Public Liability

[turboplanner]

19 minutes ago, facthunter said:

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

I agree; in many cases a husband may be injured to the point of not being able to bring in a living, or a wife left to bring up young children without any income, or a person injured to the point of needing specialist medical care around the clock for the remainder of their life. 

[jackc]

Now if  the holder of your policy tries to find a reason to deny you claim? Then you end up in crippling litigation in which you cannot afford to defend yourself?

Then the policy holder goes down the drain.

Years ago the PDS was on the back page of policies, now it a Los Angeles sized phone book of gobldegook and escape clauses, unfortunately. 

 

[turboplanner]

22 minutes ago, jackc said:

Now if  the holder of your policy tries to find a reason to deny you claim? Then you end up in crippling litigation in which you cannot afford to defend yourself?

Then the policy holder goes down the drain.

Years ago the PDS was on the back page of policies, now it a Los Angeles sized phone book of gobldegook and escape clauses, unfortunately. 

 

Well I imagine someone who promoted flying without a licence or medical, flying unregistered, flying a non-approved type etc. could face some difficulties, but most of the newspaper reports about these accidents don't mention issues with policies.

Edited February 3 by turboplanner

[facthunter]

You only find out IF your Insurer is any good WHEN you make a claim. Up till then it's all heresay and hope.  IF you don't pay much,  don't expect much Too good to be true is often  true.  Nev

[skippydiesel]

2 hours ago, jackc said:

 

 "Public Liability Insurance is a necessary evil ........................"

 

This is true under Australian & US systems BUT is it true for the rest of the developed World?

 

I have heard (true/false?) that NZ has a very diffrent system where the  "injured/aggrieved" parties must apply to the Government for compensation. The aggrieved party can not sue the offender. The Government decides what action will be taken against the offender and what compensation is due to the aggrieved. This cuts out the ambulance chasing law business and puts public liability into the hands of impartial assessors, removed the need for personal liability.

 

In my ignorant opinion, the Australian system has developed to benefit a particular group of lawyers, has inbuilt escalation in its execution and is a long way from natural justice.

 

Years ago I met a man, injured in a mining incident. The injury was such, that he would never be able to work in a physically demanding environment again. His age made it unlikly he could successfully retrain and expect to earn anything like his former salary. The mining company admitted liability but were unable to pay compensation to the man, until the matter had been heard and ruled on by a court. He and his family had to engage lawyers to argue their case,  wait two years for the ruling to be handed down (mining company liable) to get the pay out. This sort of abuse of the law is manifestly inefficient & unjust - WE ALL PAY for this ridiculous adversarial system that ultimately only benefits the aforementioned ambulance chasing lawyers.

Edited February 3 by skippydiesel

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

This is true under Australian & US systems BUT is it true for the rest of the developed World?

 

I have heard (true/false?) that NZ has a very diffrent system where the  "injured/aggrieved" parties must apply to the Government for compensation. The aggrieved party can not sue the offender. The Government decides what action will be taken against the offender and what compensation is due to the aggrieved. This cuts out the ambulance chasing law business and puts public liability into the hands of impartial assessors, removed the need for personal liability.

Last time I checked, the 1932 Scottish precedent Donoghue v. Stevenson  was the basis for the Australian, US, UK and NZ  PL principles.

 

Australia handles PL for road accidents through the governments as "Third Party" where ithe injured are looked after by the Government.

 

NZ as you mentioned extends this to everything.

 

US seems to vary by the State.

 

Australia handles PL for road accidents through the governments as "Third Party" where the injured are looked after by the Government.

 

Up to the mid 1980s Australia also handled liability for everthing else; it wasn't a free for all by any means because they decided what you could do, where the safety barriers were, how many spectators etc. and if you had a busines or engaged in a risky sport you had to comply with that. Victoria's Department of Labour and Industry would have Inspectors come in and go through a factory, tagging some machines banned for use until fixed etc. and the people of the day would write letters to the papers complaining about the cost to business. Over the years corruption set in and the Inspector would be taken to lunch, dangerous tools disappeared into locked rooms, guards were quickly fitted, abd the inpector after a long lunch would be carefully walked around the dangerous machinery. Sports were open slather; deaths were accepted as being part of the sport. A kindergarten trajedy in South Australia ended that era, and meetings of State and Commonwealth Ministers had meetings and decided costs were getting out of hand and likely to explode. The Ministers for Sport met in Perth, and decided to walk away from most sports including Speedway where the NSW Minister came back and handed responsibility for Speedway to the NSW Police who reacted badly. The Victorian Minister was also thingking about Vicpol and we had a crisis meeting and I drew the short straw to front up to the Victorian Minister who said "Would you guys like to run it?" and we had one of the first Self Administered Sports. It's worked for 39 years since, but sports participants have to manage and pay the financial penality if they don't.

 

Re you're comment about Ambulance chasers; I think you are referring to Product Liability the liability laws that affected Cessna, Piper, Beechworth abd various makes of cars such as the Corvair and Ford Pinto.  This is a completely separate subject and one we don't need to worry about. Product Liability much the same as he US system has been passed into Australian law but no one has made a claim yet; all waiting for someone else to spend the millions of dollars to get it tested by the High Court.

 

Re your comment about impartial assessors, such a "transfer" is not true. All cases are heard by impartial judges, and while I've followed a lot of cases, and some of them have been bizarre, I've never heard a single complaint about impartiality.

 

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

In my ignorant opinion, the Australian system has developed to benefit a particular group of lawyers, has inbuilt escalation in its execution and is a long way from natural justice.

Every industry has specialist lawyers, this is just one of them. The main PL lawyers make the newspapers because they're big enough to handle Class Actions involving hundreds of Plaintiffs.

 

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Years ago I met a man, injured in a mining incident. The injury was such, that he would never be able to work in a physically demanding environment again. His age made it unlikly he could successfully retrain and expect to earn anything like his former salary. The mining company admitted liability but were unable to pay compensation to the man, until the matter had been heard and ruled on by a court. He and his family had to engage lawyers to argue their case,  wait two years for the ruling to be handed down (mining company liable) to get the pay out. This sort of abuse of the law is manifestly inefficient & unjust - WE ALL PAY for this ridiculous adversarial system that ultimately only benefits the aforementioned ambulance chasing lawyers.

In my opinion someone has got that story wrong. The Public Liability cases are adversarial and it's VERY common for cases like that one to be settled out of court - they never get to the Court stage.

Alternatively it may be that sometimes companies might feel they are resposible and make admissions that are legally incorrect. If they are insured, the insurer usually runs the case and that's a whole new experience for the company. As much as our Federation was working in partnership with our insurer all over Australia, in one case they showed up with a seizure order for our records, and didn't go until they had the document they were looking for.

 

It's not unusual for contested cases to go for 5 years or more.

 

There's nothing ridiculous about the system; it's an imprvement on what we had before. At least now we are running our own sports and businesses.

[spacesailor]

I was burnt in NZ 

And of course no liability. 

New management , cutting corners to save putting a lock,

On a safety door .

spacesailor

[skippydiesel]

Turbo me lad - me thinks you have taken this members of the public a tad too literally.

 

To get it out of the way - the mining accident story is true however I was not privy to every detail and only had the injured parties side of the matter.

 

As for the rest - you only have to go back in the Forums archives to read about people's concerns (paranoia?) regarding their own liability.  

 

I did not suggest that judges , hearing liability cases, were not impartial - my argument is with a system that is adversarial in nature. No matter whether the issue gets to court or not, two legal teams argue (fight) it out at great cost to both sides. If its an industrial matter, the plaintiff is almost always at a huge disadvantage, in not having the financial might to throw into the ring.

 

Safety Inspectors; What you describe is Government/ bureaucratic overreach - we had a similar problem here in NSW - took many years and much pain to get the OH&S inspectorate forced into something approaching an asset to industry, rather than a jackbooted bunch of bullies.

 

No system is perfect and often must evolve to become fair and equitable. 

[turboplanner]

32 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

As for the rest - you only have to go back in the Forums archives to read about people's concerns (paranoia?) regarding their own liability.

By looking at today's cases those people can get a better idea of how the courts view negligence and understand that it may be them making an innocent mistake like forgetting to turn the fuel on next.

32 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

my argument is with a system that is adversarial in nature.

Where there has been negligence like the Donoghue v. Stevenson matter there are two opposing parties in real life, the person who was injured and the person who was alleged to be negligent.

 

They can come to an agreement themselves without going through expensive Court proceedings (but should always involve their lawyers) and that's they end of it if they reach an agreement.

 

Otherwise it's the two parties spending the money and the winner is likely to get costs, so in this way taxpayers money is not siphoned off every year (or in the case of 3rd Party systems, the whole population has to pay something every year for the few who are negligent.

 

32 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

If its an industrial matter, the plaintiff is almost always at a huge disadvantage, in not having the financial might to throw into the ring.

There aren't any industrial matters in PL; So far the lawyers have done a good job hiring expert witnesses for anything technical.

