Technician sues Ferrari shop after being paralyzed in high-speed accident

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/12/16/technician-sues-ferrari-shop-after-being-paralyzed-in-high-speed/

 

Wow, stupid. I guess the guy's grabbing for any financial straws he can considering he's now paralyzed. If there is any truth to the shop owner telling a tech to "open it up and do 100" then that does seem negligent and not too sure I'd be taking my car there?

 

The guy stands no chance of winning this case as I see it.

First, proving that he was told to do 100mph is going to be very difficult if he didn't record it.

Secondly, the speed limit on that road will be 60 mph unless a lower limit is specified and it is the drivers responsibility to adhere to the legal limits regardless of what anyone else has told him.

He chose to drive exceeding the speed limit and has paid a massive price for it but it was by his own free will. Even if his employer did said: "Drive at 100 mph on the A274", he didn't have to and his employer would have been none the wiser. It would actually be his responsibility to tell his employer that he will not break the law for him.

If the police had caught him breaking the speed limit and he told them: "My boss told Me to drive that fast!", the police would inform him that as the driver of the vehicle, the responsibility rests with him. His boss would not get any points on his license or face a driving ban.


It's a bit like stabbing someone to death in the street and claiming it's not your fault because your mate told you to do it, that doesn't absolve you of your responsibility for your actions, you didn't have to do it.

As for:

That's a big "if" at the moment and the negligence is still on the driver at the end of the day, no matter what is (allegedly) said to him.

BTW, how do you know your car doesn't get "tested" at 100 mph when you put it in for work to be done? Unless you have recording equipment in your car then you have no idea how it gets treated by those that drive it, you can only hope that they treat it with respect.

 

In this case, its too bad that Darwin is such a slow paced Award provider.

 

Do you realize who's car this was? If you did, y'all might not be quite so chatty.

 

Who's is it?

 

Why?

Whilst I appreciate that the owner of the car is an unfortunate, innocent victim in this case who has now lost their pride and joy, and I suspect any insurance payout is going to become a major headache (although The Ferrari centre's insurance should payout as the car was in their care), they are not really relevant to the topic of the thread as I see it.

The car was not being driven by the owner and the owner is in no way responsible for what happened.

The facts are that an employee of The Ferrari Centre chose to drive a customers car in excess of the legal limit on a public road, had a major accident causing himself life changing injuries and is now trying to blame his boss for the accident which I cannot see succeeding as the driver of the vehicle is responsible for anything that happens whilst he/she is driving it.

When you leave your car with someone to work on it, you trust them to look after it and treat it with respect whilst it's in their care but there are no guarantee's about how it really gets treated.


With all due respect to the owner (and I honestly feel for them in this situation as they have suffered a loss through no fault of their own), whether the car was owned by Piero Lardi Ferrari, Fernando Alonso, Jay Kay or Joe Bloggs from just down the road makes no difference to Me as to what I'm saying on the subject. Were I blaming the owner, then that would be a different matter.

 

There's an old service receipt from a Ferrari dealer in the records for my 328. One of the line items is "customer reports vibration over 100 mph" and the disposition is "road tested and no problem found, rebalanced 4 tires". Wonder if/how they actually tested it.

 

"On a private road Sir!"

 

A dyno?

 

Do you guys have Workmen's Comp over there? That's what would cover the tech's medical care over here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_compensation

Also, what is the speed limit on the A274? The article says that he reached 80 mph.

 

True but a shop that encourages "joy rides" by their techs and without customer authorization, is asking for this kind of trouble. I'll bet it was common practice for techs to go out and put it through the paces, until this.

BTW, I can assure you the local F dealer does not authorize joy rides by their techs and sure that they would be fired if it got back, which would be very easy. Independent places are more of a different story.

 

No, not really.

In the UK we have a "free" health service available so you can get medical care without having to worry about a big bill at the end of your treatment (a contribution is taken out of your paycheck every month to put towards the cost of the health service).

Some companies also have a private health scheme that you pay for in addition to the "free" health service. This can get you quicker treatment, a private room, a better level of care etc., etc.

This only covers your health costs though.

What the Tech will be suing for is for loss of earnings due to his injuries based on an inability to work ever again. To do this he needs to prove that the company are responsible for causing the injuries that he has received (by convincing a court that he was pressurized into speeding by his boss in order to test the car).

If he wins his case then he'll be awarded a sum of money in order to have a reasonably comfortable life without having to work.

If he fails to win his case then he'll have to live on government disability benefits providing he can prove that he is physically unable to work. If he can work to any degree then he'll receive a reduced disability benefit to go with his wages.

As I have posted previously, I think it will be very difficult to prove he was under pressure to speed and that the company are at fault (unless he can get other witnesses to confirm that the company applies pressure to speed). The Law in the UK holds the driver to be responsible for obeying speed limits and other traffic laws and regulations as he is in control of the vehicle of his own free will.

The maximum speed on that road will be 60mph, dropping down to either 30 or 40mph in the built up areas.

Although the maximum speed limit is 60mph for road cars on A roads in the UK, 80mph is not actually that dangerous in the appropriate places. However, 80mph in the wrong place can be extremely dangerous.
In this instance I would have thought that the tech would have known the road quite well and would have known where 80mph was safe and where it wasn't.

 

But was it "authorized" or encouraged by the company, or was it something that the techs decided to do for themselves?, that's what has to be proved in a court of Law.

If the company implies to it's employee's or has it actually written into their company policy, that all Road Traffic Laws must be obeyed during test drives/vehicle deliveries then they will be deemed to have taken the necessary steps to prevent this sort of incident.

Even if the company did not do the above, the onus is still on the driver to obey the speed limits and drive in a safe manner, no matter what anyone tells them.

I don't see any real differential between a Ferrari Dealership and an independent Dealership such as the one in question to be honest. The Ferrari Centre have been operating for 30 years (as Kent High performance) and are pretty well known in the UK.

Once a technician takes a car out for a test drive, be they from a Ferrari Dealership or an independent Dealership, how will the dealership know how the car was driven?

Just because Ferrari Dealerships don't authorize "joy rides", that doesn't guarantee that they don't happen.

 

It seems that regardless of the circumstances of the crash this poor guy is looking at a shortend lifespan, in addition for that lifespan he will incur some very serious medical bills not to mention living expenses that he will never be able to afford. His lawyer or advisor is telling him what we would be told in the same situation...sue everyone you can and try to get some money to continue to be able to see doctors and hire people to take care of you. Sad but true. I would be very surprised if he really felt inside that it was the boss that caused this tragedy. We all drive these cars fast, that's why we buy them. But for the grace of god goes I, remember?

 

aren't speeds posted in kph in england? if so doing 100 is 60 mph.

 

Nope, it's kph on the Continent but still mph here in the UK.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

This is completely OT, but do you do inches and pounds as well, or are you on centimeters and kilograms?

 

Do tell...

 

cm and kg

the only things left that are imperial measures are miles.

That said, many will still understand & compute imperial. I'm more familiar with miles per (Imperial) gallon than litres per 100km. I can just as easily visualise 1 foot as I can 1 metre.

 

This sounds overconfident.

The guy is paralyzed. A sympathetic Jury, or even a Judge, may very well give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't know about the UK, but in the US he doesn't have to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, just on the preponderance of the evidence.

The case hinges on whether or not the shop told him to break the speed limit, or whether or not they have a history of telling employees to do so.

If he's telling the truth, he has a shot at turning an employee or a former one. If he's not, he still has a shot at demonstrating that such behavior is the norm in the exotic repairs industry. He could call owners or other experts to testify to that effect.

Also, generally courts hold sophisticated parties to a higher degree of responsibility. An Employer may very well be asked to supply evidence that they discourage such behavior, and the absence of it could very well work against them.

Its possible that the UK is not as litigious as the US, but I would suspect they have stronger labour laws there that would make up for it in some way. After all, they have an actual party called "Labour". That wouldn't fly here.

 

Indeed, now I really want to know...

 

In the USA he would sue:

His employer
Ferrari
Michelin
All the drivers in the vicinity
The guy who painted stripes on the highway
The guy who last sold him gas
The cars owner
The owners kids and heirs
The owners dog
Ferrarichat and rob
Everyone who posted in this thread


And, someone would settle...

 

What difference does it make?

By law, all should be treated equally; in a utopian sense.

 

True dat, and a large settlement would be given the plaintiff to avoid further litigation which could cost the defendent(s) a lot more in continuing litigation.

Sad but true!