'You bend it, you mend it' - Piper sues Hales

[heebeegeetee]

Stinkfoot said:

This comment "if you bend it you mend it" is bothering me in this case. I take that to mean if Hales crashes it then he will agree to cover the repair costs. Nothing to do with mechanical failure. Of course I am no legal eagle so this is just my 3rd party observation but I would be amazed if Hales loses the case.

The term 'you break it you mend it' doesn't rhyme, hence the phrase used.

[Finlandese]

I would be very intrested in hearing the logic behind the courts decision. As of now, without that information, I´m thinking of another court case about a vintage Bentley deal, and how to aid Mr. Hales to avoid bankcrupcy.

[TheEnd]

I've met Mark Hales a couple of times, it's a pretty bad situation for him in the end.
He's not the kind of person to be negligent or take risks. The best I could describe it is like a pilot, everything done by the book, no top gear drifting round corners or having fun, just driving smoothly and then giving a report on the chassis feel afterwards in a debriefing.

The kind of person that if I lent him a car and it came back broken, I'd be apologising to him.

[agtlaw]

Steve H said:

Wouldn't he still be vicariously covered for negligence as an an employee of the (albeit his own) company?

no.

[AlexKing]

EDLT said:

AlexKing said:

EDLT said:

To defend Piper...

We only have Hales' version of events despite that fantastic declaration at the top. He was told to be careful, because apparently the mechanics just couldn't be bothered to fix the car (totally factual, remember) and then the engine blew up. From Piper's point of view Hales just wasn't careful, other people had probably driven the car without blowing it up so why would it be the car's fault?

Cars cannot be at fault because they are not sentient and have no free will. Everything that was done with the car was done with the owner's consent and at his risk. His lawyers are taking him for a ride.

Are you serious? I didn't literally mean the car decided to break of its own free will

Now I see how this ended with lawyers.

Perfectly serious. To say it more simply, the whole chat about the possible mechanical causes of the over-rev is irrelevant. The deal is between the two individuals, and the risk is accepted by the owner when he hands over the keys, unless a contract is signed or a deposit is taken. I can't believe this thread is at nine pages long.

[Steve H]

Say a van driver crashes whilst driving as part of his normal job, the guy he runs over sues for negligence, isn't it his employer (or their insurer) that ultimately gets sued?

I work as an instructor, often on the general understanding that I'm covered by the liability insurance of the company I'm working for so it would be useful to know how all this works (I do have other liability cover but even so........).

Edited by Steve H on Saturday 19th January 22:53

[Porkupine]

Sad situation. Why lend out these cars in the first place!?

[heebeegeetee]

AlexKing said:

The deal is between the two individuals, and the risk is accepted by the owner when he hands over the keys, unless a contract is signed or a deposit is taken.

Says who?

[mrmr96]

GC8 said:

I think that you could set it to 5,000rpm, but if the car jumped out of gear whilst under load and in-boost then itd still shoot up to and massively over-rev.

Why would it?

(Sorry, just got as far as this, not read whole thread to the end yet, so sorry if this has been covered.)

[shoestring7]

One Shot said:

Perhaps Piper will owe Hales a small portion of the substantial price he received for the 917, after all having a fresh engine must have enhanced its value (being a bitsa, it's value will be for its usability). I am not sure of the rev limit for a healthy 917 is, but I am sure it is at least 8000rpm, so a quick blip to 8200 blowing up the engine would suggest it was already knackered. This is a very sad state of affairs, I hope Mark is able to mount a appeal against the ruling - perhaps the Guild of Motoring Writers should step in (he is a member).

IMO that information is suspect. The 917 produced max power at 8400, was limited to 8700 or 8800 and broke at 9200. But the rev limiter wasn't good enough always to prevent over-revs and gears were missed often in period, with catastrophic results for the engine.

SS7

[JammyD]

I am new to this site but have been following the forum with interest (albeit as a non member) i have registered purely to ask a question.
It appears that the driver (hales) did point out a potential problem to the engineer. The engineer therefore should have done his job and rectified the problem (otherwise what was his function there on the day?) the engineer is an employee of the owner (piper). Did the engineer fail in his duty to his employer? Didn't he care about the vehicle he is supposed to look after? Was the owner disappointed that his employee did not do the job he was paid for? Was it a case of not being able to sue the engineer, so try the next nearest person?

I ask these questions as I really do not understand what has happened to allow this to become the subject of a High Court action?

[LaurasOtherHalf]

I don't think we'll really know any of the outcome until AgtLaw gets a hold of the court papers & gives us his explanation on here. Unless Mr Piper or one of his associates has signed up & is prepared to post on here

[heebeegeetee]

JammyD said:

I am new to this site but have been following the forum with interest (albeit as a non member) i have registered purely to ask a question.
It appears that the driver (hales) did point out a potential problem to the engineer. The engineer therefore should have done his job and rectified the problem (otherwise what was his function there on the day?) the engineer is an employee of the owner (piper). Did the engineer fail in his duty to his employer? Didn't he care about the vehicle he is supposed to look after? Was the owner disappointed that his employee did not do the job he was paid for? Was it a case of not being able to sue the engineer, so try the next nearest person?

I ask these questions as I really do not understand what has happened to allow this to become the subject of a High Court action?

I imagine that it was an issue that couldn't be remedied on the day, and that Mr Hales elected to continue to drive the car.

[DonkeyApple]

heebeegeetee said:

JammyD said:

I am new to this site but have been following the forum with interest (albeit as a non member) i have registered purely to ask a question.
It appears that the driver (hales) did point out a potential problem to the engineer. The engineer therefore should have done his job and rectified the problem (otherwise what was his function there on the day?) the engineer is an employee of the owner (piper). Did the engineer fail in his duty to his employer? Didn't he care about the vehicle he is supposed to look after? Was the owner disappointed that his employee did not do the job he was paid for? Was it a case of not being able to sue the engineer, so try the next nearest person?

I ask these questions as I really do not understand what has happened to allow this to become the subject of a High Court action?

I imagine that it was an issue that couldn't be remedied on the day, and that Mr Hales elected to continue to drive the car.

Didn't the engineer say that that event never took place according to the earlier post?

[sim16v]

Difficult situation for Mark Hales to be in, and i'm saddened that someone of considerable wealth has chosen to take his pound of flesh in court.

Whatever the reasons and outcome, this has happened, and I don't know enough to take sides.

What I will sT though, is I am happy to chip in£ 10 towards Mark's costs

With 15000 other people doing the same, it will be covered.

Just think of it as a one off magazine subscription to Mark Hales.

[heebeegeetee]

sim16v said:

Difficult situation for Mark Hales to be in, and i'm saddened that someone of considerable wealth has chosen to take his pound of flesh in court.

How do you know that anyone in this case has considerable wealth? I hope it's not because you've read on the internet that he has sold a car for 1.3 mill, without knowing anything else about the individual.

[Porkupine]

heebeegeetee said:

How do you know that anyone in this case has considerable wealth? I hope it's not because you've read on the internet that he has sold a car for 1.3 mill, without knowing anything else about the individual.

Well he does also own another original 917 thougt to be worth in excess of 7mil. And it is a well known fact that he is wealthy. What's your point?

[sim16v]

heebeegeetee said:

How do you know that anyone in this case has considerable wealth? I hope it's not because you've read on the internet that he has sold a car for 1.3 mill, without knowing anything else about the individual.

Have you read anything about Mr Piper?

I don't know any poor people that own two 917s, numerous historic race Alfas and Ferarris.

How many poor people do you know that could buy a new 917 from the factory?

Edited by sim16v on Sunday 20th January 17:27

[freedman]

JammyD said:

I am new to this site but have been following the forum with interest (albeit as a non member) i have registered purely to ask a question.
It appears that the driver (hales) did point out a potential problem to the engineer. The engineer therefore should have done his job and rectified the problem (otherwise what was his function there on the day?) the engineer is an employee of the owner (piper). Did the engineer fail in his duty to his employer? Didn't he care about the vehicle he is supposed to look after? Was the owner disappointed that his employee did not do the job he was paid for? Was it a case of not being able to sue the engineer, so try the next nearest person?

I ask these questions as I really do not understand what has happened to allow this to become the subject of a High Court action?

No, it doesnt 'appear' thats what happened at all

That is what Hales tells us happened, it doesnt mean it did

Seems his account is being accepted by many as fact despite not being believed by the judge in the case

We need to see the judgement and see the reasoning is behind it

[storminnorman]

sim16v said:

numerous historic race Sofas

I'd pay to watch historic sofa racing