|
heebeegeetee
19,534 posts
117 months
|
touring fan said: heebeegeetee said: I think in business, and possibly life in general, it often pays to read or try to see what isn't written or said as much as what is.
Hales said he failed to select the gear. He didn't say why. (Obviously there has to be a reason). In court it seems he tried to explain why, talking about spiders and sliders etc, but for whatever reason the judge wasn't interested. "There was no fault apparent with the car before this incident, and I admit the damage to the engine was caused by my failure to select the gear correctly”. This statement that he made to his insurance company was his undoing. End of story. Yes. note the word 'apparent' it's very important. Note also the lack of explanation for his failure to explain why he failed to select. I guess there are two types on here, those who accept everything at face value and those who don't. In life as in business, you have to read between the lines. It seems Mr Hales was taking to the insurance company when he made the statement. The insurance company was saying the failure was due to mechanical, Mr Piper was saying it was driver error. Hales was caught in the middle with no safety net and had to tread very carefully.
|
|
|
Count Johnny
701 posts
66 months
|
I hope this doesn't appear unkind, but did Steve McQueen make David Piper pay for the car that he totalled when filming sequences for the film Le Mans?
|
|
|
EDLT
14,580 posts
75 months
|
Count Johnny said: I hope this doesn't appear unkind, but did Steve McQueen make David Piper pay for the car that he totalled when filming sequences for the film Le Mans? In one of the 12,000 Hales/Piper threads someone said Piper was the one driving the car at the time. And its likely that the production company was properly insured, even back then.
|
|
|
Count Johnny
701 posts
66 months
|
EDLT said: In one of the 12,000 Hales/Piper threads someone said Piper was the one driving the car at the time.
And its likely that the production company was properly insured, even back then. Sorry. I obviously didn't phrase that question properly. It WAS David Piper who was driving the car - that's how he lost his leg. It was said that a tyre deflated - or maybe he missed a gear.
|
|
|
EDLT
14,580 posts
75 months
|
Count Johnny said: EDLT said: In one of the 12,000 Hales/Piper threads someone said Piper was the one driving the car at the time.
And its likely that the production company was properly insured, even back then. Sorry. I obviously didn't phrase that question properly. It WAS David Piper who was driving the car - that's how he lost his leg. It was said that a tyre deflated - or maybe he missed a gear. Who knows, I guess it depends on how many times Piper changed his story.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Count Johnny
701 posts
66 months
|
EDLT said: Who knows, I guess it depends on how many times Piper changed his story. 
|
|
|
Mark13
309 posts
47 months
|
Allegedly, Piper accepted his fate after the accident and was later cajoled by someone from the BRDC to put a claim in for his injuries. Times were different and the cars did not have the same value. However, most of the radio controlled crash scenes were actually done using Lola T70's cloned to look like either 512's or 917's. you can see the relative value when they would now be worth c£250k restored with some history.
|
|
|
alexwagner
44 posts
28 months
|
Trophybloo said: touring fan said: Man borrows expensive car to write a story for his own professional and money-earning purposes.
Man makes a mistake which ruins the engine.
Man clearly admits in writing, in an insurance claim, that it was entirely his fault.
Man changes his story when insurance claim rejected.
Man now claims it was a mechanical problem.
Owner understandably wants recompense for damage caused by the man who borrowed his car.
Judge sees through the ever changing story of defendant and thus cannot trust his evidence.
Man pronounced liable and must pay restitution for damage caused.
Simples. Mark didn't sign up to put his home, future livelihood and sanity on the line in order to drive a millionaire's car for a magazine feature. Clearly.
|
|
|
Graham
14,181 posts
153 months
|
alexwagner said: Mark didn't sign up to put his home, future livelihood and sanity on the line in order to drive a millionaire's car for a magazine feature.
Clearly. Indeed which is why as far as mark was concerend it was a business transaction done through his ltd company who also have PI cover.. somehow due to sending an e-mail or 2 from his personal e-mail account the judge decided he was personally liable not the company WTF? a lesson for everyone with a small Ltd Company there too...
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,257 posts
134 months
|
Absolutely. The limited liabilities of a limited liability company are sometimes illusory.
|
|
