David Pipers 917

[chris_seven]

I have followed this case since the start as a close associate of mine is also a motoring journalist and knows Mark Hales well.

Mark is a very sensible and careful chap and an experienced driver.

It has been reported that Mark claims that the car jumped out of gear and that this is what caused the over rev.

It is my belief that the test for Octane magazine was paid for in the sum of £2000.

I think that the Judge in this case Simon Brown Q.C. has clealry demonstrated that English Law is , as popularised by Charles Dickens, an ASS.

Does this mean that if we now test drive a used or new car that we need legal documents signing to absolve ourselves of responsibility for mechanical damage?

The full judgement is here: http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/piperhales.pdf

It seems to me that the judgement was formed on the basis that Mr. Piper told the truth and that Mark Hales embellished his version of the facts, something which is not entirely clear.

Mark is now likley to lose his home and will have serious financial problems for many years.

I find this whole case very unpleasant and distasteful.

We all know that historic race cars are fickle and fussy and do go wrong.

The popular opinion is that Mr. Piper is a good 'chap', but to ruin someone's life in such a manner when you have sold the damned car for £1.25 MILLION seems somewhat contradictory. It is also generally recognised as a Replica and Mr. Piper, I understand, still has his real 917 with an estimated value of £5 Million.

I am sad to say that I certainly would not classify Mr. Piper as a good guy.

[bob tilton]

Unfortunate for Mark. Any mention of Octane financially helping him?

[Kris Clewell]

is 8200rpms really an over-rev?

[obrut]

This is a very sad scenario for all involved, but I think it is unfair to turn this into the big guy vs. the little guy. Look at the end of the day at the track. Hales has a story which he sells to multiple magazines and for which he gets paid. Piper has a big repair bill and a car out of action until it is fixed. Why should Piper pay for the repair when the car was provided on the understanding that Hale cover any damage?

Piper also asked for and received an assurance that the car was insured. The coverage obtained turned out to be lacking. That error was Hale's/Octane's.

If Hales thought the car was poorly maintained – why did he drive it? After he complained about the shifting – why didn’t he stop driving it?



I have let people drive (and race) my cars. The understanding is you bend you mend it. I have driven (and raced) other people’s car – also on that understanding. I have declined driving cars I didn’t think were properly prepared – precisely to avoid being the person in the seat if/when something eventually let go.

I’ve seen two cars severely damaged. In one the driver maintained that the car failed and then he crashed (most people at the track that day thought the order was reversed). He refused to pay on the basis his driving wasn’t at fault – which, in my opinion, is irrelevant. He will never be offered a car again, by anyone. The other was good old driver error (and a rolled car). The driver did the right thing and paid (a significant sum that he did not have “spare”). He and the owner remain friends.

In my view - if you can not afford to fix a car that is offered to you, then there are two options. You either don’t drive it – or you seek an agreement in which you are not liable if it is damaged. For example, most track day/race instructors will state the latter to you plain and clear before they leave the pits.

The escalation to the Courts is a separate issue as we will never know what level of compensation (if any) Hales offered to Piper – we can only be sure agreement wasn’t reached and the final amount was multiplied with Court costs etc (as happens in all litigation).

[patrick911]

(...) Piper also asked for and received an assurance that the car was insured. The coverage obtained turned out to be lacking. That error was Hale's/Octane's.

That's quite an assumption.
Here in Australia a lot of people in the flooded area in Queensland for example didn't get their claims paid due to technacalities; some streets had one half insured for 'water damage coming from above' and the other for 'raising water - so from below' - this all without any of the insured people knowing.
They all thought they were insured for 'flooding' and did the right thing.
I don't know the details of this case, but it wouldn't surprise me if everyone thought they were insured, and the company found a technicality to not have to pay out.

[gsjohnson]

Piper also asked for and received an assurance that the car was insured. The coverage obtained turned out to be lacking.

This is not a fact. but rather a point of contention. Proof of insurance would be the general protical if insurance was required.
During my racing days, when we had drivers pay for their ride, we had them sign liability agreements for crash damage (not mechanical). But when Parnelli Jones co-drove with us, there was no such agreement. It all depended on who the person was and our comfort level with their abilities to handle a race car.

[obrut]

I don't know the details of this case, but it wouldn't surprise me if everyone thought they were insured, and the company found a technicality to not have to pay out.

I don't know the details either - other than from reading the reported decision. And I agree that they all probably did think the converage was adequate. However, there does not appear to be any dispute that it was the responsibility of Octance/Hales to provide insurance coverage.

"the Defendant confirmed his booking of the track, marshal, medic and fire crew, having confirmed the insurance arrangements on 25 March 2009 that Octane Media Limited, his publishers, would insure the cars involved"

As I stated earlier, this is a very sad scenario for all involved. It appears that it the arrangements/agreements were all a bit fast and loose/we're all mates/it will never happen etc - seemingly forgeting that the cars in question were extremely valuable.

[72Group4]

The full text of the legal judgement posted above is well worth reading.....

Embedded in the Telegraph article below is another interesting angle:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...g-survive.html