'You bend it, you mend it' - Piper sues Hales
Discussion
GC8 said:
It appears to be a travesty, but hopefully an appeal with competent counsel will follow.
And how do you think MH will fund that?It seems Mark's best hope is that some friends of Piper manage to convince him not to follow through (fully or partially) on the judgement and some friends of Mark club together and help him with the costs.
After all, as has been said, a judgement like this is bound to make all drivers think twice about testing and racing any high-value race car from now on which could lead to an awful lot of very nice cars never turning a wheel again.
The more I hear on this the worse it sounds. I wasn't going to say this as it's contentious, but It may well be that Piper was wishing for this to happen - free engine rebuild, never mind the free publicity in the mags to support his intention to sell. I am glad that Mason's mechanic commented that the car was not prepared to the standard he expected, because on the basis of what I have seen at race tracks, that is very much the case. It is well chronicled that Piper has always made his living from running these cars, I wonder how many paying drivers have been stung for paying for mechanical breakdowns. As I have said in a previous post, surely the car should have stood a brief 8200 rpm.
It also sounds that Hales had a p*ss poor legal team, Judges do not understand motor racing and rely on a convincing barrister to persuade them. If I were Hales, I would try to find a brief to take on an appeal (hopefully on a no win no fee deal), and use the lessons of the original action to put together a better case.
It also sounds that Hales had a p*ss poor legal team, Judges do not understand motor racing and rely on a convincing barrister to persuade them. If I were Hales, I would try to find a brief to take on an appeal (hopefully on a no win no fee deal), and use the lessons of the original action to put together a better case.
rubystone said:
I thought agtlaw advised that this wouldn't matter? I admit that was news to me when I posted earlier.
At the end of the day, it all seems very simple if one reads the accounts. Mark drove the car, found a fault, reported it and was told they weren't going to fix it and that he should be careful.
At that point he could have backed out. Perhaps he was pressurised by someone else to complete the test so that the features could be published or perhaps he made that decision himself? Whatever, he chose to continue on in full knowledge of the consequences and sadly the incident happened.
We are/ were posting at cross purposes. The point I was / am making is that formation of a limited company offers no protection for the defendant if a negligence action is brought against him personally. A negligence action is distinct from a breach of contract action as there doesn't have to be what is called privity of contract. At the end of the day, it all seems very simple if one reads the accounts. Mark drove the car, found a fault, reported it and was told they weren't going to fix it and that he should be careful.
At that point he could have backed out. Perhaps he was pressurised by someone else to complete the test so that the features could be published or perhaps he made that decision himself? Whatever, he chose to continue on in full knowledge of the consequences and sadly the incident happened.
I haven't seen the pleadings in this case (or the judgment - i should have it tomorrow) but I'd expect the action to have been based on both breach of contract and negligence. Totally understandable that the claimant would want to sue MH in a personal capacity. Absolutely no point suing a company that is then dissolved. Company as a 2nd defendant might have been an option and odd this wasn't pursued if an insurance policy was there. There's plainly more to this aspect of the case than hitherto mentioned online.
Putting the driving to one side for a moment, there's no doubt that MH f
ked up from a legal perspective. He failed to protect himself properly. That's one lesson others might take from this.Edited by agtlaw on Sunday 20th January 15:13
Edited by agtlaw on Sunday 20th January 15:14
stacy said:
the view of several journalists including Toby Moody (Moto GP/BTCC) who Tweeted recently "One of the unspoken givens; you crash you pay, mechanical; owner pays."
Nonsense tweet from MoodyYes if you crash you pay
Yes if the gearbox or engine breaks from age related issues etc its obviously down to the owner
If the engine or gearbox reaks through the drivers error, then there's absolutely no difference than if you stuck it in the armco
freedman said:
stacy said:
the view of several journalists including Toby Moody (Moto GP/BTCC) who Tweeted recently "One of the unspoken givens; you crash you pay, mechanical; owner pays."
Nonsense tweet from MoodyYes if you crash you pay
Yes if the gearbox or engine breaks from age related issues etc its obviously down to the owner
If the engine or gearbox reaks through the drivers error, then there's absolutely no difference than if you stuck it in the armco
freedman said:
stacy said:
the view of several journalists including Toby Moody (Moto GP/BTCC) who Tweeted recently "One of the unspoken givens; you crash you pay, mechanical; owner pays."
Nonsense tweet from MoodyYes if you crash you pay
Yes if the gearbox or engine breaks from age related issues etc its obviously down to the owner
If the engine or gearbox reaks through the drivers error, then there's absolutely no difference than if you stuck it in the armco
What you are saying introduces the ambiguity that led to the sad situation we have here as you have to prove and/or define driver error.
agtlaw said:
Putting the driving to one side for a moment, there's no doubt that MH fked up from a legal perspective. He failed to protect himself properly. That's one lesson others might take from this.
Lawyer says losing party should have spent more money with lawyers.ked up from a legal perspective. He failed to protect himself properly. That's one lesson others might take from this.Hold the front page.
(Sorry, couldn't resist).
S.
Boshly said:
I have no idea of the real 'unspoken' or reknowned agreements in these circles but the gist of Moody's tweet makes far more sense than your reasoning as it is far simpler to understand who pays for what.
What you are saying introduces the ambiguity that led to the sad situation we have here as you have to prove and/or define driver error.
It's pretty obvious you can't say mechanical is down to the owner if its evident the driver is at fault due to an over rev or similarWhat you are saying introduces the ambiguity that led to the sad situation we have here as you have to prove and/or define driver error.
Moody doesnt take into account that mechanical damage can be caused by the driver and as such I cant see any difference between blowing an engine and hitting the guardrail
On another note Ive just re read the track test that the case centres around.
Lots of discussion about the gearbox and need to treat it carefully as it is quite unusual and recalcitrant. Nothing to siuggest there were any actual issues with it or any other aspect of the car at the time though
The High Court has had opportunity to hear the evidence in full, I would imagine. If they have made an error or come to a perverse verdict, no doubt the losing party will appeal and the result can be reconsidered. In the absence of hearing all the evidence or seeing an appeal lodged, I struggle to see how or why we could safely surmise that one party or the other has been hard done by?
One Shot said:
The more I hear on this the worse it sounds. I wasn't going to say this as it's contentious, but It may well be that Piper was wishing for this to happen - free engine rebuild, never mind the free publicity in the mags to support his intention to sell. I am glad that Mason's mechanic commented that the car was not prepared to the standard he expected, because on the basis of what I have seen at race tracks, that is very much the case. It is well chronicled that Piper has always made his living from running these cars, I wonder how many paying drivers have been stung for paying for mechanical breakdowns. As I have said in a previous post, surely the car should have stood a brief 8200 rpm.
It also sounds that Hales had a p*ss poor legal team, Judges do not understand motor racing and rely on a convincing barrister to persuade them. If I were Hales, I would try to find a brief to take on an appeal (hopefully on a no win no fee deal), and use the lessons of the original action to put together a better case.
From the other thread:It also sounds that Hales had a p*ss poor legal team, Judges do not understand motor racing and rely on a convincing barrister to persuade them. If I were Hales, I would try to find a brief to take on an appeal (hopefully on a no win no fee deal), and use the lessons of the original action to put together a better case.
SS7 said:
These cars were known to be rev-critical in period. Plenty were blown up in period by the best drivers around at the time. It went - 8400rpm: max power (between 580 and 630bhp), max revs 8700-8,800: 9,200rpm shrapnel.
From John Wyer's book 'The Certain Sound' : "The rev limiters were usually set at this speed (8,800rpm) but were not completely reliable and if the drivers missed a gear [it] did not act quickly enough to prevent damage. The trouble was that at 9,200rpm the valves touched the pistons which almost invariably resulted in a broken camshaft and a blown engine. We lost several engines as a result".
Also "[Hobbs] had the misfortune at Daytona to miss a gear and wreck and engine, a fatally easy thing to do on the 917" and "Being Siffert he had to make a grandstand play and pass them in front of the pits. In doing so he missed a gear and blew the engine".
SS7From John Wyer's book 'The Certain Sound' : "The rev limiters were usually set at this speed (8,800rpm) but were not completely reliable and if the drivers missed a gear [it] did not act quickly enough to prevent damage. The trouble was that at 9,200rpm the valves touched the pistons which almost invariably resulted in a broken camshaft and a blown engine. We lost several engines as a result".
Also "[Hobbs] had the misfortune at Daytona to miss a gear and wreck and engine, a fatally easy thing to do on the 917" and "Being Siffert he had to make a grandstand play and pass them in front of the pits. In doing so he missed a gear and blew the engine".
10 Pence Short said:
The High Court has had opportunity to hear the evidence in full, I would imagine. If they have made an error or come to a perverse verdict, no doubt the losing party will appeal and the result can be reconsidered. In the absence of hearing all the evidence or seeing an appeal lodged, I struggle to see how or why we could safely surmise that one party or the other has been hard done by?
^^^^ ThisAnd the moral of the story is, don't lend your car to anyone without a short written agreement unless you're prepared to pay in full if it gets crashed or broken.
Even if someone is driving with the benefit of your comprehensive insurance you still need a written agreement to deal with,
1. Who pays the insurance excess if there's an accident.
2. Who pays for any loss of no claims discount if there's an accident.
3. Who pays for any mechanical breakdowns (which aren't insured).
freedman said:
On another note Ive just re read the track test that the case centres around.
Lots of discussion about the gearbox and need to treat it carefully as it is quite unusual and recalcitrant. Nothing to siuggest there were any actual issues with it or any other aspect of the car at the time though
Amazing insight, thank you Lots of discussion about the gearbox and need to treat it carefully as it is quite unusual and recalcitrant. Nothing to siuggest there were any actual issues with it or any other aspect of the car at the time though
Perhaps that should have been submitted as evidence, prove Piper must have broken it himself when he go home. It rivals a misspelt invoice made out on an impossible date 
Tankslider said:
Amazing insight, thank you Perhaps that should have been submitted as evidence, prove Piper must have broken it himself when he go home. It rivals a misspelt invoice made out on an impossible date
What insight? I dont claim any at all, its whats written in the article by Hales Perhaps that should have been submitted as evidence, prove Piper must have broken it himself when he go home. It rivals a misspelt invoice made out on an impossible date What a very sad and depressing story to read about. 
I was completely unaware of it until a friend sent me a link last night. My thoughts are with Mark Hales, and I really hope this works out for him in the end.
My main reason for posting was to back up what others have said about Mark Hales. I've had a few days' instruction from him up at Cadwell, we've chatted at great length on the phone a number of times and I've read most of his articles and books and watched most of his DVDs and yes, not only is he a hugely competent driver who has won races in almost every type of car I care to imagine, and also traded laps and out qualified drivers such as Martin Brundle when sharing the same car, Mark has also had a remarkably low number of incidents, whether mechanical or 'offs'. Furthermore, Mark is one of the nicest and most interesting people you will ever meet. He's a proper petrolhead and un-erringly enthusiastic about both cars and aircraft. In the time I've spent with him, I've not heard him be insincere or innapropriate even for the briefest second, and he is a true credit to the network of people in this country who race cars and look after racing cars. I'm sure I'm not alone in that network of people in keeping my fingers crossed that it works out ok.
I was completely unaware of it until a friend sent me a link last night. My thoughts are with Mark Hales, and I really hope this works out for him in the end.My main reason for posting was to back up what others have said about Mark Hales. I've had a few days' instruction from him up at Cadwell, we've chatted at great length on the phone a number of times and I've read most of his articles and books and watched most of his DVDs and yes, not only is he a hugely competent driver who has won races in almost every type of car I care to imagine, and also traded laps and out qualified drivers such as Martin Brundle when sharing the same car, Mark has also had a remarkably low number of incidents, whether mechanical or 'offs'. Furthermore, Mark is one of the nicest and most interesting people you will ever meet. He's a proper petrolhead and un-erringly enthusiastic about both cars and aircraft. In the time I've spent with him, I've not heard him be insincere or innapropriate even for the briefest second, and he is a true credit to the network of people in this country who race cars and look after racing cars. I'm sure I'm not alone in that network of people in keeping my fingers crossed that it works out ok.
Many many years ago someone I know very well was persuaded to allow a well known motoring person to test drive some of his cars for a magazine article.
A couple of the cars were returned with 'mechanical issues' shall we say. The journalist apologised saying that one issue was his fault - he broke the clutch - whilst the other issue arose because 'the car just broke whilst I was going around a corner quite fast'.
The engine was, literally, fked so we could only assume that the motoring person was playing around, having some fun & either missed a gear change or over-revved the engine.
We never got to the bottom of what happened.
The owner of the cars was, understandably, annoyed but he simply had the cars trailered back to the workshop where they were repaired.
Did the owner sue the motoring person for the cost of the repairs? No.
Why not? Because the owner was aware of the risks, the cars had been insured for accident damage during the test & the owner was aware that because the cars were going to be driven flat out there was a chance that some mechanical damage might occur.
The owner simply took the damage on the chin & continued to let the motoring person drive his cars when the opportunity arose.
The same person, during filming for another item, was responsible (sort of) for breaking the rear suspension of another car when he was filmed driving the car not exactly slowly with a camera crew perched on the back of the car.
It was a 2 seater convertible & there were four people plus a heavy camera filming from the back of the car - the person driving the car hit a pot hole hard which resulted in the rear suspension snapping!!
Again he apologised & the car was repaired with no grief from the owner towards the driver.
It happened, it got dealt with so there was no problem.
Admittedly the damage to the 917 appeared to be expensive however in my humble opinion David Piper should not have sued Mark Hales. I am surprised that he took the matter the court, particularly as the publishers made an out of court settlement offer which was rejected.
Makes me wonder whether or not it is something of a more personal nature which took the case to court.
Either way it's a sad thing to happen & i would imagine that there are a number of talented 'gentleman drivers' who race other people's cars who will now be wondering whether it is a sensible thing to do, just in case they crash the car or damage the mechanicals.
A bad day all round for historic racing IMO.
A couple of the cars were returned with 'mechanical issues' shall we say. The journalist apologised saying that one issue was his fault - he broke the clutch - whilst the other issue arose because 'the car just broke whilst I was going around a corner quite fast'.
The engine was, literally, f
ked so we could only assume that the motoring person was playing around, having some fun & either missed a gear change or over-revved the engine.We never got to the bottom of what happened.
The owner of the cars was, understandably, annoyed but he simply had the cars trailered back to the workshop where they were repaired.
Did the owner sue the motoring person for the cost of the repairs? No.
Why not? Because the owner was aware of the risks, the cars had been insured for accident damage during the test & the owner was aware that because the cars were going to be driven flat out there was a chance that some mechanical damage might occur.
The owner simply took the damage on the chin & continued to let the motoring person drive his cars when the opportunity arose.
The same person, during filming for another item, was responsible (sort of) for breaking the rear suspension of another car when he was filmed driving the car not exactly slowly with a camera crew perched on the back of the car.
It was a 2 seater convertible & there were four people plus a heavy camera filming from the back of the car - the person driving the car hit a pot hole hard which resulted in the rear suspension snapping!!
Again he apologised & the car was repaired with no grief from the owner towards the driver.
It happened, it got dealt with so there was no problem.
Admittedly the damage to the 917 appeared to be expensive however in my humble opinion David Piper should not have sued Mark Hales. I am surprised that he took the matter the court, particularly as the publishers made an out of court settlement offer which was rejected.
Makes me wonder whether or not it is something of a more personal nature which took the case to court.
Either way it's a sad thing to happen & i would imagine that there are a number of talented 'gentleman drivers' who race other people's cars who will now be wondering whether it is a sensible thing to do, just in case they crash the car or damage the mechanicals.
A bad day all round for historic racing IMO.
freedman said:
Boshly said:
I have no idea of the real 'unspoken' or reknowned agreements in these circles but the gist of Moody's tweet makes far more sense than your reasoning as it is far simpler to understand who pays for what.
What you are saying introduces the ambiguity that led to the sad situation we have here as you have to prove and/or define driver error.
It's pretty obvious you can't say mechanical is down to the owner if its evident the driver is at fault due to an over rev or similarWhat you are saying introduces the ambiguity that led to the sad situation we have here as you have to prove and/or define driver error.
Moody doesnt take into account that mechanical damage can be caused by the driver and as such I cant see any difference between blowing an engine and hitting the guardrail
10 Pence Short said:
The High Court has had opportunity to hear the evidence in full, I would imagine. If they have made an error or come to a perverse verdict, no doubt the losing party will appeal and the result can be reconsidered. In the absence of hearing all the evidence or seeing an appeal lodged, I struggle to see how or why we could safely surmise that one party or the other has been hard done by?
One problem with our legal system, inevitable I suppose, is that it's very expensive! From the figures posted earlier it would appear that the prosecution costs were £63k, the defence costs I'm guessing were somewhat less but still substantial, and loser pays all (plus the original £50k of course). Can the defendant afford to fund an appeal and is it worth the risk? It's an expensive, high risk game.
agtlaw said:
We are/ were posting at cross purposes. The point I was / am making is that formation of a limited company offers no protection for the defendant if a negligence action is brought against him personally. A negligence action is distinct from a breach of contract action as there doesn't have to be what is called privity of contract.
I can understand from Stacy's report how Piper has established that he can sue MH personally based on his use of personal email etc showing that he was acting on his own part and not as an employee of the company. However, if this is the case, then had he not opened these loopholes the company would presumably have been the only available defendant; there must be plenty of circumstances where an employee's alleged negligence is entirely the problem of the employer.agtlaw said:
I haven't seen the pleadings in this case (or the judgment - i should have it tomorrow) but I'd expect the action to have been based on both breach of contract and negligence. Totally understandable that the claimant would want to sue MH in a personal capacity. Absolutely no point suing a company that is then dissolved. Company as a 2nd defendant might have been an option and odd this wasn't pursued if an insurance policy was there. There's plainly more to this aspect of the case than hitherto mentioned online.
I agree with earlier comments on this, if Piper chose to sue MH personally despite apparently having the option to sue his company which had adequate insurance cover then the only reasons I can see would be malice and wishing to exact a penalty on to MH or possibly Piper was advised that his case was sufficiently marginal that taking it against a well equipped insurance company carried a high risk of failure. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff