Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Sign in to follow this  
Gibbo

Are you actually insured?

Recommended Posts

Needless to say I am very disappointed with the response from RAAus.

 

And yes all owners have a duty of care to rescuers.

 

A7FFFFE0-EDD5-4665-91D6-E7AEBD9E5710.thumb.jpeg.02825e42a923e3241aed1a9b8b502cee.jpeg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's a bit harsh, emergency services instructing you to perform CPR and RAA CEO saying wait. 

 

image.png.1a792955b6b5be840976af263b0c317f.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

400hrs in similar type,  procedures training etc. 2 x l2 first aid (tafe), remote area life support via rfds.  

 

I was really going to sit there and watch them die.

 

And then theres the damage by aircraft act 1999 (Cmth), wrongs act (vic) -s10 damage by aircraft and the legal concept of a duty of care owed to rescuers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it all sounds a bit fishy to me. 

 

If the pilot was gasping then he’s breathing  doesn’t need cpr. If he had a heart beat  and cardiac output to get enough cerebral blood flow to drive his respiratory centre he didn’t need CPR. 

 

But all all that aside. If no one puts a gun to your head and you electively chose to undertake a rescue then it should not be an expectation you’ll get paid for it. If you don’t take care of yourself while doing this elective undertaking can you really have an expectation that someone will have to recompense you? 

 

I have have some sympathy for him if he truly has suffered some injury but also see that extending some sort of recompense will open the floodgates. Next there will be calls for compensating people who merely witness the event and get PTSD. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Needless to say I am very disappointed with the response from RAAus.

And yes all owners have a duty of care to rescuers.

 

[ATTACH]38538.IPB[/ATTACH]

Do they? 

 

To play devils advocate. 

 

If a professional rescue service who know what they are doing are available and an inexperienced person who doesn’t know what they are doing intervened and put them self in danger without the request of the owner. 

 

And the owner is not in a fit state to be responsible for the safety of the site of the accident since he is a victim - 

 

Does the owner/victim of the accident owe a duty of care to anyone who  intervenes? 

 

 if the owner is incapacitated and unable to contribute then I would suspect the law says they don’t owe anyone a duty of care. 

 

In fact it would probably be the reverse -

 

the rescuer has a duty Of care to the victim to act in a manner which would not further endanger the victim and be expected to exercise care of the level  of an average citizen undertaking the effort ( within the bounds of their knowledge and expertise). 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you now that if a non essential services bystander intervenes in any accident and is deemed to have contributed to the victims injuries he or she better have a bloody good lawyer. Doesn't matter if it's aviation, automotive or bushwalking

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can tell you now that if a non essential services bystander intervenes in any accident and is deemed to have contributed to the victims injuries he or she better have a bloody good lawyer. Doesn't matter if it's aviation, automotive or bushwalking

AIUI, this is only if acting beyond the scope of any training received, or not otherwise acting in good faith. Ie: I only have a Senior First Aid certificate, so I'd be comfortable doing CPR. If, while doing so, I broke old mates ribs, I would still be held harmless. On the other hand, if I attempted to do a tracheostomy on some bloke choking in a restaurant and nicked his artery, I am a goner. You covered so long as you don't go above and beyond what a reasonable person, with your training and experience, would be expected to do in the circumstances.

 

By the same token, if you fail to act even though you have some training/experience in first aid or rescue, you can't be held accountable for someone subsequently dying, with the exception of in the NT - the only state to have such legislation, IIRC.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can tell you now that if a non essential services bystander intervenes in any accident and is deemed to have contributed to the victims injuries he or she better have a bloody good lawyer. Doesn't matter if it's aviation, automotive or bushwalking

Even Dennis Denuto would be able to sort that one out. All states in Australia have some form of good samaritan law to encourage bystanders to help in an emergency situation. Their training or lack thereof does not come into it provided that the good samaritan is acting in "good faith". 

 

Have a read here:

 

https://emergencylaw.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/good-samaritan-legislation-and-scope-of-practice/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even Dennis Denuto would be able to sort that one out. All states in Australia have some form of good samaritan law to encourage bystanders to help in an emergency situation. They training or lack thereof does not come into it provided that the good samaritan is acting in "good faith". 

Have a read here:

 

https://emergencylaw.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/good-samaritan-legislation-and-scope-of-practice/

No nobody that’s not correct. 

 

KR has it correct. 

 

If you act responsibly at the level expected of the average person of your training then there are “Good Samaritan laws” that would be your defence if you caused a problem.  

 

(Which is not the same as saying you can’t be sued for it. You can, and while you might have the GS defence you might still be subjected to the stress and pain of being a defendant. )

 

Getting back to the Good Samaratin defence. It does not give you Carte  Blanche to do anything. Even the article you quoted says this. It must be in good faith and the definition of good faith could easily be held to not apply if you decided to give a tracheostomy a go because now you had a chance to do it.  But clearly this would also apply to less specific actions that included risk but you decided you’d have a go at it. Eg You could not elect to extract the victim with a backhoe or dynamite if doing so caused further injury and it was foreseeable that it would. 

 

And further as was suggested if you try a medical procedure that you were competent at then you would be expected to do it to a standard commensurate with your training. If you extended it beyond your expertise you are exposing yourself to a claim if you cause further harm. 

 

And yes in all states there is no requirement to actually assist ( except in the NT as stated) and except if you are a doctor where it’s the reverse. In all states there is a requirement for a doctor to act but again within the limits of your training. 

 

But most of this is hypothetical because it would be very hard to bring an action and as the article says none has ever been tried apparently. ( except against doctors and there has been at least one that I’m aware of) 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jabba,

 

What did I say that was not correct? I mentioned that the good samaritan has to act in "Good Faith" and so I think we are in agreement....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with negligence.  Even the covering act specifically excludes it.  It is a strict liability issue.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's a bit harsh, emergency services instructing you to perform CPR and RAA CEO saying wait. 

[ATTACH]38539.IPB[/ATTACH]

 

clip.jpg.275c31b507e76917300849501995f334.jpg

 

There are three points made here.

 

The first point is rational and sensible, don't make matters worse or cause further injury.

 

The second point, yes the first and most important thing to do is to call for help. 

 

As to the third point, I don't know whether  Mr Gibson was offered counselling or not so I can not comment.  

 

FT what is it that you would prefer this statement said. What would your advice be to anyone who witnesses a plane crash?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Gibbo's thread and his experience tells me that there is a problem.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FT what is it that you would prefer this statement said. What would your advice be to anyone who witnesses a plane crash?

 

call the authorities and walk away, don't make other people's problems yours 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must remember that, for that occasion I might see you laying bleeding in the street..... 074_stirrer.gif.5dad7b21c959cf11ea13e4267b2e9bc0.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't know how to fix this but I am very pleased there are people like Giles who are prepared to get in and help. Yes a hero, yes courageous and yes doing what he could to help people who, clearly, were not able to help themselves. I would hope I have the courage to step up if the need arose and equally hope if I needed help people would step up as well.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jabba,

What did I say that was not correct? I mentioned that the good samaritan has to act in "Good Faith" and so I think we are in agreement....

We are basically in agreement.

 

Its just the fine detail about "good faith" that there's a bit of difference of opinion on. The decision as to whether something is done in good faith can/does include an element of ones level of knowledge or training. 

 

It assumes that the actions you take were done in an effort to do good, but if you stuff up along the way the expectation you'd know what was good and what was foolhardy would be dependant on your knowledge ( or training). 

 

If I were to go to assistance and render first aid I would be held at a vastly higher level of competence or knowledge than a layman. ( I'm a specialist anaesthetist and intensive care doctor with 5 years of rescue helicopter flight physician experience ) 

 

The same would apply ( but to a lower level) if you were say a first aid instructor over a first aid student over a laymen who has never done a first aid course. 

 

Each one being held to a different level of competence and that " good faith" would undoubtedly be judged differently for each of these people. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This has nothing to do with negligence.  Even the covering act specifically excludes it.  It is a strict liability issue.

Is it?

 

Im not saying it’s not. I don’t know yet. Haven’t read the act but it sounds like a negligence thing. 

 

If if it were strict liability there wouldn’t be an issue. The law would hold someone guilty and they would have been charged. Strict liability is a criminal law issue with a specific meaning. It basically means if an offence happens the person is guilty and will be punished without any resort to mitigation. 

 

Most aviation law is covered by strict liability. But this seems to be related to the tort of negligence because you are making a claim the owner or the insurer owes you a degree of duty of care. Which is all negligence tort ( civil law not criminal). 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The applicable act is the damage by aircraft act 1999 (cmth).  Section ?? Part d.  The direct aftermath caused a, b, or c. (Basic conditions of flight). Precident and other common law still exists within it. Eg. Duty of care owed to rescuers (foreseeable event - the cry of human nature to help another in dire circumstances).

 

other acts cover persons within the aircraft themselves.  This act only covers those who are injured or have property damaged on the ground or sea.

 

It imposes strict liability in a civil setting (one of only three sets of laws that do it) ‘without the need to prove negligence particularly only that it occurred.’  Automatic assumption of negligence and wilful act as well as unlimited damages.

 

The automatic assumption is imposed as in a lot of cases the true cause of the accident is never known and is almost unprovable otherwise.  As in the case of motor vechicles it is the registered owner who is held liable.  (Certain lease and long term hire sub conditions exist).

 

it seeks to impose a forced settlement.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...