Getting the shytes

[turboplanner]

Completely incorrect. This specific case caused the cessation of action against RAA and CASA for quite evident negligence to be dropped because of the potential for the plaintiff being unsuccessful and having to pay costs exceeding her entire assets, leaving her destitute and homeless. Not because of any lack of evidence or soundness of case, but because of the precedent set.

Are you talking about Noel Campbell v Rodney Victor Hay? or the Sting case which was an entirely different set of circumstances.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The thread has wandered a fair bit. Don't you think? .... The answer to the original post is fairly clear. The gentleman in question bought the wrong aircraft for what he wanted to do. A mistake that can be rectified with money! Either flog it and get the right one ( cheaper? ) . Or pay someone else to do what he wants. ( certainly not cheaper ) I understand and sympathise with his dilemma. But it is easily fixable and shouldn't cause too many problems in doing so. Life's too short

I agree, but the public liability issues which came out of it are very important to understand, so I'm copying the Campbell v Hay information, and also comments on Echin v Southern Tablelands Gliding Club 2013 to the Public Liability thread so we can find them easier in the future.

 

The Echin v Southern Tablelands Gliding Club case was not a new precedent either; in both cases there was no breach of duty of care which led to the injuries, both cases show how the secondary issue raised, the duty to warn of high risk activity was met by the defendants, so they are interesting cases to get a good grasp of our responsibilities.