Jump to content

Engine Failure Does Not Cause A Fatal Accident In An Ultralight Aircraft!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 350
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Farmers in that region often employ backpackers, who in turn often come from urban Europe and are experiencing a farm for the first time.When the farmer gives the worker a task involving the Quad bike, he has a duty of care to prevent a reasonably forseeable risk.

At 16 years of age I was helping my father clear a block of heavy scrub to create a Sugar Cane Farm... It wasn`t long before my father had to go back to the Servo he owned to earn some money to be able to carry on so I was left there on my own to continue the work. At 17 I was blowing up stumps with Gelignite. Dad had just enough money to buy a second hand Massey Fergerson 65 tractor which had very poor brakes and I was working on my own beside a creek so one day I told my father that I was concerned about the tractor brakes, his reply, and I quote, " Learn to use it as it is"...I did and I`ve always believed that advice set me up for the many things I have done in my life that so many others wouldn`t even have thought of doing...The moral of my story, " Take responsibility for your own actions!"

 

Having been a farmer until retiring at the age of 60,10 years ago and still riding a quad bike (without a helmet) in the case of the Farmer hiring unskilled backpackers who are experiencing a farm for the first time, I would see the risk of injury being any number of things so by today's standards they probably should never be allowed to go near a farm, let alone given a task involving a Quad Bike!

 

In an accident involving any backpacker on a farm for the first time who then should be held accountable for failing their duty of care, the Farmer or the system that allowed unskilled backers to be employed in the first place?

 

Frank.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not if you’re the employer.

That's just as stupid as some idiot in management who wanted me to have a hardhat.....in case the 12 tonne silo fell on my head.

The reality is that a helmet does bugger all for quad riders, and coincidentally I was reading some stats about them just a couple of days ago.

 

Most of them cop spinal damage. The best way to avoid being a para or quad from riding a quadbike is not to ride like a fool. Something according to the findings she had been warned about several times.

 

In any case the was no law requiring a helmet to be worn. If you can be found at fault for not doing something not required, we have a serious problem with our legal system.

 

My partner is doing a first aid refresher, I would be interested to know what ridiculous outcomes could arise based on some of their questions. According them them you can only be held responsible for something you did AFTER you commence first aid. So with the threat of helping some lawyer by a new Merc, you may be better off just walking away? I don't see that society can possible benefit from possible legal action from helping someone live. Even worse, apparently you should check if there are any cultural considerations before any first aid. Cant wait for the ambulance chaser ads for that scenario.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree farri, you could injure yourself clearing fallen branches from a paddock if you were so inclined.

 

I would like to see "work for the dole" types arriving the farm complete with OHS training including the training of how to politely refuse to do something dangerous. Then the farmer could feel free to employ, if this training replaced the right to sue.

 

There was a local farmer who had a breakdown after getting a threatening lawyer's letter demanding millions for this employee who, against instructions, tried to ( he said) lift something heavy. The farmer might well have won in court, we will never know since he is in a mental hospital now.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
At 16 years of age I was helping my father clear a block of heavy scrub to create a Sugar Cane Farm... It wasn`t long before my father had to go back to the Servo he owned to earn some money to be able to carry on so I was left there on my own to continue the work. At 17 I was blowing up stumps with Gelignite. Dad had just enough money to buy a second hand Massey Fergerson 65 tractor which had very poor brakes and I was working on my own beside a creek so one day I told my father that I was concerned about the tractor brakes, his reply, and I quote, " Learn to use it as it is"...I did and I`ve always believed that advice set me up for the many things I have done in my life that so many others wouldn`t even have thought of doing...The moral of my story, " Take responsibility for your own actions!"

Everyone's entitled to their own morals, but bypassing the law can come at a cost. Allowing someone to operate machinery without any brakes, i.e. doing something you know to be wring is handled by criminal law.

 

A Contractor on Melbourne's western ring road whose Machine Operator told him the brakes were faulty and was given the same advice as you quote, was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment for manslaughter, after an accident in which the machine got out of control, and rolled on the operator, killing him.

 

If you think that's a one off, here's a link to a similar case, where a Company manager was sent to prison for twelve and a half years for manslaughter:

 

Trucking boss jailed for more than 12 years over driver's death

 

These two cases make is clear beyond any doubt about who the law saw responsible for their actions.

 

Having been a farmer until retiring at the age of 60,10 years ago and still riding a quad bike (without a helmet) in the case of the Farmer hiring unskilled backpackers who are experiencing a farm for the first time, I would see the risk of injury being any number of things so by today's standards they probably should never be allowed to go near a farm, let alone given a task involving a Quad Bike!In an accident involving any backpacker on a farm for the first time who then should be held accountable for failing their duty of care, the Farmer or the system that allowed unskilled backers to be employed in the first place?

Farms are now the most dangerous workplaces in Australia.

 

This is not because farming is inherently the most dangerous activity, in some cases there are 7 generations of farmers who have worked a property without an injury.

 

The reason is that industry has improved so substantially that their injury and fatality rate has reduced below the level of the average farmer.

 

There is nothing to stop the farmers following industry, and there is nothing to stop unskilled people doing farm work, just as they do in industry. The difference is that the workers at their expense train for any work involving risk. The ATO (Authority to Operate) system is one example. If you have a chainsaw, and you want an employee to chop up some wood, you employ someone with a chainsaw ATO. And you maintain your equipment to a safe level.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's just as stupid as some idiot in management who wanted me to have a hardhat.....in case the 12 tonne silo fell on my head.

I suppose there might be a situation where a 12 tonne silo fell on your head, but probably not in this world. Perhaps the management person didn't spell it out for you; it's quite common for people, sometimes outside contractors to be working on top of silos, and it's not uncommon for spanners or components to be accidentally kicked or knocked over the side. The Manager was trying to protect you.

 

The reality is that a helmet does bugger all for quad riders, and coincidentally I was reading some stats about them just a couple of days ago.Most of them cop spinal damage. The best way to avoid being a para or quad from riding a quadbike is not to ride like a fool. Something according to the findings she had been warned about several times.

In any case the was no law requiring a helmet to be worn. If you can be found at fault for not doing something not required, we have a serious problem with our legal system.

 

My partner is doing a first aid refresher, I would be interested to know what ridiculous outcomes could arise based on some of their questions. According them them you can only be held responsible for something you did AFTER you commence first aid. So with the threat of helping some lawyer by a new Merc, you may be better off just walking away? I don't see that society can possible benefit from possible legal action from helping someone live. Even worse, apparently you should check if there are any cultural considerations before any first aid. Cant wait for the ambulance chaser ads for that scenario.

I was going back through the records on this site, when I saw that in July 2012 you were saying the same things, and I recommended you go and get some advice from a Public Liability lawyer.

 

Clearly that hasn't happened.

 

Your comments were covered in the case report, here:

 

What farmers need to know about the $12 million quad bike case

 

Following another quad bike rollover on a farm, a precedent has been set where you risk an almost certain financial loss, and a possible criminal conviction if you employ someone to use a Quad Bike without a roll cage and seat belt.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@farri, that's how many a farm were started. You should see our tractor - an old David Brown 780 - hydraulics need help, brakes need help, had the slasher suspended on the back and was wondering why I had no steering control as I was going up one of my hills until I noticed I was only travelling on my two back wheels!! :yikes:.

 

Actually, I thought it was fun except I have no roll cage (nor harness to keep me in!!!). So I dropped the slasher a bit and it was like the nose wheel coming down gently on the one greaser landing I have ever done...

 

@M61A1, I haven't read the court report on the quad bike incident, but I sort of hear what you say.. But, and there's always a but, it is an employers duty to ensure that they mitigate against foreseeable risks to their employees. If they choose to employ d!pships, then they have to wear the consequences unless they up their game for them. Simples.

 

The "it isn't required by law to wear a helmet" argument is a furphy. There is no legal requirement to wear a motorcycle helmet on private land and there is no requirement to wear a helmet when horseriding in public if you are 18 or over. I did my motorcycle L plates with Stayupright (great company - highly recommend them if they are still around) on the disused RAAF airfield in Laverton. Private property - but do you think they would let us ride without a helmet - not on your nelly. Learners and possibility of coming off is too much of a risk and they would have been held liable for it. And show me a horseriding school that will allow students on without a helmet (or even experienced riders) - public or private roads. No hope in hell. No law requires it... but they will be liable under tort law for not mitigating obvious risk because they have a duty of care.

 

@turboplanner - I know at least one of those cases as I worked at the Vic Workcover Authority for a very short period of time.. I also read the Barooga case court reports (well, excerpts).. and when one sees the facts, you're quite right - liability did sit with Berrigan shire, however, they did find contributory negligence, and reduce the damages.. which at law is the correct technical approach. We can argue whether the extend of contributory negligence was set at the correct level, but that is a judgement call which will be based on many factors, not least that of public policy.

 

@Bruce Tuncks - not a bad idea - though I would include the words what would be reasonably judged by the man on the Clapham omnibus (or the Aussie version of that, which I can't recall Turbo's rendition) a being dangerous.. And it is sad in the case of the farmer you mentioned - it shows that the farmer was probably already under significant stress of some sort to be honest, but it is inexcusable that lawyers start off with aggressive communication. In criminal law, there is the concept of the egghell principle.. If you hit (and intend to hit) someone on the head with a soft blow and because their skull is thin as an egshell, it crumples and they die or a blood vessel bursts, then you are liable to manslaughter/murder or grevious bodily harm (has the same maximum sentence as murder believe it or not - in the UK) and the fact that they were weaker than the average person is no defence. I know that is the same principle in Victoria. [edit] lawyers, debt collectors, etc should be under the same principle IMHO

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought provoking statistic: on NZ farms, the age-group most at risk of serious quad-bike accidents are the 50-60s.

 

Make of that what you will..........

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this OHS stuff is going to continue while food is so cheap its taken for granted. You can attack your food supply in safety.

 

And its not surprising that the age of quad bike accidents is high among 50-60 ages, the average age of a farmer is about that. As I have said before, here's me at 70 working in the fields while in the district there are 300 newstart recipients able to stay in bed till noon.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
All of this OHS stuff is going to continue while food is so cheap its taken for granted. You can attack your food supply in safety.And its not surprising that the age of quad bike accidents is high among 50-60 ages, the average age of a farmer is about that. As I have said before, here's me at 70 working in the fields while in the district there are 300 newstart recipients able to stay in bed till noon.

We’ve discussed your wish to raid Newstart candidates at length to pick up sticks on the farm for peanuts. As the name implies, the Government’s intention is to create new careers and stick picking isn’t one of them. Go and buy an old buck rake for ten bucks, get someone to take the rake bar off and fit 3 pl mounts and you can rake them up with the tractor and burn them. Edenhope is not surrounded by dense forest.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
A Contractor on Melbourne's western ring road whose Machine Operator told him the brakes were faulty and was given the same advice as you quote, was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment for manslaughter, after an accident in which the machine got out of control, and rolled on the operator, killing him. If you think that's a one-off, here's a link to a similar case, where a Company manager was sent to prison for twelve and a half years for manslaughter:Trucking boss jailed for more than 12 years over driver's death level.

I started my own cane harvesting contract business at the age of 23 and for a number of years, I was an Employer so I wouldn`t argue that an employer shouldn`t have a responsibility to their employees, but I would argue that an Employee also has a responsibility to themselves.

 

In your post, you`ve said the machine Operator told the Ring Road Contractor that the brakes were faulty, therefore, the operator knew there was a problem with the brakes so regardless of the order or advice that was given by the Contractor to the Operator, the Operator should have refused to operate the machine but continued to operate it.

 

I know a guy who owned a Gold Mine on the Palmer River, knew that the truck his son was driving had faulty brakes, the son eventually had an accident and was killed, the guy was charged and jailed.

 

Frank

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose there might be a situation where a 12 tonne silo fell on your head, but probably not in this world. Perhaps the management person didn't spell it out for you; it's quite common for people, sometimes outside contractors to be working on top of silos, and it's not uncommon for spanners or components to be accidentally kicked or knocked over the side. The Manager was trying to protect you.

The manager was covering has arxe.... I was transitioning it from horizontal upright on a CTB plant using the plant's hydraulic cylinder. The silo rises like a tipper until vertical then braces are installed. I was installing the braces. If I was dumb enough to be under it and due to some failure of the laws of physics , it fell on my head, no $15 piece of plastic is going to change anything but the splatter pattern. Guaranteed, no-one on top. But nice try.

 

I recommended you go and get some advice from a Public Liability lawyer.Clearly that hasn't happened.

Clearly you have forgotten, so I will repeat myself yet again.....I understand how it works....I just object to it...I consider they system to be utterly broken and more destructive than helpful. Consider this analogy: I understand how a Hillman Hunter works, but I despise them, because they didn't have to built the way they were, and yet still they were.

Public liability lawyers are not there for the good of society, there there to make money regardless of the cost to society.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Plane lands in paddock, occupants uninjured!!!!!!!Plane comes down in paddock near Auckland's Ardmore Airport

Sounds like the local news...A man/woman was injured today when the car they were driving ran into tree.

As though the driver had nothing to do with it, they just happed to be there.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the quad bike thing it is interesting to note that the SA State Emergency Service have removed ALL quad bikes from service and disposed of them. Units doing land search operations are now supplied with side by side vehicles like the Polaris, Can Am et al.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I started my own cane harvesting contract business at the age of 23 and for a number of years, I was an Employer so I wouldn`t argue that an employer shouldn`t have a responsibility to their employees, but I would argue that an Employee also has a responsibility to themselves.In your post, you`ve said the machine Operator told the Ring Road Contractor that the brakes were faulty, therefore, the operator knew there was a problem with the brakes so regardless of the order or advice that was given by the Contractor to the Operator, the Operator should have refused to operate the machine but continued to operate it.

 

I know a guy who owned a Gold Mine on the Palmer River, knew that the truck his son was driving had faulty brakes, the son eventually had an accident and was killed, the guy was charged and jailed.

 

Frank

The Ring Road fatality was a culpable negligence trial, rather than a public liability claim, and from memory the employee had reported the brake issue on a number of occasions but was told "don't like it, leave". The widespread coercion which used to occur is progressively being stamped out by Chain of Responsibility laws.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
The manager was covering has arxe.... I was transitioning it from horizontal upright on a CTB plant using the plant's hydraulic cylinder. The silo rises like a tipper until vertical then braces are installed. I was installing the braces. If I was dumb enough to be under it and due to some failure of the laws of physics , it fell on my head, no $15 piece of plastic is going to change anything but the splatter pattern. Guaranteed, no-one on top. But nice try.Clearly you have forgotten, so I will repeat myself yet again.....I understand how it works....I just object to it...I consider they system to be utterly broken and more destructive than helpful. Consider this analogy: I understand how a Hillman Hunter works, but I despise them, because they didn't have to built the way they were, and yet still they were.

 

Public liability lawyers are not there for the good of society, there there to make money regardless of the cost to society.

Unfortunately for you these laws are not optional.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
All of this OHS stuff is going to continue while food is so cheap its taken for granted. /QUOTE]Farm production has already started to move away from manual handling. The grain industry started it with bulk handling equipment and bigger properties, and the properties are now being consolidated from family-owned, to much bigger company-owned blocks, where mechanisation can be used for safer production at a lower price, so it will take care of itself.

So the likely scenario is that you will make a bundle selling, along with 20 or 30 other farmers to a big corporation which will knock down the fences and process mind boggling volumes.

 

It's interesting that we've been there before in terms of land holding sizes in the south east and western districts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbs, I wish you could come up with some good ideas to provide well-paid employment for the newstart people.

 

The chimanzees at Monarto zoo have more attention paid to their mental health than unemployed people do. Idle apes develop mental health problems, so they have found ways to keep them occupied.

 

So it is with people. Its cruel to leave them without anything worthwhile to do. Remember the Snowtown murders? Unemployed and ignored so they went crazy and found some nasty ways to fill their time.

 

So be my guest Turbs. I reckon a few hours a week helping the taxpayers who pay their welfare would be a worthwhile start, but another idea would be welcome. You could sort of copy the zoo people and hide their dole-money under rocks for them to forage for, but maybe you will come up with better than that.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tourboplanner

 

These laws Are optional in the premise, Don't do what the law say's is unlawful!, Against the law to ride a motorbike without a helmet, simple stop being a motor-cyclist.

 

Bruce

 

"I would like to see "work for the dole" types arriving the farm complete with OHS training including the training of how to politely refuse to do something dangerous".

 

My son in-law was a skilled worker. The council decided to take over his employer.

 

But not the work crew, Then said council invokes "work for the dole scheme and pays them $25 on top of their dole money to employ a full workforce WITHOUT protective equipment as they should have their old stuff to use.

 

Never trust any employer,

 

spacesailor

 

 

  • Helpful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Care to explain the "caution" Turbo?

 

We see news reports like that almost daily. I guess I might be able to forgive them, as the standard of driving around here is so bad. Many are so far behind the vehicle, they may as well just be passengers, .

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Care to explain the "caution" Turbo?We see news reports like that almost daily. I guess I might be able to forgive them, as the standard of driving around here is so bad. Many are so far behind the vehicle, they may as well just be passengers, .

Sorry, mistake, just took it off.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...