Journalist test drive cost him $174,000

mazdeuce wrote: When you're in two different income brackets it's easy to forget that something annoying to you can literally destroy the life of someone else. Who wants to do that? The 917 owner does. He's willing to completely wreck this guys life over a missed shift and a blown up engine. That's.....that's just not cool.

I doubt the 917 owner is happy about it. But they had a business arrangement, and there is really no reason he shouldn't expect it to be honored. You really have to find a way to remove the emotion from this, IMHO.

I feel fortunate to have grown up on Vulcan.

robert

GameboyRMH wrote: is it just me or does something seem wrong there?

I don't think you forced him to make the choice to drive your car, did you?

robert

last year at Road America, my boss asked me if I would drive his 917 back up to the track after the show downtown, I politely refused solely on the grounds that I know there was no way I could afford it if I broke something.

I make it a habit not to drive other peoples cars solely for that reason, even if it wasn't due to an error on my part I would still feel responsible and want to make good for any damage...

GameboyRMH wrote: Let's scale it down. Say, for the sake of argument, I let a 3rd-world broke-ass unemployed friend of mine drive my 'rolla and by honest mistake he 5-2 shifts it and blows the engine to kingdom come, causing say $2k in damages. Now to me that's a pretty big chunk of change, I wouldn't have access to that car for a good long while, it would put a big dent in my bank account. If I try to make him pay for it, his family would be out on the street...is it just me or does something seem wrong there?

What if he wasn't your friend, but a guy you don't know who rented your car to deliver pizzas? Because that's a closer approximation to what you're looking at here.

That doesn't change it a whole lot...it's not that much easier to wreck a stranger's life.

Taking into consideration that it was being used for profit, I'd want him to pitch something into the repair costs, but I'd still be wrecking his life to put the whole bill on him.

GameboyRMH wrote: That doesn't change it a whole lot...it's not that much easier to wreck a stranger's life. Taking into consideration that it was being used for profit, I'd want him to pitch something into the repair costs, but I'd still be wrecking his life to put the whole bill on him.

Well, you are a very kind and gracious person. But that's a choice you are making, it isn't particularly logical and it is terrible business sense.

Can I drive your car???

robert

robertcope wrote: If they had an agreement that the journalist was to pay for damages incurred during his driving...

robertcope wrote: But they had a business arrangement, and there is really no reason he shouldn't expect it to be honored.

Which appears to be a significant point of contention between the two parties, and regardless of which way the ruling went or what the judge thought, there generally are only two people in the world who actually know exactly what that agreement was and how far it extended or not. Everything else here is just varying degrees of speculation and assumptions on our part.

From reading the judgement it said that the car was insured for damage due to driver error but not mechanical failure, so the insurance company denied the claim because the broken engine was a mechanical failure. I wouldn't ever drive a car that expensive though, I was thinking about it and I occasionally drive cars that aren't mine, but I haven't ever been in the situation of driving a car that I would potentially be responsible for damage I couldn't possibly pay for.

The reason we have the courts is to take the emotion out of it. I understand the judgment and I don't disagree with it on principle, he interpreted the law correctly. I simply disagree with the fact that the suit was filed in the first place.

GameboyRMH wrote: In reply to mazdeuce: Exactly. If this guy was outright negligent or reckless then yeah he deserves to have to pay for it, massive as the costs are, having been warned ahead of time and knowing the costs. But say he made an honest mistake...kinda rough to wreck a guy's life over that when the same cost is (presumably, in this case) just a moderate inconvenience to the owner. Let's scale it down. Say, for the sake of argument, I let a 3rd-world broke-ass unemployed friend of mine drive my 'rolla and by honest mistake he 5-2 shifts it and blows the engine to kingdom come, causing say $2k in damages. Now to me that's a pretty big chunk of change, I wouldn't have access to that car for a good long while, it would put a big dent in my bank account. If I try to make him pay for it, his family would be out on the street...is it just me or does something seem wrong there?

The thing is, he didn't make an honest mistake - he made a fairly long series of poor decisions.

He rented a car he couldn't afford to repair

He declined insurance coverage (The fact he checked in to insurance indicates he was aware of some level of financial risk to himself)

He over-revved the engine after being explicitly told what rev count not to exceed

Refused to accept responsibility for his actions after causing damage

Life lesson - there are consequences for the decisions you make in life

Keith Tanner wrote: What if he wasn't your friend, but a guy you don't know who rented your car to deliver pizzas? Because that's a closer approximation to what you're looking at here.

Keith, you're making some good points. I feel bad for the journalist, but, yeah, he jacked up the car.

But I'm not sure about this bit. Did the owner have nothing to gain? Seems to me that getting the car in print in this manner wouldn't hurt the value of the replica any. Doesn't negate your previous points, but something to consider.

The thing that really sucks is that they two of them weren't able to come to some sort of compromise before they racked up more in legal fees than the motor cost.

oldtin wrote: He declined insurance coverage (The fact he checked in to insurance indicates he was aware of some level of financial risk to himself)

That is the stupid decision to me. To be fair, though, not the world's best decision to rent your million dollar car to someone without requiring insurance, either.

Long and short of it, crazy that someone didn't insure this little adventure. Like I said, I have some experience here. If one of my lights goes crashing thorugh a window, it'll suck, but I won't be out a dime personally.

Insurance. That's what it's for.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: What if he wasn't your friend, but a guy you don't know who rented your car to deliver pizzas? Because that's a closer approximation to what you're looking at here.

Keith, you're making some good points. I feel bad for the journalist, but, yeah, he jacked up the car. But I'm not sure about this bit. Did the owner have *nothing* to gain? Seems to me that getting the car in print in this manner wouldn't hurt the value of the replica any. Doesn't negate your previous points, but something to consider. The thing that really sucks is that they two of them weren't able to come to some sort of compromise before they racked up more in legal fees than the motor cost.

It doesn't look like the car has a bunch of sponsor stickers on it that would net the owner a profit from having it displayed in print. He could possibly gain some sponsors, if he wanted them, after that exposure, but my estimation is that doesn't seem like what the owner was trying to do with it.

Regardless, I think Keith's point is that the guys in this situation aren't buddies.

Alan Cesar wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: But I'm not sure about this bit. Did the owner have *nothing* to gain? Seems to me that getting the car in print in this manner wouldn't hurt the value of the replica any. Doesn't negate your previous points, but something to consider.

It doesn't look like the car has a bunch of sponsor stickers on it that would net the owner a profit from having it displayed in print. He could possibly gain some sponsors, if he wanted them, after that exposure, but my estimation is that doesn't seem like what the owner was trying to do with it.

I think we're all agreed it's not the central point, but I took fast_eddie_72's comment to mean that the print exposure could arguably stand to increase the market value of the car itself.

Supercoupe wrote: last year at Road America, my boss asked me if I would drive his 917 back up to the track after the show downtown, I politely refused solely on the grounds that I know there was no way I could afford it if I broke something. I make it a habit not to drive other peoples cars solely for that reason, even if it wasn't due to an error on my part I would still feel responsible and want to make good for any damage...

This is where I am. I get a fair number of requests from people wanting to 'fun run' my car and had a bunch of people drive the Abomination, in fact it was known as the '$2 hooker'. Having said that, I'm careful about who I turn loose with my cars because of the car's temperamental nature and explosive acceleration. If it's someone whose driving I don't know or trust, sorry. Yeah, I've gotten a couple of 'That Guy' looks.

Granted, there's nowhere near as much at stake as this guy had in his 917 replica and it's not being operated at anywhere near the speeds involved here. For that reason I have not had anyone co drive at a hillclimb because the possibility of damage or worse ramps up tremendously. It's also why I don't like the idea of driving someone else's car because if I break it I feel like it's my responsibility no matter how much cake the owner has. I have enough problems keeping my own race stuff going, I damn sure can't afford to buy someone else's too.

This whole thing is a perfect example of how these things need to be decided in advance. The journalist might have looked at the risks and said, ya know, maybe this ain't such a good idea after all. Even though it's killing him financially, I have to agree with the judge.

One of the things I've noticed about a few of the classic brit car magazines is that very often, the feature car is about to hit the auction house. Interesting that the auction houses are major advertisers in these rags - funny how that works.

We can speculate that the owner may have had some financial interest in a story/photo shoot with his car. That still doesn't change the arrangement or poor decisions - I'll also give a +1 that the owner also made a poor decision in not demanding insurance coverage for the shoot.

Alan Cesar wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: What if he wasn't your friend, but a guy you don't know who rented your car to deliver pizzas? Because that's a closer approximation to what you're looking at here.

Keith, you're making some good points. I feel bad for the journalist, but, yeah, he jacked up the car. But I'm not sure about this bit. Did the owner have *nothing* to gain? Seems to me that getting the car in print in this manner wouldn't hurt the value of the replica any. Doesn't negate your previous points, but something to consider. The thing that really sucks is that they two of them weren't able to come to some sort of compromise before they racked up more in legal fees than the motor cost.

It doesn't look like the car has a bunch of sponsor stickers on it that would net the owner a profit from having it displayed in print. He could possibly gain some sponsors, if he wanted them, after that exposure, but my estimation is that doesn't seem like what the owner was trying to do with it. Regardless, I think Keith's point is that the guys in this situation aren't buddies.

Right - it was a business relationship, not friends.

I'm not sure a 917 needs print exposure to affect the value at this point. Well, I wasn't aware that there was a replica or continuation 917 made out of legit 917 parts out there before, but unless the car's on the market that's not a big deal. EDIT - actually, looks like the car has been sold since the incident. So maybe that was part of the plan.

BTW, the car was insured by Octane magazine, where the article was (was to be?) published. That's mentioned in the judgement. It also mentions that the insurance specifically excluded "damage to the engine, gearbox, and transmission following mechanical or electrical breakdown or failure".

So if it had been a transmission malfunction, insurance would have covered it. But the driver wrote to the insurance company "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”.

Keith Tanner wrote: BTW, the car was insured by Octane magazine, where the article was (was to be?) published. That's mentioned in the judgement. It also mentions that the insurance specifically excluded "damage to the engine, gearbox, and transmission following mechanical or electrical breakdown or failure". So if it had been a transmission malfunction, insurance would have covered it. But the driver wrote to the insurance company "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”.

Everybody who hasn't read the judgement needs to read this synopsis. Everybody who has read the judgement and reached a different conclusion needs to either read it again or read Keith's take on it.

Mr. Hale deliberately chose to opt-out of full insurance coverage. He made a mistake and owned-up to it. He saw the repair bill and changed his story. He took the issue to the courts. All in all, a series of bad decisions.

I have some empathy for Mr. Hale but not 74,000 pounds worth, let alone another 100,000.

Datsun1500 wrote: From reading the judgement, the cost of repairs was under $40,000. Want to bet if the guy offered some type of plan (split it, payments, etc.) this would have been settled quickly? Looks like it cost him $135,000 because he did not want to accept responsibility for his negligence.

Pounds, not dollars. But still, the original bill was not completely impossible especially when taken in context of other costs in the UK. Painful, for sure. But not "ending up living in a van down by the river" painful.

The Hales legal team has a response to the judgment that contains some more details. Obviously supportive of Mr Hales.

updated link

In reply to mattm:

Link didn't work, but I read both stories linked on that site, and wow, what a one-sided bash-fest.

Mr. Hale told the owner he had insurance

Missed that part. Yeah, berkeley him and feed him fish-heads at that point.