De Villota family considering compensation claim

[Jordan Wilkins]

The family of Maria De Villota are considering claiming compensation after her tragic death in October 2013, as a result of neurological complications from her serious accident whilst testing for the Marussia team in early July 2012.

De Villota was straight line testing for Marussia at Duxford airport, her first test for the team. when she crashed and hit a lorry at slow speed, although she would lose her right eye in the accident. De Villota fought back to the point that she was cleared to drive road cars again in early 2013, although sadly died in October of that year after complications from the neurological injuries she suffered in the accident.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) announced it's findings in a report published on Tuesday, in which they absolved the Marussia(Manor) team of any blame for the accident. The De Villota family have responded by stating they would analyse the report "to evaluate the next legal steps to claim the corresponding civil compensation from those responsible".

The Manor Grand Prix team has declined to publicly comment on the HSE report or potential compensation claims, although it appears this could be a story which rumbles on over the next few months, as the family investigate a potential compensation claim for the dreadfully unfortunate death of Maria.

What are your thoughts on this? Feel free to comment below.

 

[Enzo Fazzi]

I think this is absurd. Everybody knows that what has happened to her, is terrible, however, danger is and has always been a part of this sport. There are a lot less deaths than before, which is great and the motorsports should continue to improve safety even further. And even though safety has come a long way, driving cars at these speeds will always bring risks. Maria knew this and her family did (and does) as well. The team aren't the ones to blame and neither is De Villota.

 

[Flammenjc]

How can they suggest Marussia or whoever are at fault when she mashed both pedals at the same time? :S

 

[Yapci]

That truck should not have been there.

 

[Flammenjc]

That truck should not have been there.

Well if it was that immediately dangerous then it's still possible to tell them to do one rather than get in and drive and then crash and say it was xyz shouldn't have been there/happened etc etc. If it was that bad and obvious then in the beginning the test wouldn't have gone ahead...

 

[Flammenjc]

It's a statistical impossibility that the trucks lift was up at EXACTLY the height of her helmet visor. I think you should think a little more rationally. What I said @Yapci is not something you can disagree with as it's absolute fact. :/

 

[Yapci]

It's a statistical impossibility that the trucks lift was up at EXACTLY the height of her helmets visor

Talk about that "Statistical impossibility" to Jules family.

Sh*t happens, but its not the driver fault if there is not all the security that got to be.

Maybe this two cases are casuality, but the team have to pay and assume their responsability.

 

[Yapci]

Team, FIA or whoever. You should not be ale to run a F1 in some places neither in some conditions. Drivers safety first.

 

[Frederic Schornstein]

Anyway pursuing this is probably not worth it as Marussia is practically broke. The real coincidence is, that the last two live threatening incidents happened with a Marussia car.

 

[Flammenjc]

Talk about that "Statistical impossibility" to Jules family.

Sh*t happens, but its not the driver fault if there is not all the security that got to be.

Maybe this two cases are casuality, but the team have to pay and assume their responsability.

The difference is the recovery vehicle was wedged lower down and the car was able to LIFT up the crane. The De Villota incident was not the same in that respect but as I said, she double pedaled it and ran it into a truck which presumably was there from the beginning of the test. You could definitely argue that the tests were done is an unsafe location but still she agreed to drive there so I don't see that they have a legal case to be honest.

But to be honest, especially in Jules Bianchis situation if you are suggesting the team should be held responsible for something 100% out of their hands then I really don't understand your mentality. The weather and the FiA/race controls decision to allow a recovery vehicle on track in those conditions in a hotspot for wet weather crashes are completely nothing to do with Marussia.

The preperation of the car and the cars safety are absolutely no variable in both incidents.

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

Even if it was the team's fault, why do they have to pay? In real life when I get roadkilled tomorrow what are the odds my family gets a "compensation".

Chance of getting killed in F1 is sadly part of the sport. The moment it does happen, even with such a stupid accident as with Villota what's the point of filing a lawsuit and demand for compensation? It won't get her back.

Not an expert in this so I am genuinely asking: how can this accident be responsible for her death in the first place? She crashed, lost an eye, recovered more or less and was found dead in an hotel much later. How is that Marussia's fault?

 

[Yapci]

The difference is the recovery vehicle was wedged lower down and the car was able to LIFT up the crane. The De Villota incident was not the same in that respect but as I said, she double pedaled it and ran it into a truck which presumably was there from the beginning of the test. You could definitely argue that the tests were done is an unsafe location but still she agreed to drive there so I don't see that they have a legal case to be honest.

But to be honest, especially in Jules Bianchis situation if you are suggesting the team should be held responsible for something 100% out of their hands then I really don't understand your mentality. The weather and the FiA/race controls decision to allow a recovery vehicle on track in those conditions in a hotspot for wet weather crashes are completely nothing to do with Marussia.

The preperation of the car and the cars safety are absolutely no variable in both incidents.

Bianchis is obviously not marussias fault.

 

[MoerasGrizzly]

Even if it was the team's fault, why do they have to pay? In real life when I get roadkilled tomorrow what are the odds my family gets a "compensation".

Not that high, but assuming that you have a family with children to care for, getting a compensation would be a great relief to your family as their income has been suddenly cut in half. Losing a parent is awfull enough and having to cope with a desperate financial situation on top of that is something anyone would want to avoid.

 

[M1GHTY M4VS]

Even if it was the team's fault, why do they have to pay? In real life when I get roadkilled tomorrow what are the odds my family gets a "compensation".

Chance of getting killed in F1 is sadly part of the sport. The moment it does happen, even with such a stupid accident as with Villota what's the point of filing a lawsuit and demand for compensation? It won't get her back.

Not an expert in this so I am genuinely asking: how can this accident be responsible for her death in the first place? She crashed, lost an eye, recovered more or less and was found dead in an hotel much later. How is that Marussia's fault?

Well if it's an misfunctional airbag that would have kept you alive otherwise your family would have good chances to get a "compensation". Why would there be so much Quality Assurance and Insurance Values if there's no need to have a responsibilty for them.

The Teams fault can be the Testing area that wasn't properly chosen in terms of safety measures.
Let's take Schumacher's accident in contrast, he has chosen to take a ski track that wasn't prepped and he acknowledged the fact that is was more dangerous for him and exchanged that risk for fun. But it wasn't the Track Preparer's fault.
In Maria's case the Track Location was poorly chosen it seems, but the calculated risk was slim for the organizers. It was an unfortunate circumstance that caused the accident but if you consider all the work that went into making the drivers head and helmet withstanding much more than it used to following certain deaths that could have been prevented with a HANS Device at the time or even just injuries like Massa's is a way to find responsibility on the team / organizers for what happened.
I think it is rather on the doctor's that they blame the mistreatment following her injuries, that may have not been properly taken care of by anyone of the team and the family had to organise treatment themselves, I'm not sure what they actually claim.

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

Well if it's an misfunctional airbag that would have kept you alive otherwise your family would have good chances to get a "compensation". Why would there be so much Quality Assurance and Insurance Values if there's no need to have a responsibilty for them.

I agree, maybe I should have worded my response a bit better. What I meant to say is that she didn't die on the track but in an hotel in Valencia if I am correct? So how can that be linked to an accident on a race track that happened weeks/months (?) before that.

 

[Yapci]

I agree, maybe I should have worded my response a bit better. What I meant to say is that she didn't die on the track but in an hotel in Valencia if I am correct? So how can that be linked to an accident on a race track that happened weeks/months (?) before that.

Brain damage from the accident. Brain damage can last months or years. She died because her brain was damaged in the accident.

In the hotel she started feeling strongs headaches and she died later that day (she didnt thought she was going to die I guess, so she didnt go to the hospital because of a headache, which definitely she should have and maybe she would still be here...).

 

[Andrew Harper]

The way I see this is the family will try and get answers regarding the situation of the accident and the resulting condition that led to her death and whether anything could have been done about it. When the accident occurred did the medical teams make a mistake with their diagnosis (and I assume that is the main point here).

If I had suffered a head injury and was told I was making a good recovery only to suddenly die a few months later my parents would want to know why this was not spotted and why nothing was done at the time of the original diagnosis.

My main concern about this whole mess is why was the team testing at such a venue like Duxford (which I wouldn't have called an F1 suitable venue in any case) and why was a trailer allowed anywhere near the car. Doesn't matter if the accident was her fault or not it shouldn't have been there. The lesson to be learnt (as in the case of Bianchi) is to make sure stupid accidents like this don't happen again.