Discussion
MG511 said:
freedman said:
tali1 said:
999 Judges out of 1000 would have awarded in Hales favour - rotten luck he got one of those terrorist/paedo friendly nutter m'luds
More like 1000 out of 1000 would have found against him"I find such an attempt to resile from a signed and written statement long after it was written as a self interested and cynical attempt to avoid the consequences a an uninsured judgment and substantial costs against him personally. Mr Hales was a most unreliable witness whose evidence was creative, inconsistent, self motivated and incredible."
freedman said:
tali1 said:
But surely Piper has some responsibility as he volunteered to enter into a risk situation - and therefore do his utmost to mimimize any risk?
Respected historian Doug Noye summed it perfectly
“I’m astonished and saddened,”
Doug Nye is indeed much respected, but if he is astonished he cant have bothered to read the judgementRespected historian Doug Noye summed it perfectly
“I’m astonished and saddened,”
As Open and shut a case as you will ever see, nothing remotely surprising about the verdict
Now afaik there are no insurers who cover for mechanical for this type of risk - given that Hales AND Piper are experienced pros they, i assume, would have been aware of this ( ok ignorance of law is no excuse even)
Now correct me if i'm wrong any owner is under obligation to make sure whoever he gives car to has adequate insurance cover in other words if Hales drove car on road Piper would be responsible for ensuring Hales or whoever had adequate cover -if they didn't Piper/owner would get fined and 3 penalty points -i sthat right?
So do different rules apply for private roads?
tali1 said:
The judges comments about Hales are more akin to a convicted criminal.Colleagues have pointed out that this is certainly not the Hales they have known for many decades -(okay they are not independant per se) but i'll leave it at that.
The judge is commenting on the facts of the case, Hales character and his volume of rfriends is irrelevant
HustleRussell said:
For those of you who want to donate financially, there's a bit of spiel here
www.savethehales.com
It's interesting that there's no running total unlike when people contributed to the air ambulance folloing Richard hammond's crash. One wonders how much momentum this has gained?www.savethehales.com
longblackcoat said:
tali1 said:
So do different rules apply for private roads?
In short, yes.You can come to whatever private arrangement you like when there's no public interest or involvement.
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 guilty and must pay restitution for damage caused.
Simples.
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 guilty and must pay restitution for damage caused.
Simples.
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.
Edited for legal accuracy, there is no question of guilt in a civil case, just liability for damages.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.
tali1 said:
longblackcoat said:
tali1 said:
So do different rules apply for private roads?
In short, yes.You can come to whatever private arrangement you like when there's no public interest or involvement.
touring fan said:
1.Man borrows expensive car to write a story for his own professional and money-earning purposes.
2. Man makes a mistake which ruins the engine.
3. Man clearly admits in writing, in an insurance claim, that it was entirely his fault.
4.Man changes his story when insurance claim rejected.
5.Man now claims it was a mechanical problem.
6.Owner understandably wants recompense for damage caused by the man who borrowed his car.
7.Judge sees through the ever changing story of defendant and thus cannot trust his evidence.
8.Man pronounced guilty and must pay restitution for damage caused.
9.Simples.
1. Wrong. Man rents expensive car.2. Man makes a mistake which ruins the engine.
3. Man clearly admits in writing, in an insurance claim, that it was entirely his fault.
4.Man changes his story when insurance claim rejected.
5.Man now claims it was a mechanical problem.
6.Owner understandably wants recompense for damage caused by the man who borrowed his car.
7.Judge sees through the ever changing story of defendant and thus cannot trust his evidence.
8.Man pronounced guilty and must pay restitution for damage caused.
9.Simples.
2. Disputed. Hence the court case.
3. Wrong. Man doesn't elaborate as to why he failed to select gear.
4. Wrong.
5. As backed up by insurance company, unfortunately. There is evidence that there was a mechanical problem on the day but not enough to convince the court.
6. Wahey! A nearly correct statement. Owner wants recompense from the man who hired his car.
7. Judge comes up with judgement that has puzzled many very knowledgeable people in the industry.
8. Finally, a correct statement.
9. And almost all wrong.
If you look here you'll find the other side of the story..
http://www.trackdriver.com/mark_hales_appeal.php
Since this has happened, many professional racing drivers have got together to look at the legal side of this, and to ensure that none of them get caught in the future!!
Bottom line is that Goodwood might be a little quieter as many cars stay wrapped in cotton wool, or if they do get driven up the hill, expect the Express Dairies Milk Float to overtake them!
http://www.trackdriver.com/mark_hales_appeal.php
Since this has happened, many professional racing drivers have got together to look at the legal side of this, and to ensure that none of them get caught in the future!!
Bottom line is that Goodwood might be a little quieter as many cars stay wrapped in cotton wool, or if they do get driven up the hill, expect the Express Dairies Milk Float to overtake them!
heebeegeetee said:
3. Wrong. Man doesn't elaborate as to why he failed to select gear.
No, it isnt wrong, no matter how many times you attempt to change the facts to suit your argumentHales admitted in writing the damage was due to his error
He also admitted in writing that prior to this the car was fine
thunderbelmont said:
If you look here you'll find the other side of the story..
http://www.trackdriver.com/mark_hales_appeal.php
Since this has happened, many professional racing drivers have got together to look at the legal side of this, and to ensure that none of them get caught in the future!!
Bottom line is that Goodwood might be a little quieter as many cars stay wrapped in cotton wool, or if they do get driven up the hill, expect the Express Dairies Milk Float to overtake them!
God knows why all the panic- beyond me. Everybody with half a brain should have known that if they didn't cover the risk allocation in car loans and something went wrong it could end up in court. The fact that most people have relied on 'you bend it you mend it ' handshakes is neither here nor here- they still can but that won't stop - and never would have stopped- somebody going to court. The case has not made new law- it's just made a lot of people wake up http://www.trackdriver.com/mark_hales_appeal.php
Since this has happened, many professional racing drivers have got together to look at the legal side of this, and to ensure that none of them get caught in the future!!
Bottom line is that Goodwood might be a little quieter as many cars stay wrapped in cotton wool, or if they do get driven up the hill, expect the Express Dairies Milk Float to overtake them!
freedman said:
heebeegeetee said:
3. Wrong. Man doesn't elaborate as to why he failed to select gear.
No, it isnt wrong, no matter how many times you attempt to change the facts to suit your argumentHales admitted in writing the damage was due to his error
He also admitted in writing that prior to this the car was fine
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.
coppice said:
God knows why all the panic- beyond me. Everybody with half a brain should have known that if they didn't cover the risk allocation in car loans and something went wrong it could end up in court. The fact that most people have relied on 'you bend it you mend it ' handshakes is neither here nor here- they still can but that won't stop - and never would have stopped- somebody going to court. The case has not made new law- it's just made a lot of people wake up
Wise wordsheebeegeetee 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”.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.
This statement that he made to his insurance company was his undoing.
End of story.
I'd wonder if the best option for him was to declare abnkrupcy. That would make it a rather hollow victory, and then the funds of those sympathetic to the cause could be used towards the rebuilding of his life.
However I am not sure that £120,000 is a large sum of money. Indeed people wouldnt have it, however if assets were liquidated in a bankruptcy would a lot of us come close?
However I am not sure that £120,000 is a large sum of money. Indeed people wouldnt have it, however if assets were liquidated in a bankruptcy would a lot of us come close?
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff