then lead to multiple claims and judgements depending on circumstances.
A real minefield!
Was track day insurance taken out?
Under normal circumstances if you are a passenger and injured in a ROAD RTC then you sue the driver who uses his insurance company as paymaster.
The insurance company are then the ones to fight the car company.
This can then lead to multiple claims and judgements depending on circumstances.
A real minefield!
Nifty said:
Evening Nobber,
I think the general gist of this whole thread is that some of us believe that commonsense and fairness would suggest that the unfortunate passenger needs to accept responsibility for gamblign with placing himself in a known dangerous position without adequate insurance cover for all eventualities and he lost the bet. Obviously others disagree and I fear that it is likely that the legal process will also disagree because as we all know justice tends not to be fair.
.
Again, you are making your bold judgement without knowing facts. How do you know what insurance cover he has?I think the general gist of this whole thread is that some of us believe that commonsense and fairness would suggest that the unfortunate passenger needs to accept responsibility for gamblign with placing himself in a known dangerous position without adequate insurance cover for all eventualities and he lost the bet. Obviously others disagree and I fear that it is likely that the legal process will also disagree because as we all know justice tends not to be fair.
.
And any speculation I have been making has been based on my perception of the legal system. not some fanciful notion I have in my head that 'he may win but he is wrong'.
Nifty said:
I think the general gist of this whole thread is that some of us believe that commonsense and fairness would suggest that the unfortunate passenger needs to accept responsibility for gambling with placing himself in a known dangerous position without adequate insurance cover for all eventualities and he lost the bet. Obviously others disagree and I fear that it is likely that the legal process will also disagree because as we all know justice tends not to be fair.
I would like to think that were I in a similar position then I would accept that I accepted the risk and chose to endanger myself (as infact I do frequently ... though not yet at the 'Ring).
However, I also fully acknowledge that it's easy to be so altruistic when you're not faced with the situation and my reaction may turn out to be totally different if I were to be. - I'd just like to think not.
As I've already said in this thread, taking a risk by getting into a car at the Ring is one thing. Taking an unknown risk (which you are unable, therefore, to fully consider) by getting into a car which has been negligently built or designed is quite another. Unless your view is that being a passenger at the Ring is a complete acceptance that you may be liable to injury caused by even the most excessive nrgligence of others without remedy?I would like to think that were I in a similar position then I would accept that I accepted the risk and chose to endanger myself (as infact I do frequently ... though not yet at the 'Ring).
However, I also fully acknowledge that it's easy to be so altruistic when you're not faced with the situation and my reaction may turn out to be totally different if I were to be. - I'd just like to think not.
As to fairness, you appear to consider that holding people or companies accountable for their negligence is not "fair". Is it "fair" for someone to be negligent (perhaps grossly so), leaving another party with a serious injury, and fail to face any consequences? Is it fair that someone who has been the victim of another's negligence, meaning that they may be unable to work, or need specialist care, has to pay for it themselves?
I've been round the Ring; I've also owned two Caterhams (one of which I took around the Ring). I accepted the inherent risks of doing so. What I would not have accepted would have been a fault with the car that lead to my serious injury, if that fault (a) shouldn't have been there, because I should be able to expect a car, particularly of that sort, to be designed and built with track-work in mind, or (b) was known about and ignored.
I doubt we will ever get the actual facts of this case. But so many posters are under the impression that the claimant should have accepted a far higher risk level than they themselve would accept (i.e. up to and including gross or reckless negligence), and are also following the sheep with the well-aired views on "compensation culture" without knowing or understanding that compensation is sometimes necessary to assist a badly injured party and reflect the guilt of the negligent.
johnpeat said:
It's also worth noting that a solicitor getting a 'favourable result' and them being in the right with the law on their side are nothing to do with each other at all.
As with all the legal community's behaviour, most cases end with some sort of settlement before either party is entirely ruined by the slimy-so-and-sos...
This will likely end the same way - one side caving-in and offering monies rather than single-handedly funding another round of shiny shoes and Porsches...
As with all the legal community's behaviour, most cases end with some sort of settlement before either party is entirely ruined by the slimy-so-and-sos...
This will likely end the same way - one side caving-in and offering monies rather than single-handedly funding another round of shiny shoes and Porsches...
Edited by johnpeat on Tuesday 6th September 21:59
will_ said:
As I've already said in this thread, taking a risk by getting into a car at the Ring is one thing. Taking an unknown risk (which you are unable, therefore, to fully consider) by getting into a car which has been negligently built or designed is quite another. Unless your view is that being a passenger at the Ring is a complete acceptance that you may be liable to injury caused by even the most excessive nrgligence of others without remedy?
As to fairness, you appear to consider that holding people or companies accountable for their negligence is not "fair". Is it "fair" for someone to be negligent (perhaps grossly so), leaving another party with a serious injury, and fail to face any consequences? Is it fair that someone who has been the victim of another's negligence, meaning that they may be unable to work, or need specialist care, has to pay for it themselves?
I've been round the Ring; I've also owned two Caterhams (one of which I took around the Ring). I accepted the inherent risks of doing so. What I would not have accepted would have been a fault with the car that lead to my serious injury, if that fault (a) shouldn't have been there, because I should be able to expect a car, particularly of that sort, to be designed and built with track-work in mind, or (b) was known about and ignored.
I doubt we will ever get the actual facts of this case. But so many posters are under the impression that the claimant should have accepted a far higher risk level than they themselve would accept (i.e. up to and including gross or reckless negligence), and are also following the sheep with the well-aired views on "compensation culture" without knowing or understanding that compensation is sometimes necessary to assist a badly injured party and reflect the guilt of the negligent.
Eloquently put sir,As to fairness, you appear to consider that holding people or companies accountable for their negligence is not "fair". Is it "fair" for someone to be negligent (perhaps grossly so), leaving another party with a serious injury, and fail to face any consequences? Is it fair that someone who has been the victim of another's negligence, meaning that they may be unable to work, or need specialist care, has to pay for it themselves?
I've been round the Ring; I've also owned two Caterhams (one of which I took around the Ring). I accepted the inherent risks of doing so. What I would not have accepted would have been a fault with the car that lead to my serious injury, if that fault (a) shouldn't have been there, because I should be able to expect a car, particularly of that sort, to be designed and built with track-work in mind, or (b) was known about and ignored.
I doubt we will ever get the actual facts of this case. But so many posters are under the impression that the claimant should have accepted a far higher risk level than they themselve would accept (i.e. up to and including gross or reckless negligence), and are also following the sheep with the well-aired views on "compensation culture" without knowing or understanding that compensation is sometimes necessary to assist a badly injured party and reflect the guilt of the negligent.
Wonder if Nifty would think 'oh well, that's the gamble' if he was the first to discover that the steering did not work and it destroyed his life.
Caterham
Search results (1–2 of 2)
New search
Recall: No. 1 of 2
Recall Ref: R/2007/115
Exact Model: Super Seven
Description: STEERING MAY FAIL
VIN:
Build Date: 01 Mar 2007 to 30 Apr 2007
Numbers: 16
Defect: The steering column universal joint may fail which will lead to the loss of directional control.
Action: Recall the vehicles that are likely to be affected to fit quality assured components.
Launch Date: 25 July 2007
djsasltd said:
Any attempts to discuss this on the Lotus 7 Club forum seem to result in the thread being deleted by the Club management - So whilst I doint usually post on this forum, I am as a Caterham owner interested in this thread
If the Lotus 7 club are worried enough to prevent an open discussion on this issue then its my opinion that Caterham must be worried about this claim?
One would also imagine the embarrassment at one of your members apparently successfully getting quite a bit of money from your "parent" company might have something to do with it If the Lotus 7 club are worried enough to prevent an open discussion on this issue then its my opinion that Caterham must be worried about this claim?
sospan said:
final thought.
Was track day insurance taken out?
Under normal circumstances if you are a passenger and injured in a ROAD RTC then you sue the driver who uses his insurance company as paymaster.
The insurance company are then the ones to fight the car company.
This can then lead to multiple claims and judgements depending on circumstances.
A real minefield!
Not at all. The insurer only pays if their insured was negligent.Was track day insurance taken out?
Under normal circumstances if you are a passenger and injured in a ROAD RTC then you sue the driver who uses his insurance company as paymaster.
The insurance company are then the ones to fight the car company.
This can then lead to multiple claims and judgements depending on circumstances.
A real minefield!
On the insurance issue, we all know that the Nordschleife is a one-way public toll road. How is an insurance company providing normal road car insurance able to say that they aren't going to cover it?
I can see why they would want to but is there not an obligation to cover any public road? You surely can't say "I will cover you anywhere in europe, except for that little bit of public road". Has this point ever been tested in court?
I've read most of the comments on this, but surely the main argument is who built the car? You are comparing it to Toyota and the like, however surely if the driver built the car himself then this could be why the pipe was hanging down lower than any other of the caterhams mentioned here (i.e. the R300 one's in the caterham championship etc). Either way I think caterham trying to say it's not a track car is ridiculous, as someone previously said, that's one of their main selling points!
My opinion (for what it's worth) is that if it was not a self build, then he has a case, although I hope this is settled amicably asap so he can get on with his recovery and have the money needed to rebuild his life and caterham can get on with building even better road/track cars and maybe learn from this......
My opinion (for what it's worth) is that if it was not a self build, then he has a case, although I hope this is settled amicably asap so he can get on with his recovery and have the money needed to rebuild his life and caterham can get on with building even better road/track cars and maybe learn from this......
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff