UPDATE: Reviews section refreshed, redesigned, searchable: Go take a look
- Hard to believe the passenger who didn't complain of any injuries at the time or after the crash yet is suing the BBC for £150000
- for personal injury
- He is the professional driver to told Freddy don't lift off , full power the car won't roll
- Freddy had concern with the front wheel lifting and definitely comes off worse receiving duff advice
- Talk about a hard neck and a bent lawyer advising him
Certainly doesn't appear he's doing himself any favours based on those details. Surprised its taken this long to come out that there was a passenger.
Everyones fault apart from their own. Why is everyone looking to blame other people for stuff...
I have no idea what you're talking about but,
1. injuries from a crash aren't always obvious and can take days to manifest, and
2. liability for a driving 'accident' rests wholly with the driver regardless of what a passenger may have told them.
I have no idea what you're talking about but,
I think more of us should prefix posts with this disclaimer, albeit there is no point in reading anything which follows.
This driving accident rests wholly with the driver does this include a learner taking instructions from the driving instructor involved in an accident and carrying out what they're told
I think you should look up the page and read what the professional who was getting paid to instruct Freddy told him
liability for a driving 'accident' rests wholly with the driver regardless of what a passenger may have told them.
What shite.
From the BBC website
"There were microphones in the car, and BBC Studios said Flintoff expressed concern at one point when the car's front wheel lifted as he took a corner, but was reassured by Rees that it could not roll over.
Approaching the same corner again, Rees told Flintoff to "now turn right... now full power, full power", BBC Studios' defence filings said.
The document claimed that "a front wheel lifted and because on the claimant's instruction the presenter continued to apply power the Morgan turned over"
- yeah, that's wholly on Flintoff :rollseyes:
- yeah, that's wholly on Flintoff :rollseyes:
Whilst the bbc website might have a certain self interest it definitely seems a somewhat optimistic lawsuit from the instructor. Maybe there is some off the track pressure etc which he thinks he has a case for.
I have no idea what you're talking about but,
I think more of us should prefix posts with this disclaimer, albeit there is no point in reading anything which follows.
Hmm not sure why cougar is getting flak here. It's the OP who is at fault here. I also have no little idea what the OP is talking about . Bit of context/ background would be great....
Chris n Paddy loss of earnings might have been more acceptable
I'm pretty sure than any lawyer advising either of them to try and make money out of this would be told to "jog on".
I think more of us should prefix posts with this disclaimer, albeit there is no point in reading anything which follows.
Well yes but. Maybe if an OP would post a link to what they were starting a thread about, that might be helpful. No? Because
I think you should look up the page
What page?
What shite.
...
- yeah, that's wholly on Flintoff :rollseyes:
Remind me, who was driving?
You get behind a wheel, you accept the responsibility that this comes with. Whether you're a professional TV presenter of a motoring programme or a single mum popping out to Lidl for oven chips. You reckon many insurance claims were settled with "well my passenger told me to drive faster"? Come on now.
Hmm not sure why cougar is getting flak here.
I have a fairly good idea. But, thank you.
He was not there as a passenger, he was there as an instructor. Slight difference.
You reckon many insurance claims were settled with "well my passenger told me to drive faster"?
Thats not quite the scenario here is it?
Its not, say me, going "go on floor it" and someone being stupid enough to listen but instead a professional instructor on a track.
You get behind a wheel, you accept the responsibility that this comes with. Whether you're a professional TV presenter of a motoring programme or a single mum popping out to Lidl for oven chips. You reckon many insurance claims were settled with "well my passenger told me to drive faster"? Come on now.
This isn't a crash on the roads where everyone is driving according to the highway code (except the person to blame).
If your employer asks you to do something with flawed equipment, provides flawed training on how to do that thing with the flawed equipment, and that thing goes wrong because you followed that flawed training resulting in life changing injuries to you, is that your fault?
It's the H&S at Work act 1974 that's applicable, not Big Jobber's youtube channel.
Freddies claim was pretty cut and dried, he got £9million in compensation, I'm not sure why you're even starting an argument over that. The instructor's I suppose hinges on whether he can demonstrate negligence from the BBC to him, did they tell him that the car couldn't roll over, did Morgan warn them it could and they neglected to pass that on or tell them it couldn't.
What shite.
...
- yeah, that's wholly on Flintoff :rollseyes:
Remind me, who was driving?
You get behind a wheel, you accept the responsibility that this comes with. Whether you're a professional TV presenter of a motoring programme or a single mum popping out to Lidl for oven chips. You reckon many insurance claims were settled with "well my passenger told me to drive faster"? Come on now.
Hmm not sure why cougar is getting flak here.
I have a fairly good idea. But, thank you.
Remind me, when was the last time you were under instruction on a track?
I’ll hazard a guess at never,
Remind me, when was the last time you were under instruction on a track?
Why don't you start by confirming when you worked for the BBC, and we can all settle back?
I did some instructing for Brands Hatch racing school about 35 years ago. We were left in absolutely no doubt by the management that anything that happened whilst we were in the car with the pupil was our responsibility. On more than one occasion I aborted the pupils whole day because they wouldn't follow instruction and were a danger to me, themselves and everyone else on track.
If they have recordings of the instructor telling Freddie to give full power as it won't roll, and then it rolls, it's hard to see the instructor making a successful claim.
Volenti non fit injuria seems to be very apt here.
Remind me, when was the last time you were under instruction on a track?
Why don't you start by confirming when you worked for the BBC, and we can all settle back?
Cool, I’ve irked boomer who doesn’t understand that it’s an instructor who holds responsibility ….can I claim my forum achievement badge?
Edit : I see Boris has made a similar point
It's certainly an odd one. Accident was coming up for 4 years ago. You could argue that given the 'passenger's' instructor role they had to wait for Flintoff's settlement before they could make a claim; but that was best part of 3 years ago.
Side note - I wonder how many of those Morgan 3 wheelers they have managed to sell since? Must have been a 'challenging' sales meeting the next day. Bloody stupid things.
This incident has no bearing to an accident on the highway, where motor insurance is needed, and the driver bears the responsible for driving behaviour. As above, this is probably an Employers Liability claim and the instructor, if he encouraged the hazardous driving, and that’s all there is in the background, isn’t likely to be successful.
I handled a claim for a mobile crane driver who was injured when it toppled during testing. A certified testing house sent an experienced crane tester to undertake the statutory tests and told the driver to extend the boom. The overload limit sounded, our driver told the tester the alarm was sounding, he told the driver, effectively, it’ll be right, and instructed him to continue to extend the boom. It went over and the driver in the cab was injured (the testing chap was watching so avoided any injury). The driver got his compensation, but ultimately from the testing house as they were the expert and delivering the instructions. I can’t see any circumstances* when the expert tester would have secured compensation.
Strikes me that is what was happening here.
*unless the crane was defective in some way, that contributed to the topple.
On more than one occasion I aborted the pupils whole day because they wouldn't follow instruction and were a danger to me, themselves and everyone else on track.
Yeah, I have been on several track days (circuit, hill climb and rally) and every time, it was made clear that I had to listen to the instructor at all times and, if I didn't, I could be taken off track immediately with no refund given.
Tiff Needall nearly rolled one https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQrPBb9wZZ6BnbdMTn8v4TKNlS7phiV9RYzcBi9gxg8&s
on fifth gear, so its not an unheard of occurance
Don't think Morgan had any sales issues post. The buyers of those things will not be your risk averse bod, and most likely never watched TG. It's a bit like us lot; have an accident, end up in A&E, and the first thing we do when we get out is check the bike over for our next outing. I'd have a go in one quite happily. Buy one though? Nah, no chance - worst of both worlds, with no advantages.
Side note - I wonder how many of those Morgan 3 wheelers they have managed to sell since? Must have been a 'challenging' sales meeting the next day. Bloody stupid things.
They’ve been selling them for decades, starting in 1911-1939, 1932-1952, 2012-2021.
They now do an EV version, 2016-2018.
So, I don’t think too many people will have been concerned about one having an accident on one TV show. 🤷🏼♂️
The 1952 version had...wait for it....10bhp.
118bhp in the current petrol version (still available)
Don't think the EV version has made it from concept car yet.
3 wheels might have made sense way back in 1952 and before with an engine just a little more powerful than my lawnmower. But 118bhp has rather predictable results.
I agree they won't/shouldn't be driven like this in the wild, but getting a £40k toy passed by the household finance director is slightly more challenging when you are selling it as it'll be a fun Sunday drive if your other half has just seen poor Freddie's face!
If your employer asks you to do something with flawed equipment, provides flawed training on how to do that thing with the flawed equipment, and that thing goes wrong because you followed that flawed training resulting in life changing injuries to you, is that your fault?
Yes.
Remind me, when was the last time you were under instruction on a track?
I’ll hazard a guess at never,
Good guess, but it was about this time last year.
I have a fairly good idea. But, thank you.
Go on, why?
I posted the relevant text from the BBC website, here's a link to the page itself. Please read that, and then tell me you still think the blames rests wholly with Flintoff
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gy59p5gz6o
On more than one occasion I aborted the pupils whole day because they wouldn't follow instruction and were a danger to me, themselves and everyone else on trac
In my defence a dog did run out in front of me and you had told me to take my hand off the wheel to turn the pages of the Highway Code!
Was someone else driving? Of course it does.
No one is saying Flintoff doesn't carry any responsibility but to me it's a very odd take to say the expert instructor who's instructing him to do something that seems to have directly caused the accident is blameless.
This is not how occupational health works, sorry.
Was someone else driving? Of course it does.
Sorry Cougar, I usually agree with you on most things, but here I really think you are wrong.
This is not a case of being egged on by a mate to drive faster. This is an organisation employing an instructor to train an employee to operate a type of vehicle they are not familiar with.
It's the same as employing an instructor to train an employee to operate a forklift. As the employer, I have to ensure my instructor is qualified and insured to carry out the task. Generally that means registered with a trade body such as RTITB. I also have to ensure that any equipment I provide such as the forklift and attachments are suitable, and have been correctly maintained and inspected and the environment provided for the training is suitable i.e. no holes in the warehouse floor, suitable lighting etc.
That's pretty much where my duty of care to the instructor ends. If the instructor then tells the trainee to drive with a load on the forks with them raised and the forklift turns over, that is entirely on the instructor. I have still failed in my duty of care to the employee who could claim against me for injuries (strict liability in this case), but the instructor is on his own and my insurer would then go after the instructor and his insurance as a counter claim - that's why they have liability insurance. Even if I told the instructor to train employees to drive with the forks raised to save time, a competent instructor would refuse and abort the course.
In order for a personal injury claim to succeed, all three of the following have to be shown:
1. There is a duty of care owed to the claimant. In this case yes, but it's limited to ensuring the equipment is suitable and properly maintained. If the car had crashed due to mechanical failure, it would be different.
2. The defendant was negligent in their duty of care. I can't see how this could be the case.
3. As a result of the negligence, injury or loss resulted. Whilst injuries can take a while to come to light, the fact that nothing was recorded for several years significantly diminishes this claim. There is plenty of scope for the defendant to claim that something had happened subsequently. So I cannot see how this claim can succeed.
It's the same as if you are the expert on the IT helpdesk and you are talking to my Mum who can't do anything other than open photos and Chrome. Her computer stops working so she calls the expert. The expert gives her instructions on how to format her hard drive. She does what the expert tells her and loses all her photos. Is that her fault or the IT experts fault?
No one is saying Flintoff doesn't carry any responsibility but to me it's a very odd take to say the expert instructor who's instructing him to do something that seems to have directly caused the accident is blameless.
The common sense view is that the instructor is entirely to blame, of course, not the layman.
I think in law it would probably depend on whether or not the instructor was negligent.
Bringing it back to mountain biking, MTBer Asif Ahmed managed to sue his instructor on the basis the instructor had not properly assessed his abilities. The instructor was held 80% responsible.
I'm sorry if you feel it's a personal attack, certainly not my intent. You can have a tendency to be extremely vocal and certain in your opinions (and there may be reasons for that) which might be why you sometimes get an equally direct rebuttal.
No one is saying Flintoff doesn't carry any responsibility but to me it's a very odd take to say the expert instructor who's instructing him to do something that seems to have directly caused the accident is blameless.
This is my contention - for you to say and then maintain that Flintoff is WHOLLY to blame is clearly wrong. I'm not even sure to the layman there's a split of liability, but legally there probably is - after all in spite of the expert advice to "give it full gas, there's no way the car can roll", he still had the ability to decide not to do it. But is that 5% on him, 10%, whatever. It's never 100.000% on him and 0.000% on the expert instructor which is what wholly means.
I was going to post very similar to the IT above. If a doctor misdiagnoses a condition, gives a patient some pills, those pills turn out to be harmful would you really blame the outcome on the patent, because in the end it was they that swallowed them?
This is not a case of being egged on by a mate to drive faster. This is an organisation employing an instructor to train an employee to operate a type of vehicle they are not familiar with.
It's the same as employing an instructor to train an employee to operate a forklift. As the employer, I have to ensure my instructor is qualified and insured to carry out the task. Generally that means registered with a trade body such as RTITB. I also have to ensure that any equipment I provide such as the forklift and attachments are suitable, and have been correctly maintained and inspected and the environment provided for the training is suitable i.e. no holes in the warehouse floor, suitable lighting etc.
Yes, but.
Flintoff is not a random bloke off the street. He's a presenter on what is arguably perhaps the largest motoring TV show on the planet. It is literally his job to be driving to a high standard. The choices he made when he stuffed it were his. If we're drawing analogies from my sphere, he is what we'd term the Controlling Mind. He - seemingly - knew the car was sketchy and yet chose to drive it anyway.
There is of course a duty of care as you say. But ultimately the decision to say yes or no rests with the driver. "A big boy told me to do it" doesn't cut it.
In any case, it doesn't matter what you or I may think. I could well be way off the mark, up until this thread I'd never heard about the incident. But there's a whole lot of weird going on with this story and it's now up to a courtroom to decide.
Yes.
Well you're wrong, go read a summary of the H&S at work act. Your opinion doesn't override 50 years of legislation.
It is literally his job to be driving to a high standard.
No. His job is to present a tv show in an engaging way. He is a tv presenter not a F1 driver.
Thats why he was accompanied by a professional driver/instructor.
There is of course a duty of care as you say. But ultimately the decision to say yes or no rests with the driver. "A big boy told me to do it" doesn't cut it.
Brush up on the guidebook/regulations for ARDS instruction before the hole gets too deep 😉
I'm sure the track day instruction you undertook was under ARDS guidelines
But ultimately the decision to say yes or no rests with the driver. "A big boy told me to do it" doesn't cut it.
So by that argument, no-one in these sorts of professions needs liability insurance, all they need to say is 'my advice was woefully inadequate / inaccurate but it's wholly their fault because they followed it'
That'll save a lot of money and court time, if it's that clear.
