Public Liability

[skippydiesel]

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

This one's a bit unusual in that Victoria's TAC was involved, but it includes the normal elements: a duty of care was owed, the duty of care was breached. It also inludes the exlanation that it wasn't intentional.

 

This would be of interest to someone who loans or hires and aircraft.

WX00161.pdf 1.06 MB · 8 downloads

Not sure if there is any great revelation here - duty of care, by employer/service (hire vehicle, aircraft) to provider to provide a safe vehicle/work environment is well established/understood by most.

[turboplanner]

13 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Not sure if there is any great revelation here - duty of care, by employer/service (hire vehicle, aircraft) to provider to provide a safe vehicle/work environment is well established/understood by most.

So many people don't understand the reversal of responsibility from the old prescriptive days when employers would give employees unroadworthy vehicles and just pay the fines when eventually one of their vehicles was caught in the random road blitzes which used to be run.

[turboplanner]

Plane crash victims' families sue Gippsland Company from Sweden.

Story Source: The Age, August 5, 2023. Journalist: Tom Cowie.

 

I've attached the story below:

 

This could be settled out of Court, but if it isn't, it could provide some lessons on what advice should be given when you provide an aircraft/service.

 

 

(On my computer the pdf lands in an in tray in the ribbon at the top of the page.)

 

 

WX00238.pdf

Edited August 5, 2023 by turboplanner

[aro]

"One of their arguments is that the manual lacked instructions on how to maintain the plane’s centre of gravity while people were moving in the plane."

 

I found a GA8 parachute operations supplement online dated 2009. Under Weight and balance it says:

 

no more than five (5) parachutists may congregate aft of the forward edge of the cabin door exit with no more than three (3) outside of the aircraft.

...

Parachutists inside the cabin should remain as forward as practically possible.

 

Seems pretty explicit... I'm not sure what else they could do.

 

More likely, the parachuting organization ignored the instructions in the manual. I suspect that happens a lot. Another similar case:

 

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/pilot-says-skydive-king-air-spun-after-c-of-g-exceeded/

[onetrack]

The Swedes are whistling into the wind trying to lay the blame on Airvan. There are many instances of aircraft going out of control whilst dropping parachutists, and the primary problem is invariably associated with inadequate company and pilot procedures for keeping control over C of G whilst parachutists are exiting the aircraft.

 

It's unfair to blame Airvan for events over which there are many variables, and into which individual events, Airvan had no input. It's basic airmanship to keep C of G within the defined limits.

 

Below is a thorough accident report involving a Lockheed Lodestar from 1949.

This accident report is invaluable because it contains witness information from surviving parachutists who jumped after the Lodestar went out of control - and evidence from other pilots who had had their Lodestars spin out of control after their C of G went too far aft because of poor parachutist movement control.

 

https://www.baaa-acro.com/sites/default/files/2020-03/N116CA.pdf

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, aro said:

"One of their arguments is that the manual lacked instructions on how to maintain the plane’s centre of gravity while people were moving in the plane."

 

I found a GA8 parachute operations supplement online dated 2009. Under Weight and balance it says:

Seems pretty explicit... I'm not sure what else they could do.

 

So far there's not much indication of which direction the case will go in, but perhaps it will be about what information the manufacturer actually communicated to that group via x channels.

 

We lost a case where a small child being held by a parent was injured  by a piece if flying debris from the race cars. Our defence was that "everyone knows motor racing is dangerous". The Plaintiff's lawyers presented an ad for the "family event" and the judge found we hadn't communicated that there was a risk.

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

The Swedes are whistling into the wind trying to lay the blame on Airvan. There are many instances of aircraft going out of control whilst dropping parachutists, and the primary problem is invariably associated with inadequate company and pilot procedures for keeping control over C of G whilst parachutists are exiting the aircraft.

 

It's unfair to blame Airvan for events over which there are many variables, and into which individual events, Airvan had no input. It's basic airmanship to keep C of G within the defined limits.

 

Below is a thorough accident report involving a Lockheed Lodestar from 1949.

This accident report is invaluable because it contains witness information from surviving parachutists who jumped after the Lodestar went out of control - and evidence from other pilots who had had their Lodestars spin out of control after their C of G went too far aft because of poor parachutist movement control.

 

https://www.baaa-acro.com/sites/default/files/2020-03/N116CA.pdf

This is about the Public Liability process rather than the cause of the accident which probably has already been decided in Sweden, so it would be centreing around reasonably forseeable risks and duty of care. 

 

The Victorian Supreme Court has already ruled that the case will proceed in Victoria, which has been declared appropriate by Justice Dixon.

 

It's too early to tell, but looking like the case may be based on communication.

[spacesailor]

Talking of fore & after c g ! .

A trijet lost elevator control , ( worn worm screw )  & only just made a landing.

Could using ' pax ' to move C of G to enhance Flyability.  

It seems a little far-fetched that All those ' searbelted people ' would not help ' themselves ' to keep ' Their ' aircraft in a stable' flight configuration .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

They'd have to have a better knowledge than the average passenger does about aircraft balance. IF you are  hand flyinng a Jet above say 330 when passengers etc move around you are flat out keeping it within 500 ft of where you want it. ABV 310 without autopilot you REQUIRE 2,000 ft separation on levels by law.. This is considered an ABNORMAL operation which would require you to notify ATC and they would have to apply the extra separation. That could be you being required to fly at 310 or lower or just keeping other aircraft away. Passengers by and large would NOT have a CLUE.  An exception would be the One of the American Airlines planes that crashed short of it's target. and I guess the cabin crew heroes have a major part of that. Nev

[facthunter]

On this Paradropping thing doing it in a 182 mostly but generally It's the MOST critical and  risky flying I've EVER participated in.  Your meat bombs are out one side and they want you to fly slow with the engine idling.. I'va also dropped one out of the front af a DH82 Tiger Moth and when they get up to climb out the side they block the rudder.  I don't know who is the Maddest, The pilot (probably ) or the others jumping out of a perfectly sound aeroplane that is near flicking on it's back.  Nev

[aro]

I think the blame most likely lies with the operator.

 

But the lawyer's job is to get the best result for their clients, where the best result is the largest pay out possible.

 

One organization has folded, and I suspect the other one doesn't have a large insurance policy. So the lawyers move to the next in line who has deep pockets and/or a sizeable insurance policy, and try to convince them that a settlement would be better than risking a court case.

 

Most public liability cases are a game of lawyer chicken, where neither side wants to go to court, but wants the other side to give in to avoid it.

[turboplanner]

A lot of comments so far, but the reason I started this thread was to show the specialised nature of Public Liability cases which are simply about whether a Duty of Care was owed to someone and whether there was proof is was breached and by whom.

 

What we know so far is just an announcement that a case is due to be heard in the Melbourne Supreme Court.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Links to:

 

The Victorian Supreme Court Judgement regarding whether the case could be heard in Victoria and why.

 

Note that in Item 13 the alleged Duty of Care owed is referred to

Note that in Item 14 the alleged breaches of that Duty of Care are referred to

 

Kvist v GippsAero Pty Ltd & Anor [2023] VSC 275, Dixon J, 30 May 2023

 

Comments on the case by Law firm CarterCapner.

https://cartercapner.com.au/blog/swedish-families-sue-in-australia-for-parachute-air-crash-defects/

 

The Plaintiffs now have to decide what to do next.

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by turboplanner

[Student Pilot]

Seems legal jeopardy has grown exponentially in the last 20 years or so and that's impacted everything from children's playgrounds to insurance costs. Seems no answer apart from making legal the main requirement to everything you do. Legals make up the biggest cost with the likes of class actions, the aggrieved get a tiny percentage of the payout, the majority goes to law firms. 

[turboplanner]

14 minutes ago, Student Pilot said:

Seems legal jeopardy has grown exponentially in the last 20 years or so and that's impacted everything from children's playgrounds to insurance costs.

Where have you been?, the precedent case was in 1932.

What did shift, affecting most of us directly was a double fatality at a kindergarten in South Australia towards the mid 1980s.

 

14 minutes ago, Student Pilot said:

Seems no answer apart from making legal the main requirement to everything you do.

Go talk to a Public Liability law firm to find out how to operate. Pobably about the cost of 1 or 2 hours flyinjg.

 

14 minutes ago, Student Pilot said:

Legals make up the biggest cost with the likes of class actions, the aggrieved get a tiny percentage of the payout, the majority goes to law firms. 

The cases I was involved in centred around getting the injured's costs covered. For a Quadriplegic, that was around $11 million for house alterations, medical equipment on site, 24 hour nurses on site for maybe 30-40 years etc.

[Student Pilot]

On top of the 11m payout what were the legal cost's?

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Student Pilot said:

On top of the 11m payout what were the legal cost's?

Approx $2 million (scaling up from old cases.)

If you want information relating to crop spraying, best to contact one of the PL lawyers like Nationally: Maurice Blackburn, Shine, Slater & Gordon.

Warrnambool: Arnold Thomas Becker, Stringer Clark, Maddens, Gordon Legal, Miller & knight,

Geelong: Maurice Blackburn

[turboplanner]

Blimp explodes Frankston - Story: The Age 27/8/23, Journalist: Tom Cowie

Full story attached.

Highlights: 

• One in intensive care for six months
• Claim: Supplier failed to advise it had supplied a mix of hydrogen & helium.
• Claim:Supplier didn't provide them with safe way of reinflating blimp.

 

I don't have any idea of how this will pan out, but it involves giving advice and also supply method to the aircraft.

 

WQ10375.pdf

Edited August 26, 2023 by turboplanner

[turboplanner]

Note: This is a workplace health and safety court action; any public liability cases would usually wait until these cases were decided.

 

Jumping castle operator pleads not guilty to Hillcrest deaths

A jumping castle operator charged with workplace safety breaches over the Hillcrest Primary School tragedy, in which six children died, has pleaded not guilty.

Chace Harrison, Jalailah Jayne-Maree Jones, Zane Mellor, Addison Stewart, Jye Sheehan and Peter Dodt were killed after the inflatable castle was lifted into the air in December 2021.

Flowers blanket the front lawn of Hillcrest Primary School following the tragedy.

CREDIT: MARTA PASCUAL JUANOLA

 

They were enjoying end-of-year celebrations with classmates on the oval of the school in Devonport in Tasmania’s northwest.

Rosemary Anne Gamble, the operator of a company called Taz-Zorb which supplied and set up the castle, was charged in November with failing to comply with workplace health and safety requirements.

Gamble appeared in Devonport Magistrates Court on Friday and pleaded not guilty.

She was granted bail and is due to face court in March.

It is alleged the castle was tethered at four of its eight anchorage points.

It is also alleged pegs were not installed at the recommended 45-degree angle, and pegs recommended by the manufacturer, or a suitable alternative, weren’t used.

According to court documents, seven students were on the castle when a “significant” weather event occurred, causing it to become dislodged and airborne.

They fell from the castle, while a blower attached to the castle to keep it inflated struck a nearby student.

Gamble allegedly failed to ensure the anchorage system was sufficient to prevent the castle from lifting and failed to ensure there was a peg at each anchor point in line with the manufacturer’s instructions.

Source – AAP/The Age 2/2/24

[jackc]

For ANY insurance these days, you pay the premium and sign on the line. From then on you HOPE, as most policies are loaded with escape clauses that can make them worthless when the chips are down.  AND you will go broke proving the policy should have covered you for your adverse event.

[facthunter]

ASK the repairers which Insurance companies are good to deal with. THEY know.  Nev

[turboplanner]

22 minutes ago, facthunter said:

ASK the repairers which Insurance companies are good to deal with. THEY know.  Nev

We're talking about people here; the repairers are the medical profession.

[jackc]

 

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

We're talking about people here; the repairers are the medical profession.

  Public Liability Insurance is a necessary evil for many, however many policies are  full of evil escape clauses.  The mere fact you have taken out some form of Public Liability insurance against an adverse event, protects the people you are undertaking work or event organisation for. They are covered, but depend on circumstance you may not be covered and may spend a lot of money, enforcing you claim.

 

[turboplanner]

4 minutes ago, jackc said:

 

  Public Liability Insurance is a necessary evil for many, however many policies are  full of evil escape clauses.  The mere fact you have taken out some form of Public Liability insurance against an adverse event, protects the people you are undertaking work or event organisation for. They are covered, but depend on circumstance you may not be covered and may spend a lot of money, enforcing you claim.

 

You are insuring yourself for your costs if there is a reasonably forseeable risk in what you are doing and you have a duty of care to eliminate the risk and you breach that duty of care and someone is injured.

The injured person sues you in a civil court so you could be up for your legal costs their legal costs and the amount awarded to them. 

I've been posting examples of actual cases, so people can see how the process works and what decisions the courts make.

[facthunter]

I reckon you are morally obligated to insure, to ensure the aggrieved person(s) get compensation  they have every right to expect.  Nev