Page 14 - The Le Mans disaster in 1955

Page 13_Layout 1 02/01/2019 19:48 Page 1

In the libel case, Hawthorn would have faced a terrible time in cross-examination by Macklin’s
barrister. I can say from my own experience as a litigation lawyer that anyone who says, straight
after an accident, that “it was all my fault” faces a massive hurdle to try to convince a judge that
this first assessment was wrong. The vast majority of witnesses get themselves in an awful tan-
gle trying to extricate themselves from the initial admission. I strongly suspect Hawthorn would
have been no different.
Hawthorn’s counsel, on the other hand, would have had a much more difficult time cross-
examining Macklin, who was clearly going to say, on oath, that he had not been looking in his
mirrors after Hawthorn passed him; that he was at all times looking forward at the Jaguar; and
that he simply didn’t have the time or space to swerve gently enough to avoid getting in Levegh’s
way.

Pierre Levegh - The judge was always going to believe
that Macklin kept looking ahead, because there would be no pos-
sible evidence to contradict him, while the assertion that he had
the time and space for a gentle swerve is likely to have come down
to analysis of eyewitness statements, measurements and films.
Even if Macklin succeeded in persuading a court that
Hawthorn left him no option but to swerve into Levegh’s path, he
still may not have won the case. Hawthorn’s comments in his book
were very vague, and even if they could be interpreted as blaming
Macklin, it may not have been enough for Macklin to establish the
legal points required to prove he’d been libelled.
But the evidence about the actual accident would have been there for all to see, such that
our whole view of the disaster would have been changed forever. It is almost certain that many
theories about the accident would simply not have survived the court case.

The Legacy - The ramifications of the accident were widespread; some countries banned
motor sport temporarily or permanently. It is safe to say that such an accident would be an even
bigger problem today than in 1955. In those days, there was some chance of successfully ar-
guing it was just a “racing accident” – although that thin veneer was going to be shattered by
Macklin’s court case in any event.
These days, in a society with a far greater sense of entitlement, there would be no chance
at all of running that argument. Not only would there be widespread litigation, but Sir Jackie
Stewart is on record as saying the sport itself may not survive another disaster of such propor-
tions. In reality, even at the time, the disaster was far more significant than a mere “racing ac-
cident”. The scope of the issues called for a wider perspective: some of the key decision-makers
on the day had the insight to realise that fact, while others did not.
There will be other times when the sport will need a similar sense of perspective – and we
are probably in such a time now. Motor racing will come under increasing public attack as being
a wasteful use of resources. And just as in 1955, some people in the sport will take a narrow,
insular approach to the problem, while others will recognise the true extent of the threat. Fortu-
nately, the sport will have a lot more time to consider its position today than did those unfortunate
drivers, team members and race officials in 1955. But the echoes and lessons of that dreadful
day are there for all to heed.
David Greenhalgh

PLEASE NOTE - only after researching the subject did I understand the scale of the Disaster
and the recriminations that followed and the arguments that still rage today. Most but not all of
the information in this compilation was researched from the internet from a number of different
sources. Some photos I have paid to reproduce, so please do not use this article for any com-
mercial purposes whatsoever. No doubt even more information can be gathered but I certainly
recommend the Deadliest Crash DVD plus all the horrific clips on the internet.