Piper's broken Porsche 917 engine

[ioan]

Writer ordered to pay $174,000 after rare Porsche blows up in test drive | Motoramic - Yahoo! Autos (http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/writer-ordered-pay-174-000-rare-porsche-blows-210104855.html)

If what is stated in the article is true then this is very poor form from David Piper.
I'd like to hear some opinions about this case from fellow motorsport followers.

[BDunnell]

I believe this is absolutely true, yes. Not a matter for the courts in any way.

Some wise and well-thought-out words from Andrew Frankel, who often tests cars for 'MotorSport', here: Mark Hales found liable in Piper case - Miscellaneous - Motor Sport Magazine (http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/miscellaneous/mark-hales-found-liable-in-piper-case/)

I am, frankly, amazed that anyone would consider recourse to legal action as appropriate or necessary in such a case. Nothing similar comes to mind regarding instances of, for example, a privately-owned historic aircraft being involved in an accident while being flown by a pilot who isn't always its owner, and that pilot being held in any way liable, let alone taken to court, even if pilot error ends up being the confirmed cause.

[D-Type]

The full judgement can be found here (http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/news.html). In this case, although carefully thought out, I don't think that we can consider Andrew Frankel's words to be those of a neutral observer.
There is more to this story than meets the eye. Given that the legal costs were about twice the value of the claim you have to wonder why the dispute went to court.

[ioan]

Given that the legal costs were about twice the value of the claim you have to wonder why the dispute went to court.

That's also amazing, such legal costs for such a story are way too high.

[BDunnell]

The full judgement can be found here (http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/news.html). In this case, although carefully thought out, I don't think that we can consider Andrew Frankel's words to be those of a neutral observer.

Well, that's as maybe, but in fairness I don't think me makes any points that are especially contentious, does he? And would you not agree that the judgement sets a potentially tricky precedent? Reading the full judgement (thanks for the link) only serves to heighten this impression.



There is more to this story than meets the eye.

Care to elaborate?

[wedge]

It's a complex affair that started off with a hand shake.

Hales was told not to go over 8300rpm and even the mechanic told him third gear was tricky.

He told his insurance that it was a faulty gear change but in court it blamed it on mechanical failure.

David Piper was represented by Wilmotts who specialise in classics whereas Mark Hales chos a firm who deals with insolvency.

What looked as if it should have settled out of court was probably questionable advice and stubborn principles. Hales is respectable club racer and a fantastic writer and journalist and neither party comes out of it well.

[D-Type]

BDunnell,
I don't have anything factual I can add, I just feel we haven't been given the full story yet.
For example I have seen a post on another forum stating that £40 000 is about the cost of rebuilding a 356 engine or the cost of stripping down a 917 engine, finding no major damage, and re-assembling it.

[BDunnell]

What looked as if it should have settled out of court was probably questionable advice and stubborn principles.

Or something that shouldn't have been taken to court in the first place. As stated earlier, I can't think of a related precedent.

[wedge]

Or something that shouldn't have been taken to court in the first place. As stated earlier, I can't think of a related precedent.

Time and again you get stubborn types who think they're in the right but not in the eye of the law in court.

The insurance claim was thrown out because Octane's cover didn't cover mechanical breakdowns. Why on earth did he think he would get something out of it if the insurance claim was a legal record?

Why it went to court only Mark Hales knows.

[BDunnell]

Time and again you get stubborn types who think they're in the right but not in the eye of the law in court.

The insurance claim was thrown out because Octane's cover didn't cover mechanical breakdowns. Why on earth did he think he would get something out of it if the insurance claim was a legal record?

Why it went to court only Mark Hales knows.

And why did he say, in a 2009 note to 'Octane's' insurers, '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'? Did he maybe not expect Piper's subsequent reaction?

That said, I am still very uncomfortable indeed with the notion of action being taken to recover costs, whether in terms of repairs or legal fees, in such circumstances. It seems completely unnecessary and has no precedent as far as I'm aware. Will it set a dangerous one? Only if other owners choose to act like David Piper has.

[wedge]

I know this particular case has been going on for some time but from everything I read I still think Mark Hales has been extremely unlucky. With any luck the likes of David Piper will never be invited to demonstrate their cars at any well known event in future. Hales has lost out this time but I have a feeling the long term damage has been done to Piper. I don't get the impression this case has been purely about recovering the costs of an engine, it seems more like the intent of trying to destroy the other individual and using this incident as a tool. Sad but it really does change many things including historic car events from now on.

Hales was technically liable.

I'm don't think Piper set out to ruin Hales but wanted the costs recovered.

Hales played with fire (ie. going to court) and got burnt.


And why did he say, in a 2009 note to 'Octane's' insurers, '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'? Did he maybe not expect Piper's subsequent reaction?

That said, I am still very uncomfortable indeed with the notion of action being taken to recover costs, whether in terms of repairs or legal fees, in such circumstances. It seems completely unnecessary and has no precedent as far as I'm aware. Will it set a dangerous one? Only if other owners choose to act like David Piper has.

It's a wake up call to motoring journalism.

A handshake over a gentleman's agreement simply isn't enough. You would want it down in writing as a legal document.

[BDunnell]

It's a wake up call to motoring journalism.

A handshake over a gentleman's agreement simply isn't enough. You would want it down in writing as a legal document.

I don't really agree on this. After all, it only becomes a problem if the owner decides to try and recover costs from the driver, which — to the best of my knowledge — hasn't happened before. I can only assume that similar situations have arisen, but that owners have simply borne the costs of mechanical damage sustained.

[BDunnell]

Events like Goodwood and certain magazines will possibly decline Piper's offerings in the future as this has left a rather bitter taste.

Well, in this case, the insurance taken out by 'Octane' specifically did not cover mechanical damage sustained during the test, but would have covered driver error. I would assume that the insurance involved for cars competing in the Revival would cover all eventualities, including mechanical breakdown when caused by the driver.

[BDunnell]

I'm don't think Piper set out to ruin Hales but wanted the costs recovered.

Allegedly, according to a post on another forum, 'Octane' offered Piper a financial settlement but this was refused. The nature of the amount in question does not appear to have been given.

Sorry for the multiple responses, by the way.

[wedge]

I don't really agree on this. After all, it only becomes a problem if the owner decides to try and recover costs from the driver, which — to the best of my knowledge — hasn't happened before. I can only assume that similar situations have arisen, but that owners have simply borne the costs of mechanical damage sustained.

Yes, car owners generally take full responsibility and settle amicably.

What if it doesn't? Surely having a binding contract is something to fall back on?

[BDunnell]

Yes, car owners generally take full responsibility and settle amicably.

What if it doesn't? Surely having a binding contract is something to fall back on?

Point very much taken, but I would have thought that, in this instance, something — and it wouldn't have had to be a full contract — in writing from Piper confirming that he would take responsibility for any mechanical damage sustained during Hales' test would have resulted in the whole thing not coming to court?

[ioan]

A handshake over a gentleman's agreement simply isn't enough. You would want it down in writing as a legal document.

Yeah, give lawyers more power and money! great idea, NOT.

[BDunnell]

Yeah, give lawyers more power and money! great idea, NOT.

Quite. Why do so if there's no practical need? Had David Piper provided Mark Hales with written confirmation that Hales would not be liable for any mechanical damage — it wouldn't have had to be a solicitor's letter or anything of that order — the case would presumably not have come to court.

[wedge]

Quite. Why do so if there's no practical need? Had David Piper provided Mark Hales with written confirmation that Hales would not be liable for any mechanical damage — it wouldn't have had to be a solicitor's letter or anything of that order — the case would presumably not have come to court.

That's what I meant but whoever tests/race Piper's cars from now on will want a solicitor's letter!


Allegedly, according to a post on another forum, 'Octane' offered Piper a financial settlement but this was refused. The nature of the amount in question does not appear to have been given.

I've seen it doing the rounds. One alleges the offer was way short of Piper's invoice.

[BDunnell]

That's what I meant but whoever tests/race Piper's cars from now on will want a solicitor's letter!

Well, in that specific case, certainly!

I am, incidentally, surprised that Piper's own insurance wouldn't have covered the damage. This might seem like an odd thing to say, but I cannot think of a case where a pilot flying an historic aircraft that doesn't belong to them and who unfortunately crashed it as a result of their own error has been held liable and been forced to pay out as a result.

[SGWilko]

Well, in this case, the insurance taken out by 'Octane' specifically did not cover mechanical damage sustained during the test, but would have covered driver error. I would assume that the insurance involved for cars competing in the Revival would cover all eventualities, including mechanical breakdown when caused by the driver.

OK - either the car failed due to driver error (if so, the drivers' insurance pays up), or the car failed due to mechainical failure, which the owner said was not the case......

Heads I win, tails you loose?

Piper got his car fixed and made a nice sum by selling the car......... read into that what you wish.

[BDunnell]

OK - either the car failed due to driver error (if so, the drivers' insurance pays up), or the car failed due to mechainical failure, which the owner said was not the case......

Heads I win, tails you loose?

Well, not really, because clearly the insurance taken out by Octane did not — unless I'm grossly misunderstanding the situation — cover a mechanical failure caused by driver error. In that case, what did it cover?

[ioan]

Well, not really, because clearly the insurance taken out by Octane did not — unless I'm grossly misunderstanding the situation — cover a mechanical failure caused by driver error. In that case, what did it cover?

Maybe it was only for the case of an accident.
The funny part is that the engine blew even though it wasn't revved over the limit of 8400 rpm. So maybe the engine was going to blow anyway and Piper got a rebuild for free.

[BDunnell]

Maybe it was only for the case of an accident.

That seems to be the case, and it did include damage caused in an accident resulting from driver error. Odd, therefore, that mechanical damage caused by driver error wasn't covered.

[Kneeslider]

As far as I know, no one offers any sort of insurance policy which would cover the costs of mechanical faliure in any racing car, and certainly not one which was 40 years old, and known to be rather fragile in period.

Any company offering to cover a car like that would be mad to do so. The risks are just too big.

Its a hugely harsh judgement because say someone offered you a 'go' in a 917, knowing what we do now, would you do it, knowing that if you miss a gear, then it could cost you a 6 figure sum?

There are huge implications for this in the world of historic motorsport.

As usual, when legal representatives become involved, everyone loses. Hailes has lost his home, Piper looks like Shylock extracting his pound of flesh, and we, as spectators may not see cars like this used in anger in the future. OK, maybe I was a bit over dramatic there, the lawyers won, they got paid... BAH.

[BDunnell]

As far as I know, no one offers any sort of insurance policy which would cover the costs of mechanical faliure in any racing car, and certainly not one which was 40 years old, and known to be rather fragile in period.

Any company offering to cover a car like that would be mad to do so. The risks are just too big.

I ought really to know this for certain, but I can only assume that some such cover is available for historic aircraft, given the fact that I can't think of any instances in which a pilot has been held liable for mechanical damage to an aircraft that isn't their own caused by human error — for instance, an inadvertent undercarriage retraction, taxiing into an airfield sign, or something.



There are huge implications for this in the world of historic motorsport.

Only if other owners follow Piper's example. If they don't, and bear such costs themselves — as I can only surmise has always been the case before — there should be no problem, surely?

[Kneeslider]

Ah, but racing cars and classic aircraft are very different beasts from a risk perspective. Aircraft engines are built to be as reliable as possible, racing cars break at will, at considerably lower component lifetimes. Reading the case details, it would seem that Hailes's representatives failed to make it clear how frequently these things let go, even in the hands of the best racing drivers of the day.

Once this legal precedent has been set, any owner of a car which has expired mechanically might be able to cite this case, and use it to recover the costs of a mechanical rebuild from a driver.

No one in their right mind would want to get into a 917 unless they could afford an engine rebuild now.

No driver or rider with any experience has ever driven at more than 7 tenths on a track and never missed a gear. I know I have.

[BDunnell]

Ah, but racing cars and classic aircraft are very different beasts from a risk perspective. Aircraft engines are built to be as reliable as possible, racing cars break at will, at considerably lower component lifetimes. Reading the case details, it would seem that Hailes's representatives failed to make it clear how frequently these things let go, even in the hands of the best racing drivers of the day.

Well, this can be said of many types of historic aircraft and their engines, of course; perhaps not of certain others, though, with notoriously more 'difficult' powerplants or challenging characteristics. I very much accept the differences, but would only make the point that there are certain similarities.



Once this legal precedent has been set, any owner of a car which has expired mechanically might be able to cite this case, and use it to recover the costs of a mechanical rebuild from a driver.

No one in their right mind would want to get into a 917 unless they could afford an engine rebuild now.

But will owners really see the Piper/Hales judgment as a potential 'cash cow' in the event of similar failures, or decide to continue in the manner they always have, and accept that they will bear the costs themselves?

[wedge]

Found this in today's Telegraph Motoring section:

Can historic racing survive? - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/motorsport/9823844/Can-historic-racing-survive.html)

[BlueShift]

That's rediculous. You shouldn't be able to sue for that what's wrong with people??

[BDunnell]

That's rediculous. You shouldn't be able to sue for that what's wrong with people??

I suggest reading the whole thread, including all links, for a more nuanced explanation.