What was the outcome.... Evo mag?
Discussion
A good few years ago I used to flick through Evo magazine and remember reading a case about a journo who had the opportunity to drive what I remember to be a very unique and expensive Old Porsche, perhaps a le mans 718 or something?
Something happened causing the gearbox to go bang and the fun stopped that day for both owner and journo. I remember reading about the case going to court and the journo potentially losing his shirt over it all, which I along with whoever wrote the piece in Evo thought was ridiculous that he would be held so accountable.
Anyway, I was listening to a podcast today with Matt Farrah speaking to the chap behind the Guntherworks projects. They briefly touched on the subject of giving cars some welly that don't belong to you, and it got me thinking back to the case.
Does anyone have any idea what I'm thinking of and know the outcome of the court case.
Something happened causing the gearbox to go bang and the fun stopped that day for both owner and journo. I remember reading about the case going to court and the journo potentially losing his shirt over it all, which I along with whoever wrote the piece in Evo thought was ridiculous that he would be held so accountable.
Anyway, I was listening to a podcast today with Matt Farrah speaking to the chap behind the Guntherworks projects. They briefly touched on the subject of giving cars some welly that don't belong to you, and it got me thinking back to the case.
Does anyone have any idea what I'm thinking of and know the outcome of the court case.
Zarco said:
Thankyou. Yes it's definitely that story. Longer ago than I thought. It seems the court did go after the driver then. I wonder if the industry did change following this or if like above Hales was just unfortunate.I remember following this story in real-time back in the day, and there were a few good threads running on PH.
This is one, but I know there are others:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Well worth a read (well, about 50% of it, if you ignore the inevitable nitwits) but it was a miserable business for all involved. A real shame.
Edit: this was the earlier thread - again, a good read:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
This is one, but I know there are others:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Well worth a read (well, about 50% of it, if you ignore the inevitable nitwits) but it was a miserable business for all involved. A real shame.
Edit: this was the earlier thread - again, a good read:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Edited by MDifficult on Monday 10th August 20:53
lowdrag said:
There was a fund set up to help Mark pay for his legal fees, but to no avail. He lost everything, going bankrupt over this case. I will never understand why David Piper was so vindictive. It was not as if he was short of a bob or two.
It is/was a bizarre case, Very sad for Mark Hales. All i can assume, is perhaps the first conversation between Hales and Piper after the 917 let go was not what Piper was expecting.Shy Torque said:
I have just read that, I am not 100% sure why Hales was deemed to be responsible rather than his company. I think the judge was was saying that because the company didn't really have much to do with the hire of the car it was Hales endeavour? That seems a bit wrong to me so perhaps I don't really understand it? Anyone able to shed some light on it?Chainsaw Rebuild said:
Shy Torque said:
I have just read that, I am not 100% sure why Hales was deemed to be responsible rather than his company. I think the judge was was saying that because the company didn't really have much to do with the hire of the car it was Hales endeavour? That seems a bit wrong to me so perhaps I don't really understand it? Anyone able to shed some light on it?The judge deemed Hales to be an unreliable witness, who at the least tried insurance fraud.
Piper also waited for the repair costs which he had been promised.
I think the whole motoring print media has a very biased take on this.
Pipers wealth is irrelevant to the situation.
If someone borrowed my car and damaged it I would expect them to make right.
Another thing from all this, keeping a dignified silence does not really work as Piper has been labelled as vindictive, greedy, etc.
Hales for me does not come across well.
I am sorry, but as someone who has written quite a number of articles in the classic car world, I have always been well received and never once been told "you bend it you mend it". It has been said above that the majority of owners accept that s
t can happen and don't blame it, no matter what, on the journalist. Of course, we take care that it doesn't happen because we have respect too. In 1991 I was allowed to drive the fabulous XJ13 - admittedly a few hundred yards around the factory, but there was no question in those days of Jaguar asking me for my insurance before taking the wheel. I certainly would not classify a missed gear change as being a reason to pursue and indeed bankrupt, loss of home included, a journalist for that. Especially if the journalist is not well placed and the owner is extremely rich. Incidentally, did David Piper take the producers to court after his serious accident when making "Le Mans"? I don't think so.
t can happen and don't blame it, no matter what, on the journalist. Of course, we take care that it doesn't happen because we have respect too. In 1991 I was allowed to drive the fabulous XJ13 - admittedly a few hundred yards around the factory, but there was no question in those days of Jaguar asking me for my insurance before taking the wheel. I certainly would not classify a missed gear change as being a reason to pursue and indeed bankrupt, loss of home included, a journalist for that. Especially if the journalist is not well placed and the owner is extremely rich. Incidentally, did David Piper take the producers to court after his serious accident when making "Le Mans"? I don't think so.StuntmanMike said:
Chainsaw Rebuild said:
Shy Torque said:
I have just read that, I am not 100% sure why Hales was deemed to be responsible rather than his company. I think the judge was was saying that because the company didn't really have much to do with the hire of the car it was Hales endeavour? That seems a bit wrong to me so perhaps I don't really understand it? Anyone able to shed some light on it?The judge deemed Hales to be an unreliable witness, who at the least tried insurance fraud.
Piper also waited for the repair costs which he had been promised.
I think the whole motoring print media has a very biased take on this.
Pipers wealth is irrelevant to the situation.
If someone borrowed my car and damaged it I would expect them to make right.
Another thing from all this, keeping a dignified silence does not really work as Piper has been labelled as vindictive, greedy, etc.
Hales for me does not come across well.
lowdrag said:
I am sorry, but as someone who has written quite a number of articles in the classic car world, I have always been well received and never once been told "you bend it you mend it". It has been said above that the majority of owners accept that st can happen and don't blame it, no matter what, on the journalist. Of course, we take care that it doesn't happen because we have respect too. In 1991 I was allowed to drive the fabulous XJ13 - admittedly a few hundred yards around the factory, but there was no question in those days of Jaguar asking me for my insurance before taking the wheel. I certainly would not classify a missed gear change as being a reason to pursue and indeed bankrupt, loss of home included, a journalist for that. Especially if the journalist is not well placed and the owner is extremely rich. Incidentally, did David Piper take the producers to court after his serious accident when making "Le Mans"? I don't think so.
We obviously have very different view points but nothing you have wrote has any relevance to the case really. t can happen and don't blame it, no matter what, on the journalist. Of course, we take care that it doesn't happen because we have respect too. In 1991 I was allowed to drive the fabulous XJ13 - admittedly a few hundred yards around the factory, but there was no question in those days of Jaguar asking me for my insurance before taking the wheel. I certainly would not classify a missed gear change as being a reason to pursue and indeed bankrupt, loss of home included, a journalist for that. Especially if the journalist is not well placed and the owner is extremely rich. Incidentally, did David Piper take the producers to court after his serious accident when making "Le Mans"? I don't think so.We will agree to disagree because we obviously have very different morals.
lowdrag said:
I am sorry, but as someone who has written quite a number of articles in the classic car world,
Can you point us to some of these articles lowdrag?Car club magazines don't count! (They'll take anything.)
But i'm seriously interested, what magazines have you been published in?
StuntmanMike said:
We obviously have very different view points but nothing you have wrote has any relevance to the case really.
We will agree to disagree because we obviously have very different morals.
Sorry, but are you saying that any journalist testing or driving a vehicle that doesn't belong to them has a moral responsibility to repair/replace that vehicle if something goes wrong with it?We will agree to disagree because we obviously have very different morals.
Surely it would depend on how and why it was damaged. If it was an underlying mechanical issue and not driver error then I wouldn't expect the driver to pick up the cost. Same as if it was a manufacturer demo as it is being used as advertising for the brand.
But if the car was mechanically sound and the driver over revved the engine due to a sloppy gear shift, or if the driver got a bit over confident on the brakes then to me it's different.
Don't journalist's have any sort of insurance cover whilst driving very high value cars? Seems a bit professionally irresponsible to risk your entire career on a dodgy gear shift.
But if the car was mechanically sound and the driver over revved the engine due to a sloppy gear shift, or if the driver got a bit over confident on the brakes then to me it's different.
Don't journalist's have any sort of insurance cover whilst driving very high value cars? Seems a bit professionally irresponsible to risk your entire career on a dodgy gear shift.
A bit of a wake-up call for all owners/journalists.
IMHO the real tragedy of the whole sorry case is not the cost of the damage to the engine (a 'mere' £37700) but the way lawyers on both sides ramped-up the costs.
This might be of interest, the 'professional' view of (a member of) the legal profession, specifically the solicitors acting for David Piper from their blog (so intended for general circulation, rather than being copyrighted!):
https://www.wilmotslitigation.co.uk/blog/2013/06/1...
From where I quote
"DAVID PIPER v MARK HALES 2013
In 2009, Mark Hales, a well known motoring journalist, persuaded a reluctant David Piper, an ex-racing driver, to lend him his Porsche 917 racing car in order, for a payment of £2000, to track test it against a Ferrari for a magazine article. The car was worth about £1.3 million.
This type of contract is known as a contract of bailment. The law provides in these circumstances that the borrower must take reasonable care of the car, and return it to the owner undamaged. If he does not do so he is liable to the owner for the cost of repairs.
Before testing the car DP insisted that the car be insured and was told by MH that it was fully insured against driver error. MH was also warned to ensure the gears were fully engaged before accelerating and that under no circumstances to rev beyond 7000 rpm.
On the track MH missed a gear, revved to 8200 rpm and caused nearly £40,000 of damage to the engine.
The insurers refused to pay, as the Policy did not cover mechanical breakdown.
MH denied it was his fault but was found personally liable in The High Court for the damage, having admitted in writing to his insurers that it was his fault for over revving because he had missed a gear and that there was nothing wrong with the car. He was therefore in breach of the contract of bailment.
Some interesting points arise from the case.
[b] If you are lending or borrowing a car make it crystal clear on what terms it is to take place, preferably in writing.
If an insurance policy is in force read the terms!
Although the alleged rule "you bend it, you mend it" was discussed, this decision does not affect it, since this case was determined by reference to the actual agreement between the parties. However the rule itself is merely a reflection of the obligations under a contract of bailment.
An individual may protect himself by operating through a limited company, but if he does so it must be made clear to the other party, again in writing, before any agreement is made. MH did have such a company, but produced no evidence that DP knew he was operating through it before the agreement.
If the engine had merely blown up because it was faulty MH would not have been liable.
The more valuable the car, the greater will be any claim for loss of use while it is being repaired. In this case it amounted to over £10,000.
Wilmots Litigation; solicitors for Mr Piper.[/b]
IMHO the real tragedy of the whole sorry case is not the cost of the damage to the engine (a 'mere' £37700) but the way lawyers on both sides ramped-up the costs.
This might be of interest, the 'professional' view of (a member of) the legal profession, specifically the solicitors acting for David Piper from their blog (so intended for general circulation, rather than being copyrighted!):
https://www.wilmotslitigation.co.uk/blog/2013/06/1...
From where I quote
"DAVID PIPER v MARK HALES 2013
In 2009, Mark Hales, a well known motoring journalist, persuaded a reluctant David Piper, an ex-racing driver, to lend him his Porsche 917 racing car in order, for a payment of £2000, to track test it against a Ferrari for a magazine article. The car was worth about £1.3 million.
This type of contract is known as a contract of bailment. The law provides in these circumstances that the borrower must take reasonable care of the car, and return it to the owner undamaged. If he does not do so he is liable to the owner for the cost of repairs.
Before testing the car DP insisted that the car be insured and was told by MH that it was fully insured against driver error. MH was also warned to ensure the gears were fully engaged before accelerating and that under no circumstances to rev beyond 7000 rpm.
On the track MH missed a gear, revved to 8200 rpm and caused nearly £40,000 of damage to the engine.
The insurers refused to pay, as the Policy did not cover mechanical breakdown.
MH denied it was his fault but was found personally liable in The High Court for the damage, having admitted in writing to his insurers that it was his fault for over revving because he had missed a gear and that there was nothing wrong with the car. He was therefore in breach of the contract of bailment.
Some interesting points arise from the case.
[b] If you are lending or borrowing a car make it crystal clear on what terms it is to take place, preferably in writing.
If an insurance policy is in force read the terms!
Although the alleged rule "you bend it, you mend it" was discussed, this decision does not affect it, since this case was determined by reference to the actual agreement between the parties. However the rule itself is merely a reflection of the obligations under a contract of bailment.
An individual may protect himself by operating through a limited company, but if he does so it must be made clear to the other party, again in writing, before any agreement is made. MH did have such a company, but produced no evidence that DP knew he was operating through it before the agreement.
If the engine had merely blown up because it was faulty MH would not have been liable.
The more valuable the car, the greater will be any claim for loss of use while it is being repaired. In this case it amounted to over £10,000.
Wilmots Litigation; solicitors for Mr Piper.[/b]
Edited by alfaspecial on Thursday 13th August 10:07
Edited by alfaspecial on Thursday 13th August 10:08
As I remembered this, there was some talk of how tricky the works drivers found the gearshift in period. I had a lot of sympathy for Hales as it was plainly a tricky car to drive.
There was also the fact that the engine had a very low rev limit set for the day, well below what a good engine ought to be capable of revving to. The engine broke due to the missed shift, and its a long time ago now but I got the impression it didn't rev beyond its design limits but rather beyond what it was able to because the engine was worn.
It therefore struck me that by demanding a 40 grand rebuild at Hales' expense, Piper ended up in a considerably stronger position than he'd been at the start of the episode. Which isn't how insurance works, and I didn't feel was how this should reasonably pan out either.
While we have someone on here saying it's a case of if you bend it you mend it, and in anything like equitable circumstances I'd agree with that, in this case we had a jobbing journo being expected to pay for a 40 grand engine build to the betterment of a wealthy owner of a million quid period racecar that had a known design quirk relating to the exact error and resultant breakage in question. That's always sat badly with me.
There was also the fact that the engine had a very low rev limit set for the day, well below what a good engine ought to be capable of revving to. The engine broke due to the missed shift, and its a long time ago now but I got the impression it didn't rev beyond its design limits but rather beyond what it was able to because the engine was worn.
It therefore struck me that by demanding a 40 grand rebuild at Hales' expense, Piper ended up in a considerably stronger position than he'd been at the start of the episode. Which isn't how insurance works, and I didn't feel was how this should reasonably pan out either.
While we have someone on here saying it's a case of if you bend it you mend it, and in anything like equitable circumstances I'd agree with that, in this case we had a jobbing journo being expected to pay for a 40 grand engine build to the betterment of a wealthy owner of a million quid period racecar that had a known design quirk relating to the exact error and resultant breakage in question. That's always sat badly with me.
Staggering that a race car like this was not fitted with a rev limiter ??
It does seem that Piper ended up a Lot better off.
From a very quick look @ the case, Hales was ordered to pay Piper circa £48 grand. Did Piper receive this ?
Legal ££ fees on both sides must have been Horrific.
If it were me, he would be getting the money @ 2 pence per month.....
It does seem that Piper ended up a Lot better off.
From a very quick look @ the case, Hales was ordered to pay Piper circa £48 grand. Did Piper receive this ?
Legal ££ fees on both sides must have been Horrific.
If it were me, he would be getting the money @ 2 pence per month.....
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff