Jump to content

Negligence vs Insurance where does this leave us


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is a case of how our ridiculous litigation system works for the benefit of lawyers who spin the carrot of Money to their clients. In my opinion all the people telling her about entitlement, pushi

I have been traumatised myself I reading all of this, watching the video and looking at some photographs.   Where is my compensation please ?

That may be the case, but sooner or later someone has to call this kind of rubbish out. It's blatantly bullsh1t and it's costs us all monetarily and with added regs/restrictions. More people shou

Posted Images

31 minutes ago, graham brown said:

https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/7038648/ferris-wheel-plane-crash-victim-gets-15m/

This sad story continues and it raises the question of where does it leave us the pilots. Stuff up a go around and you could be ruined. 

Well the plane crash victim only got 1.5 million, not 15 million, so RAA members with RAA PL Insurance would probably have had that one covered.

I haven't been following to payouts to make a current judgement, but it would pay to have about $15 million if you take up a passenger to cover the chances of the person becomeing a quadriplegic and requiring lifetime care, and a lot more if you are flying at airports where RPT regional services operate in case you kill multiple passengers.

 

That incident is complex because several people were suing several other people, and there still could be more cases to be heard involving different plaintiffs and defendants, but there should be a transcript available somewhere so see which points of law were considered and ruled on.

 

However, with suitable PL Insurance you shouldn't have been ruined in that type of incident.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, walrus said:

she wasnt a victim at all. She didnt get a scratch. She was "traumatised".

Public liability law has its own set of precedentsdefinitions and conditions and they are what the decisions are made on, so we don't have to diagnose those.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Public liability law has its own set of precedentsdefinitions and conditions and they are what the decisions are made on, so we don't have to diagnose those.

That may be the case, but sooner or later someone has to call this kind of rubbish out. It's blatantly bullsh1t and it's costs us all monetarily and with added regs/restrictions.

More people should be objecting instead of jumping on the bandwagon.

I know that you believe that it's all perfectly fine, but it's steadily taking us down a very sh1tty road to a very bad place.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, M61A1 said:

That may be the case, but sooner or later someone has to call this kind of rubbish out. It's blatantly bullsh1t and it's costs us all monetarily and with added regs/restrictions.

More people should be objecting instead of jumping on the bandwagon.

I know that you believe that it's all perfectly fine, but it's steadily taking us down a very sh1tty road to a very bad place.

What has changed since 1932?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Well the plane crash victim only got 1.5 million, not 15 million, so RAA members with RAA PL Insurance would probably have had that one covered.

I haven't been following to payouts to make a current judgement, but it would pay to have about $15 million if you take up a passenger to cover the chances of the person becomeing a quadriplegic and requiring lifetime care, and a lot more if you are flying at airports where RPT regional services operate in case you kill multiple passengers.

 

That incident is complex because several people were suing several other people, and there still could be more cases to be heard involving different plaintiffs and defendants, but there should be a transcript available somewhere so see which points of law were considered and ruled on.

 

However, with suitable PL Insurance you shouldn't have been ruined in that type of incident.

Last time the RAAus insurance was raised on this forum  I looked at it and read the actual schedule.
 

As best I recall the maximum payout for a single incident for personal injury was $250,000.
The stated $10M in the headings of the cover is for non-personal injury stuff - structures, other aircraft etc. 

 

so in this case the RAAus member might  be left in financial trouble. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

What has changed since 1932?

 

We've been through this time and time again.....While the law may not have changed, the precedents for what you might might get you a payout have been getting gradually more and more ridiculous.

Again, you need to understand that I get how it works....I just think how it works is utterly wrong and in many ways, very unfair, and that this is a difference of opinion as you feel that it works just fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In surveying landing areas the splay is always there for a REASON. Planes don't always track straight down the middle of the runway. Ignoring the accepted method is the prime error. The location of the Ferris Wheel was illegal. How that can just be ignored puzzles me. PLANES use aerodromes not ferris wheels. Nev 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, M61A1 said:

We've been through this time and time again.....While the law may not have changed, the precedents for what you might might get you a payout have been getting gradually more and more ridiculous.

Again, you need to understand that I get how it works....I just think how it works is utterly wrong and in many ways, very unfair, and that this is a difference of opinion as you feel that it works just fine.

Can you give us some examples?

I've watched the payouts closely for the last 30 years, and the ones I've seen have increased, but simply to match increased medical costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, facthunter said:

In surveying landing areas the splay is always there for a REASON. Planes don't always track straight down the middle of the runway. Ignoring the accepted method is the prime error. The location of the Ferris Wheel was illegal. How that can just be ignored puzzles me. PLANES use aerodromes not ferris wheels. Nev 

I mentioned earlier there were several people suing several people and it may not all be over, which is why I didn't comment on the splay.

 

Just talking generally, if I owned an airfield and wanted to dig some drainage ditches on one runway, I could do it subject to mitigating forseeable risks.

I wont get into what I could do or what the Airfield Manager could do or what the pilot could do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Can you give us some examples?

I've watched the payouts closely for the last 30 years, and the ones I've seen have increased, but simply to match increased medical costs.

I'm not talking about monetary value, but you know that. What is/was considered "reasonable" has gradually drifted so that thing that have happened more recently have managed to get payouts and wouldn't have 40 years ago. I'm not going digging and wasting more time on it, but I recall a truck driver suing about his bad back because the  air steps on his frightliner didn't work properly, a drunk falling off the footpath and getting a payout after being hit by a driver, an idiot on a quad bike in Tassie (you posted),  I personally know a guy who got a payout after injuring his ankle on a fishing trip because "It's not his fault that the deck moved " (on a boat in open water mind you) and this thread. None of these pass the "pub test" yet we have lawyers out there finding a way to set new precedents with such incidents and make them someone else's fault and magistrates/judges who happily oblige.

l

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Jaba-who said:

Last time the RAAus insurance was raised on this forum  I looked at it and read the actual schedule.
 

As best I recall the maximum payout for a single incident for personal injury was $250,000.
The stated $10M in the headings of the cover is for non-personal injury stuff - structures, other aircraft etc. 

 

so in this case the RAAus member might  be left in financial trouble. 

 

Well you've shocked me because I'm pretty sure someone came on here and told us the $250,000 had been increased. Maybe they didn't understand and got it back to front

If that's what the policy covers, people need to take out PL Insurance asap.

 

This case shows that it's quite easy to use up all the $250,000.00

These figures aren't necseearily up to date or even accurate, but a death for which you are responsible will usually add up to $2 or $3 million per person, and a youg quadriplegic who will need house remodeling and nursing care for life about $10 to $15 million.   Most PL policies start at $10 million cover these days and are not expensive.

 

If you fly near regional RPT services you also have to consider the cost if you got in the way of a Dash 8 and sent it into the ground, so you would need a bigger policy.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court has made the judgement in this case that the girl was injured psychologically and could not work or realise her potential. She has been awarded her wages for the rest of her life. The pilot was told by the Supreme Court that he may have had psychological issues as a result of the accident but his claim against the council was not upheld. The Supreme Court and the judge have the evidence and make decisions accordingly.  

Why is the pilot treated different from the girl?

The court makes decisions according to law and expectations of society. The law may not have changed but expectations are changing.

To change the system you have to react in some way.

Paying your insurance and doing no more won’t change anything.

Was the girls claim not worthy? We have trust the court.

Was the pilots claim turned down because he was older? 

Heaps of questions for me and how to react.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, M61A1 said:

I'm not talking about monetary value, but you know that. What is/was considered "reasonable" has gradually drifted so that thing that have happened more recently have managed to get payouts and wouldn't have 40 years ago. I'm not going digging and wasting more time on it, but I recall a truck driver suing about his bad back because the  air steps on his frightliner didn't work properly, a drunk falling off the footpath and getting a payout after being hit by a driver, an idiot on a quad bike in Tassie (you posted),  I personally know a guy who got a payout after injuring his ankle on a fishing trip because "It's not his fault that the deck moved " (on a boat in open water mind you) and this thread. None of these pass the "pub test" yet we have lawyers out there finding a way to set new precedents with such incidents and make them someone else's fault and magistrates/judges who happily oblige.

l

Nothing has changed:

The plaintiff has to prove negligence, has to prove it in Court.

There has to have been a duty of care to prevent a reasonably forseeable risk.

The Defenant must have breached that duty.

 

You've left out the key ingredient in all those cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, graham brown said:

The Supreme Court has made the judgement in this case that the girl was injured psychologically and could not work or realise her potential. She has been awarded her wages for the rest of her life. The pilot was told by the Supreme Court that he may have had psychological issues as a result of the accident but his claim against the council was not upheld. The Supreme Court and the judge have the evidence and make decisions accordingly.  

Why is the pilot treated different from the girl?

The court makes decisions according to law and expectations of society. The law may not have changed but expectations are changing.

To change the system you have to react in some way.

Paying your insurance and doing no more won’t change anything.

Was the girls claim not worthy? We have trust the court.

Was the pilots claim turned down because he was older? 

Heaps of questions for me and how to react.

I believe you are talking about two separate Cases, and earlier one between the Council and the Pilot, and then this one with the girl.

I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea what weighting or strategy might have been used in each case or what evidence was judged.

If you get the transcripst and study them, you'll get some idea of why each person received a different result. If these things were simple we wouldn't need lawyers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I believe you are talking about two separate Cases, and earlier one between the Council and the Pilot, and then this one with the girl.

I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea what weighting or strategy might have been used in each case or what evidence was judged.

If you get the transcripst and study them, you'll get some idea of why each person received a different result. If these things were simple we wouldn't need lawyers.

The Judge made the statement in the same statement, so the difference stood out to me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, graham brown said:

The Judge made the statement in the same statement, so the difference stood out to me.

 

Do you have a copy of the statement so we can see the full information?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

was the Ferris wheel reasonably located ?

That airstrip is a certified aerodrome, isnt it ?, would the placement of the Ferris wheel have changed that ?

or is that not the main airport ? I will dig. I am not familiar with the air at that location..

OK read  the report

I see.... a heritage strip.

a bit piss poor to put the Ferris wheel there ! 

 

Hmm the report brings up a number of issues over a broad range of aspects.

 

Edited by RFguy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

as I read this it was the pilot who was suing the Council and the organisers of the fair and he lost because payment is to the defendants.

 

It must've been really bad representation for and on behalf of the pilot because negligence is solely with the positioning of the Ferris wheel being inside the profile for the airstrip. If the airstrip was shut and he flew into the Ferris wheel then it would be the pilots fault (in my opinion),  the airstrip was however open and the Ferris wheel inside the airstrip profiles. This is no different than some idiot doing burnouts on the runway while you are landing and you run into him, how can it be your fault when the other party is operating/acting illegally ?

 

Sometimes, I just don't understand judgements from people who don't know anything about aviation, the rules and regulations. In this case it is obvious that the pilots legal counsel did not get the message across

Link to post
Share on other sites

All publically-accessible court cases are available on the AustLII (Australasian Legal Information Institute) database website. Legal actions that are suppressed from public accessibility, such as Family Court actions, are not available.

 

If you know a persons name involved in a lawsuit, you can find that lawsuit easily on that site, using the site search.

 

The entire transcript of every lawsuit, and any associated lawsuits links, is listed. It can make for pretty heavy reading, you need to put aside some hours to cover the precise detail of every case.

 

The Judges summaries make for enlightening reading, particularly where the Judges pass their opinion on the evidence presented, and the reliability of witnesses, defendants, and claimants statements.

 

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2020/1710.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Amber Christine Arndell

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree on the bad representation

The best thing to fight on are facts and rules that are not open to interpretion. 

 

The ATSB report doesnt help  the pilot's plight.  That would be a key weakness if there was a Jury.

 

Without  a Jury, the case could be run purely on the facts, which would come all the way back to the position of the Ferris wheel, and it wouldnt matter if the pilot was drunk.

 

I only ever make my technical arguments on measureable , uncontestable items.

Edited by RFguy
  • Like 1
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...