Runciman resigns...AGAIN

[turboplanner]

I am still trying to find out why we are being sued over the sting crash at all. Surely any court action would involve the aircraft manufacturer/importer and not the body that issued the pilots certificate or aircraft approval. If the aircraft was run under RAA Aus rules, and the court case gets up then is it correct that we are all in the can because the rules and regulations mean nothing??

There are two Sting issues, the one RAA have spent big money on claiming under PI Insurance and a second case where where the merits are sub judice - be careful what you post

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I am still trying to find out why we are being sued over the sting crash at all. Surely any court action would involve the aircraft manufacturer/importer and not the body that issued the pilots certificate or aircraft approval. If the aircraft was run under RAA Aus rules, and the court case gets up then is it correct that we are all in the can because the rules and regulations mean nothing??

An overly simplistic answer:-

 

Logic flow something like:-

 

Choose logical target, importer

 

Investigate logical target assets

 

Assets = protected and that available as damages = $0

 

Investigate next logical target, RAAus

 

Assets=$Mutli M and completely unprotected

 

Charge!!!!

 

And that says nothing to the merits or otherwise of the case, merely what would be available to service a damages claim and Lawyers billing(and not in that order!) in the event of a clear or partial win

 

 

[68volksy]

Remember that CASA and the pilot are involved also. At the top level it all seems to boil down to the passenger of the aircraft not being made aware of the risks involved with the aircraft. Basically whether or not the "Fly at own risk" sticker and all associated legislation actually satisfies the responsibilities of CASA/RA-Aus/RA-Aus Pilots to the general public.

 

It's a good case and very interesting in my view. It really highlights the fact that flying and maintaining your own aircraft is one thing but putting someone else in it is another thing entirely.

 

The importer seems simply to have been protected by the "Fly at own risk" portions of the legislation. Another area that could probably do with some amendments...

 

 

[Methusala]

I am not a lawyer. But I recall a report mentioning a case brought before NSW courts relating to a passenger suing the pilot of a light aircraft. The court found (quite reasonably in my opinion) that to a reasonable man flying has to contain a risk of being seriously injured or killed. No surprises there. It therefore found that anyone who flies in a privately operated aircraft has made a judgement and accepted the bleeding obvious. End of case! Get out of here! Regards, Don

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sometimes people just will not take quiet advice. Well I guess it's your risk.

 

 

[metalman]

I might have the wrong case but I thought the other occupant was a pilot and part owner in the sting aircraft

 

 

[turboplanner]

You're right they were both pilots Met, to comment above is completely irrelevant, and its not over, still awaiting an appeal. Some of the other comments could actually damage members.

 

 

[Guest nunans]

Yep, best not to make public comments on any legal matter. Like the old saying goes "anything you say or do may be held against you in court"

 

social media like this is very public.

 

By all means go and read everything you can find on the net related to raa legal matters, just don't write anything about them.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I wasn't intending to squash all discussion, just the potential contempt of court issues which could get people in trouble - here's a sample of explanations.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice

 

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4285856.html

 

http://vgso.vic.gov.au/content/managing-risk-sub-judice-contempt

 

That does not prevent RAA from keeping its members and the wider community up to date with legal matters.

 

I say the wider community in this case because many people depend on a healthy RAA for their businesses and personal incomes.

 

That might include:

 

The alleged decision to pursue an RAA members with a view to expelling him, which as it has been alleged has cost over $100,000 of members money to date

 

What legal advice was taken if any, what the legal opinion was, the reason for starting the action, for members only, who the person is, what the progresss is.

 

The basic outline of an alleged legal claim against the Association's Professional Indemnity insurance policy, the timing, who the participants are, what the issue is, why the claim has allegedly exceeded the Association's policy limit, approximately what the maximum exposure is in cases like this, whether the Association had current Public Liability Insurance at the time of the issue, whether the claim could have been made against the Association's Public Liability Insurance.

 

The basic outline of an alleged legal claim against the Association, CASA, and a pilot, the timings, who the plaintiff is, what the claims are.

 

This broad information does not speculate or prejudice any of the cases, and at the same time reasonably alerts members, suppliers and other key people, and reduces wild speculation on each case, and the temptation to link the cases.

 

 

[Admin]

Please note that the Governing Bodies forum is not accessible to the public...anything that is posted in the Governing Bodies forum can only be read by registered users who are bound by the site's terms and conditions and that includes the copyright and that no content can be copied or used without the written approval of the site owners...the Governing Bodies forum is private discussions

 

 

[68volksy]

I might have the wrong case but I thought the other occupant was a pilot and part owner in the sting aircraft

The other occupant was a pilot and owned his own sting aircraft - not the one that crashed. What I see as the true motivation behind these cases all comes down to the attitude of the aircraft importer during the coroners inquest and the findings of that inquest. Give it a read and you may find the motivation to fight this all the way to the highest court in the country. I personally am very proud that at least one member of our community is not taking these deaths and laying down.

 

What's most curious is that RA-Aus and its members seem to be focusing all their anger towards the party bringing the case. The actions of the importer/manufacturer have been utterly ignored in absolutely every way. In my view it's them that RA-Aus and its members should be truly angry towards for bringing this all about! I'm not aware of even the most basic of sanctions or even audit activity following from the recommendations of the coroner. Those recommendations and the coroners findings are very strongly worded.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Volksy, as far as I've seen, the aircraft importer is not even a defendant in the Public Liability case, and i haven't heard that he is in the PI case.

 

" I'm not aware of even the most basic of sanctions or even audit activity following from the recommendations of the coroner. Those recommendations and the coroners findings are very strongly worded."

 

I agree with this comment, which relates directly to suggested actions by the Coroner.

 

What the Coroner was talking about may have no bearing on the thrust of the Plaintiff's case.

 

 

[Smiggle]

Same importer photoshopped an image of an aircraft to get it registered but was picked up by the tech manager accidentally.

 

No wonder we are having a hard time with our registrations.

 

 

[68volksy]

Absolutely right that the importer is not a defendant. Looking at the bigger picture i'm feeling that the plaintiff is simply looking for someone to do something. There seems to be no legal avenue (thanks to the way the legislation is drafted) to pursue the importer and no-one of authority has been seen to have done anything whatsoever about the actions of the importer or the findings of the coroner. The question in my mind is whether CASA/RA-Aus have willfully endangered the Australian public (or at the very least failed to properly educate them) through the creation of such an environment.

 

If RA-Aus or CASA had sought to sanction (or at least investigate) the importer in some way over all of this then my guess is there would be no case currently being brought against them. The fact they've simply pointed to the "fly at own risk" sticker and walked away has made a lot of people very angry.

 

Either way the fact this case is being brought is necessary for the RA-Aus fraternity in my view. The findings of the case will hopefully outline exactly what risks we are all taking on when we start that engine.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You're not reading what has been posted here and in other more appropriate threads Volksy, and I can't say more without getting into the case, but you're barking right up the wrong tree if you're trying to tie two totally different areas together.

 

 

[68volksy]

It's true I am talking more about the motivations behind bringing the case however I personally see the motivation for bringing a case as a very important part of the case itself. These cases are brought by someone who feels they (or the public) have been wronged by the system. My feeling is if they were to feel supported by the system then they would not bring such a case.

 

 

[turboplanner]

We've covered that several times in more specialised threads. The lawyers wouldn't even look at anything which didn't have an element of a duty of care owed and breached.

 

 

[metalman]

Geez how's that Steve Runciman , what a norty bugger!

 

 

[facthunter]

Nortys are OK. Nev

 

 

[Methusala]

I believe that all involved in recreational aviation are barking up the wrong tree. Rather than trying to portray flying as a relatively safe pastime we should be spruiking the dangers and results if something goes wrong. This would disseminate among the wide community the truth ie. that when something goes wrong it is obvious that people are going to be injured or killed. So people would accept that there is great danger lurking which is quite obvious. The courts and the damn ambulance chasers would be deprived of their fig leaf. Awwww gee, we dint know that this could HURT SOMEBODY!!! Regards, Don

 

 

[aro]

The lawyers wouldn't even look at anything which didn't have an element of a duty of care owed and breached.

You seem to have a rather naive view of the legal system.

 

What percentage of cases are settled? If the case is settled, nobody has to prove anything. Most insurance cases seem to resemble a game of chicken more than Donoghue v Stevenson. Just because an allegation has been made that there was a breach of duty of care doesn't mean it happened - but generally, neither side wants to fight in court.

 

I don't know anything about this specific case, but in many cases it appears that the lawyers look for soft targets with money (preferably insurance) rather than the party actually responsible. They figure the best result for their client is a payout from somebody, rather than a judgment against somebody else who might never actually pay.

 

 

[kaz3g]

You seem to have a rather naive view of the legal system.What percentage of cases are settled? If the case is settled, nobody has to prove anything. Most insurance cases seem to resemble a game of chicken more than Donoghue v Stevenson. Just because an allegation has been made that there was a breach of duty of care doesn't mean it happened - but generally, neither side wants to fight in court.

 

I don't know anything about this specific case, but in many cases it appears that the lawyers look for soft targets with money (preferably insurance) rather than the party actually responsible. They figure the best result for their client is a payout from somebody, rather than a judgment against somebody else who might never actually pay.

I waited a while before responding...

 

Aro, you seem to have a rather cynical view of lawyers :-)

 

Sweeping statements and generalisations are, in my view, just poor excuses for lazy arguments.

 

Some lawyers undoubtedly look to cast the litigation net as widely as possible with little care for the damage they do. But many others -- the majority I would say -- don't. It's easy to be critical when you don't know the arguments that have been advanced as to why the net has been thrown as it has, and it doesn't show much faith in the legal system if you think that judges just let this happen willy nilly.

 

It's the same thing when notorious newspaper journalists complain that Judge So 'n So was far too lenient with a defendant in the criminal jurisdiction. They change their attitude when they are in the dock...just ask Andrew Bolt. And the data shows that the great majority changes its view when apprised of ALL the facts of a case rather than the bit the journos throw out to get the lions roaring.

 

And it's the same thing when ALL recreational pilots are slandered by a CPL because of one or two bad experiences (or vice versa).

 

Better I think to consider the facts objectively when revealed and then make a judgment.

 

Kaz

 

PS. It's not that I'm sensitive, mind you...after all, I'm a lawyer :-)

 

 

[aro]

I do have a somewhat cynical view of the legal system, although I don't extend that to all lawyers. I am sure a few give the rest a bad name. And please don't ask me to listen to Andrew Bolt :-)

 

One major problem is that the legal system is heavily weighted towards those with money, and those with power. Additionally, the people who make the choice to sue (or prosecute) have a distinct advantage as well - simply because they have that power to choose.

 

I go back to my previous point however: what percentage of cases are settled without going to court? What influence do judges have over that, or the merits of the cases? The insurance companies probably can't be sure what actually happened, so in most cases they figure its safer to pay out a (relatively) small settlement than gamble on taking it to court. The personal injury lawyers know that, so push for as much as they can get before the insurance company decides it is worth fighting. Besides, getting money from an insurance company for an injured person can't really be wrong can it? That's what insurance is there for ;-)

 

I actually do admire the legal profession, and there are many lawyers who do very good work. Unfortunately, sometimes money or expediency overrides justice. But my main argument is with the assumption that a case must have merit, or it would not exist.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You seem to have a rather naive view of the legal system.What percentage of cases are settled? If the case is settled, nobody has to prove anything. Most insurance cases seem to resemble a game of chicken more than Donoghue v Stevenson. Just because an allegation has been made that there was a breach of duty of care doesn't mean it happened - but generally, neither side wants to fight in court.

 

I don't know anything about this specific case, but in many cases it appears that the lawyers look for soft targets with money (preferably insurance) rather than the party actually responsible. They figure the best result for their client is a payout from somebody, rather than a judgment against somebody else who might never actually pay.

aro, I may be naive, I'm not a lawyer like Kaz, and I'm interested in protecting members of this site from losing their houses because they are simply unaware of the huge potential losses if they put themselves in a situation where they are found to be negligent, and I'm interested in protecting the financial destruction of RAA.

 

However I do have some background with public liability cases.

 

I was personally involved in the 1980's in about eight cases, which dragged on for some years, and I got an inside view of the processes and the issues that counted.

 

In my cases, we settled about six of them, HOWEVER, in every one of those cases, the lawyers, and our experts concluded that under the definition we were in fact negligent, and it was only a matter of the degree. The settlements were negotiated based on this degree, and ranged from coverage of medical costs to around two million dollars (values 25 years ago).

 

None of them were games of chicken, and in negotiating this way all parties avoided the hundreds of thousands of dollars required for a Court process.

 

So no cynical activites there.

 

Since those days, I've researched and followed probably 30 more cases in the transport and other industries, keep tabs on the ones where contributory negligence steps up to culpable negligence, and the person who thought this was all rubbish found themselves in prison for usually around six years. I've observed the first case of murder in the transport industry prosecuted and convicted, and observed the first prison sentence handed out for a specification breach - something aircraft builders, owners and maintainers would need to be familiar with.

 

"One major problem is that the legal system is heavily weighted towards those with money, and those with power"

 

Most people think this so most people don't try, however I recently had a massive win up against two SC's two senior solicitors, three solicitors, and four legal staff, employed by two clients. Each morning I would look up as $40,000.00 in fees walked into the room, and the matter went on for a week.

 

It cost me travelling costs, because I had facts which didn't break down.

 

Almost every case I've seen actually lost was because the person providing the information simply did not get the facts which were applicable to the case, so the lawyers just didn't have the correct information to work with.

 

That's why I keep harping on someone having a duty of care, and breaching that duty of care.

 

I've found over the past 25 years that if you can grasp that simple concept, it's very easy to stay out of trouble, because you simply won't get involved in the action.

 

For example, the "Falls from Heights" legislation requires either a harness or guard rail where a standing area (all your body) is above two metres.

 

You ask someone to clean your gutters. If you or he has a harness you authorise him to go ahead. If not it's no go; it doesn't get any easier than that.

 

 

[aro]

Your view may be influenced by being involved in large cases - but I think they are a minority.

 

I'm talking about smaller cases, where the plaintiff would probably be very happy with a few tens of thousands as a settlement. No-one hires experts, no-one pays for a detailed investigation of the incident, and probably both sides minimize the number of actual lawyers involved. Most of the case is conducted by correspondence.

 

Unless the sums involved are large, the insurance companies don't want to get involved in arguing duty of care and negligence in court. If the case is settled, both sides can claim a win in their weekly meeting:

 

Plaintiff's lawyers: "We got a payout of $50,ooo for Joe Bloggs, which given the facts of the case is a good result."

 

Insurance company: "We settled the Joe Bloggs case for $50,000. He was seeking $500,000 so we view this as a good result."

 

Your cleaning gutters example is wrong. There is no guarantee that you will stay out of trouble. If he is injured, you might be sued. Insurance will probably pay out, if he will settle for a sum that makes it too expensive to go to court.