Caterham being sued??
Discussion
As much as I can't see the guy having a leg to stand on, all these bulls
t no win no fee people will probably mean he wins. I do feel sorry for the guy, thos injuries are pretty horrific, but going after Caterham because they built the car isn't the right way to go; my old Seicento was so badly built that the exhaust fell off within a few weeks of owning it, I didn't go to Fiat demanding a new exhaust, just went and bought a new one, and we made some clamps meaning it wouldn't fall off again.
My point is I don't see how Caterham can be seen as legally responsible. Fair enough, the oil hose may have been too low, but if the driver already knew this, then surely he should have put it right, or at least driven a little more slowly to compensate for that?
What's the situation regarding Caterham if they do end up having to pay out? As the accident happened before the Team Lotus lot bought them out, would they go after the previous owners, or is Fernandes' lot responsible?
t no win no fee people will probably mean he wins. I do feel sorry for the guy, thos injuries are pretty horrific, but going after Caterham because they built the car isn't the right way to go; my old Seicento was so badly built that the exhaust fell off within a few weeks of owning it, I didn't go to Fiat demanding a new exhaust, just went and bought a new one, and we made some clamps meaning it wouldn't fall off again.My point is I don't see how Caterham can be seen as legally responsible. Fair enough, the oil hose may have been too low, but if the driver already knew this, then surely he should have put it right, or at least driven a little more slowly to compensate for that?
What's the situation regarding Caterham if they do end up having to pay out? As the accident happened before the Team Lotus lot bought them out, would they go after the previous owners, or is Fernandes' lot responsible?
DanB7290 said:
As much as I can't see the guy having a leg to stand on, all these bullst no win no fee people will probably mean he wins. I do feel sorry for the guy, thos injuries are pretty horrific, but going after Caterham because they built the car isn't the right way to go; my old Seicento was so badly built that the exhaust fell off within a few weeks of owning it, I didn't go to Fiat demanding a new exhaust, just went and bought a new one, and we made some clamps meaning it wouldn't fall off again.
My point is I don't see how Caterham can be seen as legally responsible. Fair enough, the oil hose may have been too low, but if the driver already knew this, then surely he should have put it right, or at least driven a little more slowly to compensate for that?
What's the situation regarding Caterham if they do end up having to pay out? As the accident happened before the Team Lotus lot bought them out, would they go after the previous owners, or is Fernandes' lot responsible?
To be fair, the exhaust falling off did not give you brain injuries.t no win no fee people will probably mean he wins. I do feel sorry for the guy, thos injuries are pretty horrific, but going after Caterham because they built the car isn't the right way to go; my old Seicento was so badly built that the exhaust fell off within a few weeks of owning it, I didn't go to Fiat demanding a new exhaust, just went and bought a new one, and we made some clamps meaning it wouldn't fall off again.My point is I don't see how Caterham can be seen as legally responsible. Fair enough, the oil hose may have been too low, but if the driver already knew this, then surely he should have put it right, or at least driven a little more slowly to compensate for that?
What's the situation regarding Caterham if they do end up having to pay out? As the accident happened before the Team Lotus lot bought them out, would they go after the previous owners, or is Fernandes' lot responsible?
DanB7290 said:
What's the situation regarding Caterham if they do end up having to pay out? As the accident happened before the Team Lotus lot bought them out, would they go after the previous owners, or is Fernandes' lot responsible?
That kind of thing will have been dealt with by the legal paperwork surrounding the sale. (i.e. it will have been agreed who deals with/pays out for claims relating to products sold pre-deal.)TonyRPH said:
Are there really THAT many deaths?
Or is this more sensationalist reporting from the BBC?
Wikipedia (yes I know!) states Or is this more sensationalist reporting from the BBC?
"While track management does not publish any official figures, several regular visitors to the track have used police reports to estimate the number of fatalities at somewhere between 3 and 12 in a full year"
Considering the very tricky nature of the road, the large amount of traffic on it at times (including coaches and day trippers trundling around) and a vast spread of ability amongst the drivers I think even 12 is a surprisingly low number. I'd put money that bikers make up a significant portion of that number as well.
Herman Toothrot said:
The article states Caterham have already admitted liability.
If they had admitted liability there wouldn't be a need for a court case to determine liability. What I imagine they have done is tell the claimant that yes, the pipe hung down low and that it was likely that a burst in that pipe caused the accident.However it's likely their position is going to be that if the vehicle is used correctly then the pipe will not burst. AFAIK this is the first one I've heard of anyway.
Mr2Mike said:
Wikipedia (yes I know!) states
"While track management does not publish any official figures, several regular visitors to the track have used police reports to estimate the number of fatalities at somewhere between 3 and 12 in a full year"
Considering the very tricky nature of the road, the large amount of traffic on it at times (including coaches and day trippers trundling around) and a vast spread of ability amongst the drivers I think even 12 is a surprisingly low number. I'd put money that bikers make up a significant portion of that number as well.
that only includes the ones who die on track not the ones lifted and who die in hospital....."While track management does not publish any official figures, several regular visitors to the track have used police reports to estimate the number of fatalities at somewhere between 3 and 12 in a full year"
Considering the very tricky nature of the road, the large amount of traffic on it at times (including coaches and day trippers trundling around) and a vast spread of ability amongst the drivers I think even 12 is a surprisingly low number. I'd put money that bikers make up a significant portion of that number as well.
martin
dazco said:
No idea if this will go anywhere or not but imagine if he was a pedestrian and a Caterham battered into him on the pavement because of the same fault. Would you expect him to sue? Expect him to win? is it any different because he is actually sat in the car?
Massively different IMO. He made a definite "choice" to passenger in the car, and given the N'rings rep you can hardly say he had no understanding of the risks etc. If you are just sat on a pavement, minding your own buisness and a car crashes into you I think there is a much much stronger case to be heard.So what about Citroen and there even worse design decision with there brake pedals under the passenger seat? Did anything happen with that? Or by recalling them did they get out of it? But surely this car has been tested and tested and passed the safety checks. Is this the only time it has happened?
Max_Torque said:
dazco said:
No idea if this will go anywhere or not but imagine if he was a pedestrian and a Caterham battered into him on the pavement because of the same fault. Would you expect him to sue? Expect him to win? is it any different because he is actually sat in the car?
Massively different IMO. He made a definite "choice" to passenger in the car, and given the N'rings rep you can hardly say he had no understanding of the risks etc. If you are just sat on a pavement, minding your own buisness and a car crashes into you I think there is a much much stronger case to be heard.They didn't expect their "designed for racing" car to be driven on a track while using that as the main selling point?
ETA agree it's different to someone getting knocked down, this sounds more a 'fit for purpose' thing.
Edited by collateral on Monday 5th September 15:20
hora said:
Is there a history/other occassions when the same part has failed?
If so then he has good grounds.
However this is a failure on a notorious TRACK not a public road so I really don't think he'll get this far.
Hope he has a strong recovery though
We run 8 R300s with the same pipe setup in the Caterham championships and i've never seen this failure on any of our cars or the ones we race against.If so then he has good grounds.
However this is a failure on a notorious TRACK not a public road so I really don't think he'll get this far.
Hope he has a strong recovery though
It would take a pretty heavy hit or driving over something pretty sharp to get through the oil pipe.
petery said:
We run 8 R300s with the same pipe setup in the Caterham championships and i've never seen this failure on any of our cars or the ones we race against.
It would take a pretty heavy hit or driving over something pretty sharp to get through the oil pipe.
Either a hefty cut of a kerb or entering/ exciting the carousel could be quite sharp?It would take a pretty heavy hit or driving over something pretty sharp to get through the oil pipe.
DanB7290 said:
As much as I can't see the guy having a leg to stand on, all these bullst no win no fee people will probably mean he wins.
How on earth did you work that one out? Real unlogic. If the guy doesn't have a leg to stand on then very clearly he won't win!t no win no fee people will probably mean he wins.IMO the problem Caterham face is that although the law doesn't prohibit the sale of cars which don't meet modern safety standards the purchaser (or someone injured) can reasonably argue that something sold as a "car" should meet the overall standards normally associated with "cars".
Ozzie Osmond said:
How on earth did you work that one out? Real unlogic. If the guy doesn't have a leg to stand on then very clearly he won't win!
IMO the problem Caterham face is that although the law doesn't prohibit the sale of cars which don't meet modern safety standards the purchaser (or someone injured) can reasonably argue that something sold as a "car" should meet the overall standards normally associated with "cars".
Just sadly, we seem to be going down the American route, sue anyone for almost anything and probably win. I meant that from a common sense point of view, he can't really claim that Caterham were to blame for his injuries, unless it can be proven that they knew about the fault and failed to do anything about it. Plus, the fault could have arisen through the way the car was driven rather than a design flaw, but I think in this case, common sense should prevail and he won't get anything out of the company, but that opens a whole new can of worms about whether the driver is then responsible.IMO the problem Caterham face is that although the law doesn't prohibit the sale of cars which don't meet modern safety standards the purchaser (or someone injured) can reasonably argue that something sold as a "car" should meet the overall standards normally associated with "cars".
Oh yeah, just to fit in with others, IANAL.
hora said:
Is there a history/other occassions when the same part has failed?
If so then he has good grounds.
However this is a failure on a notorious TRACK not a public road so I really don't think he'll get this far.
Hope he has a strong recovery though
It isn't a track. It is a public road. If push comes to shove, I don't think Caterham's brief will be going into battle on that score.If so then he has good grounds.
However this is a failure on a notorious TRACK not a public road so I really don't think he'll get this far.
Hope he has a strong recovery though
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff