RE: PH Blog: you bend you mend
Discussion
just to repeat for those with selective reading problems
fbrs said:
the law is decided and seems clear.
i simply question the basis that we lend cars to one another and what risks we accept. i've turned down drives of cars i couldn't afford to bend yet i've lent cars to people i know couldn't afford the tyres and i accept that risk. my point regarding the service cost of a 917 was serious. iirc a 997 cup car timed service is something like 20k so was the damage caused to this 917 in the range of normal running costs? and what he got back was a car with the engine timer back at zero hours? that mr piper is 'rich' and can afford it is an unsavory argument and irrelevant; the 2k clearly doesn't come close to the running costs of such a machine so he is already heavily subsidising the event. the whole thing sucks for everyone, except the insurance company.Edited by fbrs on Tuesday 22 January 16:03
Whilst my sympathies on the whole lie on the side of Mark Hales, David Piper has been misconstrued by many on this thread despite it being pointed out that he is not a particularly rich person in many ways. My understanding is that he was in the fortunate position to purchase some cars at a time when they were relatively cheap and those cars have now escalated in value. He appears to have been dealing in cars for many years, using them and selling them (he purchased 2 250GTOs for racing when they were new, for example) but never being a particularly rich person, just having enough money and skill to make money out of various cars.
Part of the way he now makes money appears to be through renting out the cars he owns on that basis loss of earnings sounds perfectly reasonable in this case.
Part of the way he now makes money appears to be through renting out the cars he owns on that basis loss of earnings sounds perfectly reasonable in this case.
f1ten said:
Imagine a tyre blow out at 150mph... whos fault is it that the car is smashed ?
Well clearly not the drivers, unless he had just stuck a knife in it, which seems unlikely.It won't be anyone's fault unless the tyre could be proved to be faulty, then it would be the manufacturer's ultimate liability (traced back through the retail chain). But most tyre failures are utterly accidental, i.e. no-ones fault.
It SHOULD be simple.
Journo/racer asks "Can i drive your car?"
Owner replies "Yes" or "No".
The affirmative response effectively clears the driver of any legal obligation. The car should be insure if necessary by the owner for the driver in question.
If the owner cannot afford to loose/replace/repair the car, the they simply reply "No" to the original question.
Journo/racer asks "Can i drive your car?"
Owner replies "Yes" or "No".
The affirmative response effectively clears the driver of any legal obligation. The car should be insure if necessary by the owner for the driver in question.
If the owner cannot afford to loose/replace/repair the car, the they simply reply "No" to the original question.
Lots of mentions of having insurance in place, but I don't know of any way in which you can insure the mechanicals of a racing car - a modern one, let alone a 40 year old one. Shunts - yes, you can cover them. Zinged flat-12s are another matter.
If anyone does know of such a policy, I'd be fascinated to read the small print.
The only solution is a simple document/contract that states who pays the bill if it goes pop. And as I've suggested in the piece, despite this case rather traumatising the small community of people working around these cars, I think most owners will continue to underwrite mechanical failures the way they always have done.
If anyone does know of such a policy, I'd be fascinated to read the small print.
The only solution is a simple document/contract that states who pays the bill if it goes pop. And as I've suggested in the piece, despite this case rather traumatising the small community of people working around these cars, I think most owners will continue to underwrite mechanical failures the way they always have done.
Max_Torque said:
It SHOULD be simple.
Journo/racer asks "Can i drive your car?"
Owner replies "Yes" or "No".
The affirmative response effectively clears the driver of any legal obligation. The car should be insure if necessary by the owner for the driver in question.
If the owner cannot afford to loose/replace/repair the car, the they simply reply "No" to the original question.
And no cars would be leant to anyone ever again.Journo/racer asks "Can i drive your car?"
Owner replies "Yes" or "No".
The affirmative response effectively clears the driver of any legal obligation. The car should be insure if necessary by the owner for the driver in question.
If the owner cannot afford to loose/replace/repair the car, the they simply reply "No" to the original question.
andyps said:
Part of the way he now makes money appears to be through renting out the cars he owns on that basis loss of earnings sounds perfectly reasonable in this case.
Which is why I maintain that this will be somewhat of a Pyrrhic victory for him; a significant number of people will think again and decide that, on balance, they'll not bother to rent one of his cars. Whether that bothers him or not I have no idea, but I'd be amazed if it doesn't impact his income.He absolutely has the right to the money, and was clearly forced to go to court to try to get it. I know that I wouldn't have done it his way, but then that's just my POV, and he clearly has a thicker skin than me.
Chris Harris said:
Lots of mentions of having insurance in place, but I don't know of any way in which you can insure the mechanicals of a racing car - a modern one, let alone a 40 year old one. Shunts - yes, you can cover them. Zinged flat-12s are another matter.
If anyone does know of such a policy, I'd be fascinated to read the small print.
The only solution is a simple document/contract that states who pays the bill if it goes pop. And as I've suggested in the piece, despite this case rather traumatising the small community of people working around these cars, I think most owners will continue to underwrite mechanical failures the way they always have done.
Must be tempting to discretely record the verbal contract....If anyone does know of such a policy, I'd be fascinated to read the small print.
The only solution is a simple document/contract that states who pays the bill if it goes pop. And as I've suggested in the piece, despite this case rather traumatising the small community of people working around these cars, I think most owners will continue to underwrite mechanical failures the way they always have done.
Good article Chris, a story new to me, a bit of a love/hate ending for the owner and the driver, if the total claim for rebuild, loss of earnings, fees etc is less than £200k I do not think this amount will bankrupt Mr Hales imho.
If he pays for the rebuild can he keep the broken parts? look out for 2nd hand 917 bits on fleabay soon to help pay for the claim.
On a similar note I always let people ride/crash by gearbox kart so that they can experience the frill of something that handles badly goes quick and scares the poop out of them, but it is somehting my friends still talk with big smiles about 20 yrs later... twice the engine has gone pop and I have repaired at my own cost as the 2 drivers were penniless, admittedly the cost was less than £400 each time, so i guess as the owner if i let someone drive it I have to stump for the running costs/repairs etc. Not sure I can compare £400 repair to £40,000 but I think the principle is the same.
If he pays for the rebuild can he keep the broken parts? look out for 2nd hand 917 bits on fleabay soon to help pay for the claim.
On a similar note I always let people ride/crash by gearbox kart so that they can experience the frill of something that handles badly goes quick and scares the poop out of them, but it is somehting my friends still talk with big smiles about 20 yrs later... twice the engine has gone pop and I have repaired at my own cost as the 2 drivers were penniless, admittedly the cost was less than £400 each time, so i guess as the owner if i let someone drive it I have to stump for the running costs/repairs etc. Not sure I can compare £400 repair to £40,000 but I think the principle is the same.
Chris Harris said:
Lots of mentions of having insurance in place, but I don't know of any way in which you can insure the mechanicals of a racing car - a modern one, let alone a 40 year old one. Shunts - yes, you can cover them. Zinged flat-12s are another matter.
If anyone does know of such a policy, I'd be fascinated to read the small print.
The only solution is a simple document/contract that states who pays the bill if it goes pop. And as I've suggested in the piece, despite this case rather traumatising the small community of people working around these cars, I think most owners will continue to underwrite mechanical failures the way they always have done.
Wouldn't such an agreement/contract have to include some element of driver error vs straight mechanical failure? If anyone does know of such a policy, I'd be fascinated to read the small print.
The only solution is a simple document/contract that states who pays the bill if it goes pop. And as I've suggested in the piece, despite this case rather traumatising the small community of people working around these cars, I think most owners will continue to underwrite mechanical failures the way they always have done.
If I was in the fortunate position of lending out classic racing cars I think I'd be happy to cover things randomly going bang as they tend to do occasionally. Less happy to cover it if something went bang because of driver error.
Max_Torque said:
It SHOULD be simple.
Journo/racer asks "Can i drive your car?"
Owner replies "Yes" or "No".
The affirmative response effectively clears the driver of any legal obligation. The car should be insure if necessary by the owner for the driver in question.
If the owner cannot afford to loose/replace/repair the car, the they simply reply "No" to the original question.
what a ridiculous statement...Journo/racer asks "Can i drive your car?"
Owner replies "Yes" or "No".
The affirmative response effectively clears the driver of any legal obligation. The car should be insure if necessary by the owner for the driver in question.
If the owner cannot afford to loose/replace/repair the car, the they simply reply "No" to the original question.
owner "yes, provided you have adequate insurance in place to cover every eventuality" or "no"
Hales didn't have sufficient indemnity, end of.....
[quote=Chris Harris]Lots of mentions of having insurance in place, but I don't know of any way in which you can insure the mechanicals of a racing car - a modern one, let alone a 40 year old one. Shunts - yes, you can cover them. Zinged flat-12s are another matter.
If anyone does know of such a policy, I'd be fascinated to read the small print.
The only solution is a simple document/contract that states who pays the bill if it goes pop. And as I've suggested in the piece, despite this case rather traumatising the small community of people working around these cars, I think most owners will continue to underwrite mechanical failures the way they always have done.
If this is the case then I agree, the two parties really need a proper contract drawn up. There is just too much at stake here.
If anyone does know of such a policy, I'd be fascinated to read the small print.
The only solution is a simple document/contract that states who pays the bill if it goes pop. And as I've suggested in the piece, despite this case rather traumatising the small community of people working around these cars, I think most owners will continue to underwrite mechanical failures the way they always have done.
If this is the case then I agree, the two parties really need a proper contract drawn up. There is just too much at stake here.
R11ysf said:
Essentially, cars aside, this is a story or a businessman making an unsound judgement in the course of his business and not getting adequate liability insurance. Rather than then admit fault and pay up he chose to fight it in court when the evidence appears to be overwhelmingly against him. It's a sad situation and I feel for him but if he has his house to lose he doesn't really have anyone to blame but himself.
(Prepares flames suit - but this is just how I see it)
Unfortunately I'd have to agree but there is a part of me that would like to think that should I be in the position to own and run a couple of 917s plus various other exotica I would not use that wealth and position to bury someone into the ground over a mistake like this.(Prepares flames suit - but this is just how I see it)
Obviously like 99% of the population I've not driven a 917 but appears they are notoriously difficult/highly strung to drive and I recall an Octane article with Derek Bell stating the engine would blow at over 8000rpm.
Reading the court transcript it appears MH admitted to missing a gear which blew the engine. To be honest that sounds like a genuine driver error but something that would you think would be part and parcel of the risk of lending out such a machine. Trust must form a large part of agreement in lending such cars for testing so DP wouldn't lend his car to MH if he thought MH wasn't up to the job.
I like to think in a similar position, and with a good relationship with the driver, it would be something I'd have to suck up and pay given how difficult the 917 is. The risk goes with the territory for this particular car and therefore maybe unique to this car.
Unfortunately MH doesn't appear to have presented himself well at all to the court and DP given allowances for being vague.
"I accept that the Claimant was a times a little vague upon some aspects of his evidence during lengthy cross examination in an uncomfortable court but that is quite understandable at his age. However, like all good witnesses, he was certain, accurate and truthful on the things that mattered and he is a very savvy business man."
But I still state - it's sad that it should ever have even gone to court for what appears a mistake that anyone could have made and in no way intention nor with any disregard for the 917 or DP. Dennis and Octane don't appear to come out of this too well having scanned the transcript.
Chris Harris said:
The only solution is a simple document/contract that states who pays the bill if it goes pop.
What is staggering is that there isn't such a document that routinely gets produced at the moment of truth, there bloomin well should be, at least you aren't then relying on good will when 'issues' ariseChris Harris said:
I think most owners will continue to underwrite mechanical failures the way they always have done.
what's that, inadequately. If you are happy as an owner to hang the consequences, then great....put it in writing!hairykrishna said:
Wouldn't such an agreement/contract have to include some element of driver error vs straight mechanical failure?
If I was in the fortunate position of lending out classic racing cars I think I'd be happy to cover things randomly going bang as they tend to do occasionally. Less happy to cover it if something went bang because of driver error.
I think that's where the selection process comes in. It is so hard to determine where/how/why and most pertinently when an event occurs that actually causes something to fail that you're better off choosing people who just know the cars. But even then things go wrong. If I was in the fortunate position of lending out classic racing cars I think I'd be happy to cover things randomly going bang as they tend to do occasionally. Less happy to cover it if something went bang because of driver error.
Suppose if it was my car, maybe a rev-counter with a memory function and an onboard camera to make sure people aren't taking the mickey.
hairykrishna said:
Wouldn't such an agreement/contract have to include some element of driver error vs straight mechanical failure?
If I was in the fortunate position of lending out classic racing cars I think I'd be happy to cover things randomly going bang as they tend to do occasionally. Less happy to cover it if something went bang because of driver error.
The point is that Mark or any jouno for that matter isn't driving a mates car for fun. he is driving it to write an article on which basis he gets paid. Magazines then flog thousands of copies at getting on for £5 a shot and make money from advertising and sales..because they pay for the best articles with the best cars...Lets face it you wouldn't buy octane if the articles were about mini metro's would you!!If I was in the fortunate position of lending out classic racing cars I think I'd be happy to cover things randomly going bang as they tend to do occasionally. Less happy to cover it if something went bang because of driver error.
There seems to be an idea that the journo is doing Mr Piper a favour in choosing his car for inclusion in the magazine and its just tough titty if anything happens to it.
Not the case!!
if you want to make money of the back of using someone elses car then you make sure any risk of loss or damage to it is covered. If you don't wish to do this then do what most other journos seem to do these days and use library shots and make the piece up !!
Racing a car on a track is a different matter altogether and calls for either a gentlemans agreement or a formal drivers contract.
Its quite sad that a big mag and journo couldn't between them come up with the recompense...had they have shown some willing then I assume a guy like david piper would quite possibly have met in the middle, I suspect however that relationships were sowered because of persons not wanting to face up to their responsibilities.!!
N.
Edited by heightswitch on Tuesday 22 January 16:30
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff