Mark Hales Ordered to Pay $174k After Rare Porsche Blows Up

[boiltheocean]

Hindsight. At the time, it may have been the same procedure he'd used previously. In hindsight, it proved insufficient to prevent the engine going pop.

The bit you seem to be missing is that Hales's turn of events suggests mechanical malady - something Piper denies. It's irrelevant whether Hales failed to hold the lever long enough to prevent it slipping out of gear - the point is that he was having to adapt to an issue in the first place, an issue Piper maintains wasn't present. Piper denies that the car was broken, and that any gearbox conversation took place between Hales and his engineer.

I see you've edited your post too. Nope, that doesn't wash, based on the above. Piper said there was no issue. If Hales is having to drive around a problem, there obviously is.

Hales seems to think it's an issue, and so do you but together neither Hales or yourself have the experience like Piper or Attwood of a 917 gearbox. How do you know that's just not how you have to change gear in a 917, they are after all notoriously difficult...

It's entirely relevant that Hales failed to hold the gearlever long enough prevent it slipping out of gear, he knew of that technique to prevent it from slipping out of gear and failed to follow it, thus leading to the engine blowing up.

For the record I have no issues with you or anyone else donating money to help Hales out, I'm just questioning why it's come it begging the public for money in the first place and not just sorting this out though other means.

 

[Stotty]

I think this video shows that having to change gear in the manner Mark did in Pipers car is not necessary if the car is in tip top condition...



And nowhere has Hales 'begged for help'... any help is a unprovoked reaction from people who recognise Hales oustanding contribution to the motoring press over a life time.

And another point... peak power on a 917 is 8,800 rpm, with a supposedly safe threshold of 9,200rpm. Pipers car went pop at 8,200 rpm.

There's no reason to criticise Hales ability... he's driven pretty much every major historic racing car going. Nick Mason trusts him to race his 250 GTO, which value wise, makes a 917 look like a shed.

 

[Kent]

Not quite as simple as that. This isn't going out and renting a Focus, being a berk and crashing it, and then having to foot the bill - this is a 40-yr old race car, known to be frail in its day, with no other purpose than to be driven on race circuits.

It's also owned by someone who can apparently afford to run it (given that Hales has to pay for "lost use" - presumably, Piper can afford to "use" it if that's the case). It's a car with high likelihood of something going wrong, being driven by one of the most experienced guys in the business, with prior history of driving lots of other peoples' priceless cars with zero issues.



What a daft, ignorant comment.

So you'd be absolutely fine covering a $174,000 bill? That'd be enough to bankrupt most people - it's hardly being "so close to banruptcy". I doubt most people expect some rich dude to sue them for hundreds of thousands of dollars...

And, as if it needs saying again, it's Mark Hales's job. He is a journalist. He is paid to write about incredible cars like this because the rest of us don't get a chance. If he doesn't drive them, they stay locked away in museums, or get taken out every so often by incredibly wealthy people for fleeting public glimpses.

The entire classic car magazine business relies on owners not sueing the crap out of people on the off chance something goes wrong.



Another idiotic comment. I'd be surprised if Hales could happily spunk the original £40k on the engine rebuild, let alone the full whack of the court settlement. If someone is accusing you of negligence and you have grounds to believe mechanical failure was the cause of the engine blowing up, you've every right not to pay up, and every right to defend yourself in court. It's just highly unfortunate that the court went against Hales.

Read up on this a bit more, please. This isn't just "some guy is a crap driver and blows up expensive race car". This is "Incredibly experienced driver and journalist is trusted enough to drive a priceless race car and unlucky enough to be in the seat when it goes pop".

Referring to my opinion of a legal verdict and use of million dollar antiques as ignorant and idiotic is offensive and unnecessary.

If you must be so critical of something Id strt with your own understanding of loss of use being that he was renting it to people like the man found responsible for damages (per this courts finding).

 

[avens]

And those consequences were known by both parties going into the test.

"Hey, for an article I'm going to drive your 40 year old race car that was known for being rather temperamental even back in the day when Porsche's very best engineers were constantly hovered around it like overprotective soccer moms. Something may break on it for no other reason than it is being driven." The "Something may break on it" part should be understood by the person lending the car to be a possibility without automatically assuming if something does break that it's because the driver was being an idiot.

Lending a car to someone is not a warrant to total it, unless specified in a verbal or written contract. Put yourself on the owner's shoes.

homeforsummer, you are assuming the journalist did everything well based on an ad hominem argument.
We know he confessed he was the direct cause of the overrev and subsequent engine blow up, and your point is if the shifter played a part on it. On that matter, what we know is a court of law ruled against him, considering actual proofs, in a due process of law and so on instead of suppositions, which is your whole argument.

To add other points of view, there's no way this would fall on a gentlemen's agreement (more like custom) or be covered by insurance, and finally the owner and his lawyers must be very happy their payment is secure due to donations.


Anyway, more than that what matters the most here is not the particular case and ruling, but firstly how car journalism tryouts are now a subject of liability (more like well known. There must be another cases) and secondly how it is going to change car journalism from now on.

 

[Tornado]

Lending a car to someone is not a warrant to total it, unless specified in the verbal or written contract. Put yourself on the owner's shoes.

Lending a car to someone knowing that it could break (because it is a 40 year old race car that may not have been running in top form) is not an automatic licence to blame the person driving it if it does, either. If I was the owner and I was that worried about the car breaking in such a catastrophic way, I wouldn't lend it out for a magazine test in the first place.

Referring to my opinion of a legal verdict and use of million dollar antiques as ignorant and idiotic is offensive and unnecessary.

You asked why a car journalist was driving an expensive car if he was "close to bankruptcy." How else do you expect him to respond to that?

 

[Kent]

Lending a car to someone knowing that it could break (because it is a 40 year old race car that may not have been running in top form) is not an automatic licence to blame the person driving it if it does, either. If I was the owner and I was that worried about the car breaking in such a catastrophic way, I wouldn't lend it out for a magazine test in the first place.




You asked why a car journalist was driving an expensive car if he was "close to bankruptcy." How else do you expect him to respond to that?

Maybe with some understanding of liability as an independent?

 

[avens]

Lending a car to someone knowing that it could break (because it is a 40 year old race car that may not have been running in top form) is not an automatic licence to blame the person driving it if it does, either. If I was the owner and I was that worried about the car breaking in such a catastrophic way, I wouldn't lend it out for a magazine test in the first place.

Any car that doesn't have a good rev limiter can break in a catastrophic way just like the Porsche replica did. It happens all the time on current and old cars, on the street and in racing, no matter the price tag.

The "license to blame" is called being responsible of your actions, and it is "automatic" meaning it is a legal principle that applies no matter if established by a contract or not. What contracts do is making that person irresponsible for his actions, making someone else pay for it (someone always does).

And again, what would have you done if you were the owner after seeing the engine blows up? Over revving is something anyone can spot from distance (sound) and the main cause of it is a driver's mistake, something that happened, happens and will continue to happen to professionals too.
I don't want a rhetorical answer but straight up to the case. Considering all the situation and that you are the one that owns the car therefore you will have to pay to repair it, just write if you would charge the guy or not. Yes or no answer, your car getting destroyed by someone you lend it to, your money.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Wow, so that's how lethal old Porsches are. If they don't kill you on the track, they will financially kill you off the track. Better stay away from anything pre-993 911 or even pre-996 911.

 

[Pupik]

Personally I think Piper could of been more lenient with this, he must know of the risks of running such an old car and the fact that accidents like what Hales was using as a defence can happen. Also he was probably aware of Marks financial situation and that this case could bankrupt him. I'd of split the repair 50/50 between both parties before it even got to court.

Yeah, this kind of smelt of rotten onions right form the get-go; fiddy-fiddy mates, and be done with it, especially when no real contract existed.How often are racing drivers billed for their team goofs? Never...Now proceed to run out a lifetime of karma over it.

Wonder how Nick Mason would have handled this, since his name came up? After all, years ago in an interview, he'd been noted for saying that he'd forgive someone if he "put a scratch on my Ferrari".

 

[boiltheocean]

I think this video shows that having to change gear in the manner Mark did in Pipers car is not necessary if the car is in tip top condition...

Considering no onboard videos of Hales exist we don't know what manner he was changing gear in or how long he had to hold the gearlever overcome the "issue" with 3rd. The only videos that do exist are these short clips taken during the slow laps of the photoshoot, so they don't prove much either way.

And nowhere has Hales 'begged for help'... any help is a unprovoked reaction from people who recognise Hales oustanding contribution to the motoring press over a life time.

I apologise for that, begging is the incorrect term to use. I'm just rather frustrated by the reporting of this case so far. I would like to hear Pipers view just out of interest.

And another point... peak power on a 917 is 8,800 rpm, with a supposedly safe threshold of 9,200rpm. Pipers car went pop at 8,200 rpm.

A good point that should of been raised in court, perhaps if he had you and HFS as lawyers he may of won.

There's no reason to criticise Hales ability... he's driven pretty much every major historic racing car going. Nick Mason trusts him to race his 250 GTO, which value wise, makes a 917 look like a shed.

At no point am I criticising the ability of Hales, he's a very talented driver but I merely stated that he does not have the experience of Piper or Attwood regarding the 917, is that not a fair assumption to make?

This response to the judgement paper has just been released, it makes for another interesting read.

 

[Pako]

Well, if you are driving someone else's car who's value is more than you are worth, you should a) not drive the car or b) have insurance to cover ANYTHING that might happen to it.

The whole situation is really too bad...

 

[Tornado]

The "license to blame" is called being responsible of your actions, and it is "automatic" meaning it is a legal principle that applies no matter if established by a contract or not.

Responsible for which action? Lending out an old car known to be somewhat fragile even in its day; or breaking it after it was lent for reasons that may or may not be caused by who was behind the wheel?


The judgement even goes so far to say that the even if the car was having problems with the gearbox, Hales would have been held liable for continuing to drive it even if the owner said it was fine to do so after bringing up the concerns; basically meaning even if Hales' telling of events were what really happened, it doesn't matter. How does Hales hold complete liability for doing something if the owner said it was alright? Is partial liability in civil cases not a thing on England?

And again, what would have you done if you were the owner after seeing the engine blows up? Over revving is something anyone can spot from distance (sound) and the main cause of it is a driver's mistake, something that happened, happens and will continue to happen to professionals too.
I don't want a rhetorical answer but straight up to the case. Considering all the situation and that you are the one that owns the car therefore you will have to pay to repair it, just write if you would charge the guy or not. Yes or no answer, your car getting destroyed by someone you lend it to, your money.

If I had the means to lend my fragile 40 year old race car out for a magazine comparison test, similar to the other cars that I had been lending out to use for similar tests over the years, I would have put some money aside to pay for things when they break rather than bankrupting the owner in court so he'll pay for everything. Otherwise I would not have lent it out.

 

[Stotty]

Some more info from the primary publication involved in this...

As Publishing Director for Octane I would like to clarify a few points that have been made about Octane's involvement in this case.

First of all, I would like to say that Mark is one of the most gifted and respected historic racing car drivers in the business. There is good reason why he is trusted by many collectors to drive and race some of the world’s most valuable cars. Mark has been, and continues to be, one of Octane’s most trusted writers – very few people can place the reader in the cockpit of a racing car and describe the experience quite as eruditely as Mark can.

Octane was one of a number of magazines that received a feature set up by Mark Hales directly with David Piper, comparing his Porsche 917 replica and Nick Mason’s Ferrari 512S. Octane was asked to provide insurance cover for the photo shoot and did so; the insurance policy explicitly states it does not cover mechanical failure. That is standard industry practice and is understood by freelance journalists and owners who lend their cars out in such a way.

There is significant risk involved in driving old cars. For professional drivers such as those hired to drive cars at events such as Goodwood Revival, or to test cars for magazine features, there has to be trust between driver and owner. Features in publications can add provenance, awareness, and ultimately help in the sale of a car. Most owners accept liability for mechanical failure in these circumstances as part of the general cost of ownership of old and hard-used classic racing cars.

Octane was drawn into negotiations between David Piper and AON insurance company, which ultimately refused to pay after prolonged discussions on the basis that the damage was caused as a result of mechanical failure. At that point Octane offered David Piper part-payment towards the repair costs on a goodwill basis as it was one of several magazines to publish the feature. Piper refused the offer and unfortunately the case found its way to the High Court. This should never have been allowed to happen.

It has been suggested by some that the magazines involved had left Mark to fend for himself but that is a naïve view of the legal process. Piper sued Mark Hales directly and neither Octane nor any of the other magazines involved were invited at any point to provide evidence or to appear in court.

This is an extremely unusual and unfortunate case. We are lucky in our industry to have many generous owners of these great motor cars who are realistic about their usage and testing and will continue to offer magazines the opportunity to share them with a wider public.

Geoff Love

Geoff goes on to say that Octane will be supporting Hales financially in relation to this (though this support will NOT be sufficient to cover his exposure).

 

[Sanji Himura]

Octane is a bit out of line and a weasel here. If Hales was writing for them for the comparison, then it is ultimately their responsibility to cover ALL liabilities, the fact that Piper did or did not sue the mag directly or not is irrelevant. It was Hales' neck that was on the line for them, and even though they are stepping up, in part, all relevant parties should have not let him hang out to dry like this.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Octane is a bit out of line and a weasel here. If Hales was writing for them for the comparison, then it is ultimately their responsibility to cover ALL liabilities, the fact that Piper did or did not sue the mag directly or not is irrelevant. It was Hales' neck that was on the line for them, and even though they are stepping up, in part, all relevant parties should have not let him hang out to dry like this.

I got the impression this was done on a freelance basis, arranged by Hales, with him expecting to sell the article to a number of magazines.

 

[Keef]

Octane is a bit out of line and a weasel here. If Hales was writing for them for the comparison, then it is ultimately their responsibility to cover ALL liabilities, the fact that Piper did or did not sue the mag directly or not is irrelevant. It was Hales' neck that was on the line for them, and even though they are stepping up, in part, all relevant parties should have not let him hang out to dry like this.

It depends on his employment contract. Typically, one of the greatest benefits of full-time employment in the US is that the employer assumes the risk for any mishaps done by the employees. Can you imagine if each individual employee had to bear all risk? Why would any dealership mechanic work if he may have to replace an engine with his own pay check? Or if a surgeon put his and his family's well-being on the line every time he did an operation? Typically that risk will be the dealership's or the hospital's liability, not the individual employee.

But if Mark Hales's employment contract stated different rules then that's the way it is.

 

[niky]

Octane was NOT the only magazine to receive the coverage. Hales offered multiple features to a number of magazines to defray the expenses of doing the test.

In other words, they were buying the article from him. He is the supplier. This is not the same as Hales doing the article specifically because Octane asked him to do so.

-

Really sad case. If I could contribute to Hale, I would, but with what our money's worth, what I can give is less than a drop in the bucket.

 

[terminator363]

Agree that it's Hale's liability. You've got a very fragile, rare and... priceless... racing car on the race track for a photoshoot, last thing you want to do is drive it anywhere near its limits. Or even up to 8/10ths. Or even beyond walking pace...

Yep. 👍

I'd of split the repair 50/50 between both parties before it even got to court.

Agreed.

 

[niky]

Apparently, from Hales' and Octane's affidavits, they offered to do that, without success.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Apparently, from Hales' and Octane's affidavits, they offered to do that, without success.

Then that is bad faith on the part of Piper then. He knew that the courts didn't understand the concept of a comparison test between vintage cars, and took advantage of it.

If Hales has any sense of finding a good lawyer, then it should be overturned in the higher courts.

 

[Stotty]

If Hales has any sense of finding a good lawyer, then it should be overturned in the higher courts.

Not sure if he will appeal as I think Mark will likely be nervous about losing another court case and incurring additional madssive legal costs.