32 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Safety Inspectors; What you describe is Government/ bureaucratic overreach - we had a similar problem here in NSW - took many years and much pain to get the OH&S inspectorate forced into something approaching an asset to industry, rather than a jackbooted bunch of bullies.

Now we write our own safety systems so if we get anything wrong, or if we ignore them, we pay for it, not the taxpayer or general population.

So you can experiment with engine mounts to your heart's content safe in the knowledge that you won't be imposing on the taxpayers of Australia if something goes wrong.

32 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

No system is perfect and often must evolve to become fair and equitable. 

That is true, but when we are trying to educate people who don't fully understand what their obligations are it doesn't help tothrow red herrings around.

[skippydiesel]

Turbs - are you /were you a lawyer?

[turboplanner]

21 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Turbs - are you /were you a lawyer?

No, I was a defendant in about a dozen cases who learnt very quickly what self administration means.

[jackc]

In today’s World it comes back to this.  You need Public Liability Insurance,  with any complexity?  Simply take all your information to a lawyer who specialises in Insurance, dump it all in his lap and then get ready to open your wallet, because that is as good as it can get. 

[turboplanner]

12 minutes ago, jackc said:

In today’s World it comes back to this.  You need Public Liability Insurance,  with any complexity?  Simply take all your information to a lawyer who specialises in Insurance, dump it all in his lap and then get ready to open your wallet, because that is as good as it can get. 

If you go to a Public Liability lawyer, he/she may well have experience in your sport.

Also Public Liability Insurance Companies have a very good idea of what they'd like you to do and what they'd like you not to do.

 

 

[facthunter]

Don't take passengers, even IF they are a mate of yours. His Loving wife may take a different view.  Nev

[onetrack]

I have always used an Insurance broker, because they're working for you, not the insurance company, and if they understand what you're doing (by way of risks)) and what you actually want by way of insurance, they can pick the company best suited to that particular insurance field.

Some companies specialise in aviation public liability insurance, some won't even have a bar of it. If you get a company that is in the middle and don't understand aviation insurance risks, you'll get them asking a high insurance premium.

We're having a similar discussion on an American forum, and virtually all the Americans operating light aircraft recreationally won't even bother with hull insurance, but they make sure they have PL - and it's not anywhere near as expensive in the U.S., as it is here, so it's pretty obvious insurance companies operating here, see Australian aviation as a ripe tree to be plucked.

[facthunter]

The flights I've done with owners to evaluate their plane at their request, are excluded from this problem.  Nev

[facthunter]

RE Insurance I've only ever called hull insurance when it's on the ground. That covers fire.  Nev

[jackc]

17 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Don't take passengers, even IF they are a mate of yours. His Loving wife may take a different view.  Nev

My Instructor will only ever be a passenger, no one else……

[facthunter]

Sensible. Nev

[spacesailor]

My ' wife ' .

Does not do anything like " flying,  driving " a car. or having a licence . Now all my ASSETS will be in her name .

just incase you wish to sue me .

Will I be able to get ' free government ' lawyers to defend me.

Will that " no win no bill " lawyer give me a go .

spacesailor

 

[facthunter]

Are you getting a "Food Taster?"  Nev

[turboplanner]

11 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

My ' wife ' .

Does not do anything like " flying,  driving " a car. or having a licence . Now all my ASSETS will be in her name .

just incase you wish to sue me .

Will I be able to get ' free government ' lawyers to defend me.

Will that " no win no bill " lawyer give me a go .

spacesailor

 

The law comes after anyone who tries to avoid his obligations by giving his assets to someone else, so that's not such a good idea.

[turboplanner]

29 minutes ago, jackc said:

My Instructor will only ever be a passenger, no one else……

This is a form of addressing liability by total elimination of the risk (in this case of duty of care to a passenger).

Wherever you can practice total elimination you cut back your risk. So if you only fly above 500' except for landing and taking off, you've eliminated most powerlines etc.

[facthunter]

Maybe it's in his WILL.  There's a maximum "Gift" allowance, in a given time. (no pun intended).  Nev

Edited February 4 by facthunter
typo

[jackc]

Just now, turboplanner said:

This is a form of addressing liability by total elimination of the risk (in this case of duty of care to a passenger).

Wherever you can practice total elimination you cut back your risk. So if you only fly above 500' except for landing and taking off, you've eliminated most powerlines etc.

I made myself a rule, to never carry a passenger, not even my wife…..no one.

my flying hobby is me and me alone.  IF a flight I was piloting went pear shaped, i would never for give myself IF survived and my passenger was badly injured or died.

At my time in life I have beaten many possible death scenarios and not looking to push my luck any more.  If I crash and die, so be it…….