Caterham being sued??
Discussion
Bedazzled 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.
I would have expected most settlements, favourable or otherwise, to include a requirement for confidentiality.Even if there were no confidentiality clause in the agreed settlement, one would have thought that posting such a comment on a public forum on a thread regarding an associated action would be considered questionable professional conduct
agtlaw said:
no details of the settlement have been given. you don't even know the parties to the settlement. high court proceedings are a matter of public record. anyone else got any additional speculation, guesswork and/or ignorance they want to post?
Yes, given that the party would know that a passenger was in the car and was severely injured, and there could be further actions, that party (if they were a company) would be required under usual accounting practices to make a provision for this, and thus should be reported or at least visible (given that severe brain damage would be a substantial award) in the published accounts ?agtlaw said:
no details of the settlement have been given. you don't even know the parties to the settlement. high court proceedings are a matter of public record. anyone else got any additional speculation, guesswork and/or ignorance they want to post?
If there was a settlement then, by definition, proceedings never reached the High Court. No?dazco said:
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.
If you take a lift with somebody you don't know, I'd argue that you're taking one hell of a risk that the driver will kill you. That seems a real problem to me - the very act of getting into an unknown car with an unknown driver is almost reckless.
skwdenyer said:
dazco said:
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.
If you take a lift with somebody you don't know, I'd argue that you're taking one hell of a risk that the driver will kill you. That seems a real problem to me - the very act of getting into an unknown car with an unknown driver is almost reckless.
The risk from the driver is one thing. An additional risk from the car is another. Clearly the latter carries more risk than the former, as the two risks are combined.
I think your point is that the risk inherent in going out with an unknown driver is that you might die. But that is the consequence, not the risk itself. Couple an unknown driver with a car with dangerous faults and you increase the chance of that consequence occurring, ie increase the risk.
I don't disagree that you are taking "one hell" of a risk getting into a car with someone you don't know. But you're taking a much greater risk (one of which you are not aware) in getting into a car with inherent faults, together with a driver you don't know.
will_ said:
Not quite.
The risk from the driver is one thing. An additional risk from the car is another. Clearly the latter carries more risk than the former, as the two risks are combined.
I think your point is that the risk inherent in going out with an unknown driver is that you might die. But that is the consequence, not the risk itself. Couple an unknown driver with a car with dangerous faults and you increase the chance of that consequence occurring, ie increase the risk.
I don't disagree that you are taking "one hell" of a risk getting into a car with someone you don't know. But you're taking a much greater risk (one of which you are not aware) in getting into a car with inherent faults, together with a driver you don't know.
I do take your point, but it is the splitting of semantic hairs IMHO.The risk from the driver is one thing. An additional risk from the car is another. Clearly the latter carries more risk than the former, as the two risks are combined.
I think your point is that the risk inherent in going out with an unknown driver is that you might die. But that is the consequence, not the risk itself. Couple an unknown driver with a car with dangerous faults and you increase the chance of that consequence occurring, ie increase the risk.
I don't disagree that you are taking "one hell" of a risk getting into a car with someone you don't know. But you're taking a much greater risk (one of which you are not aware) in getting into a car with inherent faults, together with a driver you don't know.
You are saying that, by taking a ride in an unknown car with an unknown driver at the 'ring, one is taking a known but completely unquantifiable risk in relation to the driver, and that on top of that there is an additional unknown and also unquantifiable risk in relation to the car.
Now, the cautious, reasonable person would, I would argue, make enquiries as to the competence of the driver before accepting a ride, not just in relation to his/her driving abilities, but in relation to his/her overall approach to risk. A reasonable observer would expect IMHO that a reasonably cautious, competent driver would satisfy him/herself that the vehicle was safe and fit for purpose before giving rides, even if s/he didn't care about the risk to themselves.
From what we know - and I admit that is not that much - there is no evidence of any of the following:
- that the passenger made enquiries of the driver's competence and preparedness;
- that the passenger made enquiries of, or inspected for himself, the vehicle's state;
- that the driver had conducted a reasonable inspection of the vehicle to assure himself that it was fit for the purpose intended.
If the driver had charged the passenger for the ride, I would argue that - on the facts we have - the driver was entirely at fault, because in law he owed a duty of care as a service provider. In the less formal setting suggested, it seems to me that the passenger was quite happy to take large, unquantified or unquantifiable risks without any particular investigation so as to mitigate them. In the ordinary course of events, I'm surprised, however, that the same is not true, i.e. that the driver continues to owe a duty of care to the passenger, one which would have been discharged by a thorough examination of the vehicle.
The oil pipe failing on that particular lap was, it would seem reasonable to suggest, a very low-probability event. After all, the vehicle had completed many miles and many laps without failure. Compared with that, the risk of an entirely unknown driver simply getting it wrong whilst hooning for the purposes of giving a passenger a thrill seems - to me, at least - many orders of magnitude greater.
All in all it is an unfortunate set of events. But if I were the passenger, I'd be feeling pretty pissed off with my own lack of risk management in relation to the whole thing. Contrary to what others have suggested, if I had made that choice, and if I had been injured, I would be blaming myself for not making sure I had adequate insurance cover for the activity, and for not paying for a ride from a professional with such cover.
Of course, if an 'ambulancechasers4u' type operation told me I could have some money despite my own carelessness, I'd be inclined to take it, but that doesn't IMHO alter the fact that we take responsibility for our own actions.
For comparison, what would have happened if a tyre had burst? Or a component had simply reached the end of its service life? Or the brake fluid had boiled on the way into a corner? Or any number of other events.
Motorsport (and this is IMHO motorsport - motoring for sport in the traditional sense of the word) is dangerous. We don't have to take risks but, if we do, we can't just assume that others will pick up the pieces if we didn't have the foresight to protect ourselves or mitigate the risks just a little bit.
And, yes, I have enormous sympathy for the passenger - this was clearly an unusual occurrence, and he could so easily have enjoyed his lap and been none the wiser. But he took a big risk and, sometimes, big risks don't pay off.
For completeness, even if I were to accept that Caterham had some contributory part to play, I would argue strongly that any award to the passenger should be apportioned in relation to the risks taken - so Caterham should pay that part attributable to the risk of their car failing on that lap. But whether anybody has the appetite to take this one all the way to the House of Lords to establish these points is another unknown
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff