'You bend it, you mend it' - Piper sues Hales

[groomi]

fcat said:

groomi said:

My point is, how did Piper manage to go for the individual when the whole point of having a limited co with relevant liabilities insurance is for this very reason?

From memory when I was involved in drawing up contracts which included insurance, if MH was grossly negligent (not saying he was, mind you) then it is likely that his company's insurance would not cover that situation anyway. I also suspect there are circumstances involving gross negligence where an individual may not be able to hide behind a company, any more than they could for criminal activity. No doubt a proper legal bod can comment further on this. Certainly people set up Limited Liability companies to gain some personal protection against unforeseen business problems but its not 100% protection.

Absolutely. But assuming he had professional indemnity insurance or whatever the car-driving equivalent might be, then surely any gross negligence would have to be proven before that cover can be circumnavigated. In other words, the PI company should have been fighting the claim.

[andmark4389]

Thanks so much to everybody for the kind words. I appreciate that it is a very one sided account so whatever I may feel personally, I am also grateful for the balance.

That said however, can I please just restate; before the test took place I DID have a discussion with Piper about the possibility of engine damage because he raised it first. I told him that the car would be covered for a crash but not the mechanicals. He said simply, “All right...”

It was a gentlemen’s agreement that I did not think needed to be written down. Piper chose not to remember that conversation in court.

I DID have the conversation about the gearshift with Piper’s mechanic and he said “I know, I know... David can’t reach third so we adjust it for second. Just be careful.” Those were his exact words and I took that to mean it was something they either lived with or drove round and I would have to do the same. It could be that if it had been adjusted on the day for someone who could reach third, the problem would have gone away and the gearshift would have improved. Nick’s Ferrari also has gearshift issues (all the 512Ss did) and it’s a constant fiddle, based on what the driver says on the day.

I have made some catastrophically bad mistakes in the time that followed the test, which approximates to stupidity and I avoided confrontation when I should have had a row, which approximates to weakness. I regret both, but the law is evidence-based, not truth-based and in the absence of the former, the judge believed Piper. It’s as simple as that.

I also had partners/employers in this, who have headed for the hills. I couldn’t afford to join them in because the advice given was that I would have ended up fighting two sets of expensive lawyers.

Mark Hales

[DHE]

Feel really sorry for Mark Hales. Any idea on what an appeal would cost, if at all possible?

[heebeegeetee]

andmark4389 said:

Thanks so much to everybody for the kind words. I appreciate that it is a very one sided account so whatever I may feel personally, I am also grateful for the balance.

That said however, can I please just restate; before the test took place I DID have a discussion with Piper about the possibility of engine damage because he raised it first. I told him that the car would be covered for a crash but not the mechanicals. He said simply, “All right...”

It was a gentlemen’s agreement that I did not think needed to be written down. Piper chose not to remember that conversation in court.

I DID have the conversation about the gearshift with Piper’s mechanic and he said “I know, I know... David can’t reach third so we adjust it for second. Just be careful.” Those were his exact words and I took that to mean it was something they either lived with or drove round and I would have to do the same. It could be that if it had been adjusted on the day for someone who could reach third, the problem would have gone away and the gearshift would have improved. Nick’s Ferrari also has gearshift issues (all the 512Ss did) and it’s a constant fiddle, based on what the driver says on the day.

I have made some catastrophically bad mistakes in the time that followed the test, which approximates to stupidity and I avoided confrontation when I should have had a row, which approximates to weakness. I regret both, but the law is evidence-based, not truth-based and in the absence of the former, the judge believed Piper. It’s as simple as that.

I also had partners/employers in this, who have headed for the hills. I couldn’t afford to join them in because the advice given was that I would have ended up fighting two sets of expensive lawyers.

Mark Hales

I am very sorry to read this. Mr Hales, as you know you are held in very high regard in the motorsport and car-enthusiast fraternity.

I certainly wouldn't mind being involved in anything that could help put this right.

[Finlandese]

96eight said:

If it is true that Mark is going to lose his house, I for one would happily make a financial contribution to this.

If we value people driving cars we can only dream of and writing about them on our behalf then Mark must not be allowed to take that penalty on his own.

+1

[Excelsior]

Finlandese said:

96eight said:

If it is true that Mark is going to lose his house, I for one would happily make a financial contribution to this.

If we value people driving cars we can only dream of and writing about them on our behalf then Mark must not be allowed to take that penalty on his own.

+1

This idea is being discussed on TNF too - be good to know if this has merit as I would support it....

.....meantime the offer of testing your old Willhire Sapphire still stands Mark

[96eight]

Mark, you have a lot of friends and people who respect you in this industry. Don't be shy about asking for help.

The last time we met you were with Fast Lane testing my Sprintex Sierra so we are hardly close but I have been through something similar and it sucks the life out of you.

It is all very well everyone saying it is unfair but that is no help now. I would guess an appeal is out of the question due the risk of doubling the debt.

You can reach me at Powerflex and several of my friends have already said that they would help financially.

All the best and don't take it all on your own.

David

[rubystone]

andmark4389 said:

I also had partners/employers in this, who have headed for the hills. I couldn’t afford to join them in because the advice given was that I would have ended up fighting two sets of expensive lawyers.

Mark Hales

Indeed, they are consipcuous by their absence aren't they? An act of solidarity from your colleagues could be to refuse to write for their publications...but the problem is that they do own a lot of titles for whom a lot of your community do write for and that's going to hit some guys hard in the pocket.

[Paul Dishman]

rubystone said:

Shaw Tarse said:

It'll be interesting to read the thoughts of a Mr Harris tomorrow.

Why would he comment? I rarely if ever see him comment on anything remotely contentious..and wouldn't blame him for avoiding the issue.

Monkey said on Twitter that he'd blog about it all on PH tomorrow

[Blackpuddin]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What cmoose said.
And indeed as Nick himself said above that, the professional services insurance market is not car insurance.
I would certainly contribute to a Hales fund. So should anyone here who believes that the 'right' course in law is not always the right course in life.

[Blackpuddin]

rubystone said:

andmark4389 said:

I also had partners/employers in this, who have headed for the hills. I couldn’t afford to join them in because the advice given was that I would have ended up fighting two sets of expensive lawyers.

Mark Hales

Indeed, they are consipcuous by their absence aren't they? An act of solidarity from your colleagues could be to refuse to write for their publications...but the problem is that they do own a lot of titles for whom a lot of your community do write for and that's going to hit some guys hard in the pocket.

Writers are in a very weak and invidious position. They can't afford to upset employers or car owners.

[rubystone]

Blackpuddin said:

rubystone said:

andmark4389 said:

I also had partners/employers in this, who have headed for the hills. I couldn’t afford to join them in because the advice given was that I would have ended up fighting two sets of expensive lawyers.

Mark Hales

Indeed, they are consipcuous by their absence aren't they? An act of solidarity from your colleagues could be to refuse to write for their publications...but the problem is that they do own a lot of titles for whom a lot of your community do write for and that's going to hit some guys hard in the pocket.

Writers are in a very weak and invidious position. They can't afford to upset employers or car owners.

Agreed, which is why most of the stuff written about new cars is so anodyne. Mark seems to be suggesting that the magazines with whom had had agreed to create this feature have deserted him, or maybe I have misunderstood his posting?

[Stuart]

We're talking about a few things which we can do to help Mark at present. I think this is something which PHers could get behind, and there are a flurry of ideas going about via email behind the scenes.

Stand by for more news over the next couple of days.

[Blackpuddin]

nick0137 said:

(2) If you are a respected and responsible professional, as Hales seems to be, then such insurance ought not to be prohibitively expensive.

If you offered comprehensive test car insurance to automotive publishing companies at non-prohibitive rates I suspect they would rip your arm off.

[Blackpuddin]

Stuart said:

We're talking about a few things which we can do to help Mark at present. I think this is something which PHers could get behind, and there are a flurry of ideas going about via email behind the scenes.

Stand by for more news over the next couple of days.

That's great to hear Stuart.

[Blackpuddin]

Gaz. said:

Blackpuddin said:

Writers are in a very weak and invidious position. They can't afford to upset employers or car owners.

Knowing what you do now, that if it all goes Pete Tong you will be personally perused despite having insurance, and that your employer has left you high and dry would you a) drive a car you couldn't afford to repair & b) write for that publisher ever again?

I hope the motoring journalists are having a very hard think about this.

I believe it's the publishing companies that need to do the thinking. The writers have no power in this.

[Gaspode]

I'd be very keen to chip to assist Mark in this, if there's a way to do it.

[10 Pence Short]

Stuart said:

We're talking about a few things which we can do to help Mark at present. I think this is something which PHers could get behind, and there are a flurry of ideas going about via email behind the scenes.

Stand by for more news over the next couple of days.

I don't wish Mr. Hales any ill feeling, nor do I support his adversary at court.

Having said that, I would be careful taking one side or another, particularly if it is the side that has been disbelieved in court sitting as an impartial tribunal.

We have heard one side of a story, that is all.

[steveobes]

Gaspode said:

I'd be very keen to chip to assist Mark in this, if there's a way to do it.

+1

[GadgeS3C]

Stuart said:

We're talking about a few things which we can do to help Mark at present. I think this is something which PHers could get behind, and there are a flurry of ideas going about via email behind the scenes.

Stand by for more news over the next couple of days.

Never met Mark but have enjoyed his writing for a long time and imagine he's feeling pretty low at the moment - seems a tough price to pay for trying to do a good job. Appreciate that it might take a little while to deal with things but I'll be watching to see what I can do to help.

Good to see PH getting behind this!
Gary