Of course, "Rotting in hell is too strong" ... but certainly he is no Gentlemen

 

Yep. Navin R. Johnson. Weight-guesser, entrepreneur, sharecropper-turned-millionaire, typical bastard and my hero.

There are only two ways this can go. In both situations the owner knows that the driver can't personally pay for any damages--that's a given. So, either the owner accepts that fact and thus accepts responsibility for any potential damages, or the owner verifies that there is sufficient insurance in place to cover any contingency. If he doesn't do the latter, he accepts the former by default. Suing the driver after the fact means that the owner either (a) is a douche, or (b) had a serious lapse in judgement. I don't see either of those as a justification for putting a six figure judgement on the driver.

My two best friends have driven my car. Neither can afford to rebuild the engine. That's a risk I have taken knowingly--just as the owner of that 917 did. If one of my buddies blew my engine, I could sue him, but I know it would break him, and in the end, the ultimate responsibility for letting someone drive my car--someone who I knew could not afford to fix it--would be mine.

I'm just not seeing any responsibility issue here. The driver may or may not be responsible for blowing the engine, but there's only one person that controls who can and can't drive the car--and that's the owner. Seems to me that it's ultimately his responsibility to protect his investment.

 

I'm sorta with you on this. It sucks that his engine blew, but he knew this guy could not afford to fix it. So unless there is insurance, thats a risk he took. I think they should have discussed the "arrangements" up front in the case of an incident. Or obtained insurance. Failing that - dont lend out your car.