Camera Litigation in UK

Man sues air park after glider crash

http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news...e r_crash.php


By staff reporter

A MAN badly injured in a glider crash at Wycombe Air Park has launched
a High Court claim for compensation.

Daniel Marshall, 31, from Kingston, Surrey, needed surgery for two
fractured legs after the crash on August 6 2004, which he claimed in a
writ was caused when his camera strap entangled itself in the glider
controls.

The writ issued at London's High Court, which was made public on
Monday, has revealed Mr Marshall is suing the Booker Gliding Club for
£300,000.

He has said the club should have prevented him from taking his camera
on board the glider.

The writ said Mr Marshall had a trial gliding lesson bought for him by
his mother, which he took with an instructor at the air park in Clay
Lane, Booker.

Mr Marshall said he put his camera on the floor between his legs, but
shortly after they were airborne the instructor lost control and the
glider crashed nose first. The instructor suffered serious chest and
back injuries in the crash.

Mr Marshall was airlifted to Wexham Park Hospital and treated that day.
The writ said he required two further operations on both of his ankles,
and that he is now disadvantaged in employment because of continuing
problems with his legs.

It also said the instructor lost control of the glider when the camera
became stuck in the aperture for the front seat control column during
take off.

In the writ Mr Marshall accuses the club of negligence for failing to
ensure the camera was secure and failing to tell him loose objects
could interfere with glider controls. The club is also accused of
negligently allowing Mr Marshall to take a trial lesson when he had the
camera, and exposing him to an unnecessary risk of injury.

Booker Gliding Club said it was unable to comment on the matter as it
was under judicial deliberation.

Oh boy,

I thought that we had frivolous lawsuits in the US only.....looks like
the Brits are catching up with us.

This accident has been reported by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch
and may be found at
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/...lider__fwn.cfm .

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Man sues air park after glider crash

http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news...e r_crash.php

By staff reporter

A MAN badly injured in a glider crash at Wycombe Air Park has launched
a High Court claim for compensation.

Daniel Marshall, 31, from Kingston, Surrey, needed surgery for two
fractured legs after the crash on August 6 2004, which he claimed in a
writ was caused when his camera strap entangled itself in the glider
controls.

The writ issued at London's High Court, which was made public on
Monday, has revealed Mr Marshall is suing the Booker Gliding Club for
£300,000.

He has said the club should have prevented him from taking his camera
on board the glider.

The writ said Mr Marshall had a trial gliding lesson bought for him by
his mother, which he took with an instructor at the air park in Clay
Lane, Booker.

Mr Marshall said he put his camera on the floor between his legs, but
shortly after they were airborne the instructor lost control and the
glider crashed nose first. The instructor suffered serious chest and
back injuries in the crash.

Mr Marshall was airlifted to Wexham Park Hospital and treated that day.
The writ said he required two further operations on both of his ankles,
and that he is now disadvantaged in employment because of continuing
problems with his legs.

It also said the instructor lost control of the glider when the camera
became stuck in the aperture for the front seat control column during
take off.

In the writ Mr Marshall accuses the club of negligence for failing to
ensure the camera was secure and failing to tell him loose objects
could interfere with glider controls. The club is also accused of
negligently allowing Mr Marshall to take a trial lesson when he had the
camera, and exposing him to an unnecessary risk of injury.

Booker Gliding Club said it was unable to comment on the matter as it
was under judicial deliberation.

wrote:
Man sues air park after glider crash

http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news...e r_crash.php


By staff reporter

A MAN badly injured in a glider crash at Wycombe Air Park has launched
a High Court claim for compensation.

Daniel Marshall, 31, from Kingston, Surrey, needed surgery for two
fractured legs after the crash on August 6 2004, which he claimed in a
writ was caused when his camera strap entangled itself in the glider
controls.

The writ issued at London's High Court, which was made public on
Monday, has revealed Mr Marshall is suing the Booker Gliding Club for
£300,000.

He has said the club should have prevented him from taking his camera
on board the glider.

The writ said Mr Marshall had a trial gliding lesson bought for him by
his mother, which he took with an instructor at the air park in Clay
Lane, Booker.

Mr Marshall said he put his camera on the floor between his legs, but
shortly after they were airborne the instructor lost control and the
glider crashed nose first. The instructor suffered serious chest and
back injuries in the crash.

Mr Marshall was airlifted to Wexham Park Hospital and treated that day.
The writ said he required two further operations on both of his ankles,
and that he is now disadvantaged in employment because of continuing
problems with his legs.

It also said the instructor lost control of the glider when the camera
became stuck in the aperture for the front seat control column during
take off.

In the writ Mr Marshall accuses the club of negligence for failing to
ensure the camera was secure and failing to tell him loose objects
could interfere with glider controls. The club is also accused of
negligently allowing Mr Marshall to take a trial lesson when he had the
camera, and exposing him to an unnecessary risk of injury.

Booker Gliding Club said it was unable to comment on the matter as it
was under judicial deliberation.


I am not a lawyer but I can see the plaintiff's point.
The PIC is responsible for the safety of the flight and needs to pay
attention to loose objects in the aircraft. The student may stand
accused of lacking common sense but the PIC blew it when he allowed the
camera in the cockpit without making sure that it was secure. As for the
club, the owner/operator is likely to be in the line of fire when vul...
I mean the lawyers start circling the carcass.

Paul

Very intetesting read thank you.

Mal

When you see lawyers circling, does it indicate lift???


I am not a lawyer but I can see the plaintiff's point.
The PIC is responsible for the safety of the flight and needs to pay
attention to loose objects in the aircraft. The student may stand accused
of lacking common sense but the PIC blew it when he allowed the camera in
the cockpit without making sure that it was secure. As for the club, the
owner/operator is likely to be in the line of fire when vul... I mean the
lawyers start circling the carcass.

Paul

A most unwelcome development.

This is a lose-lose-win situation:
The plantiff loses, the defendant loses and the
lawyers win at every turn.

I hope that senior members of the movement may find
some way to engage this individual in dialogue and
avert a costly legal battle which will be in no-one's
interest.

All the information suggests that the BGA, club and
instructor have a robust defence, but that maintaining
this defence will cost the movement and the individual
concerned considerable legal fees.

I hope that we can find a way of persuading the
individual to withdraw this writ without everyone
incurring large legal costs.

Rory

Rory O'Conor wrote:
A most unwelcome development.

This is a lose-lose-win situation:
The plantiff loses, the defendant loses and the
lawyers win at every turn.

I hope that senior members of the movement may find
some way to engage this individual in dialogue and
avert a costly legal battle which will be in no-one's
interest.

All the information suggests that the BGA, club and
instructor have a robust defence,

I disagree. If the plaintiff wasn't warned about the risks of loose
items in the cockpit, a very well known, familiar, and preventable risk,
he deserves to "win". Now in my opinion "winning" involves not having
to pay for medical expenses, and being reimbursed reasonably for lost
wages. None of this "Woe is me" punitive crap, he did accept some risk
by signing on for instruction. It's not like a drunk ran him over while
he was walking to church. If, as I said, the operation didn't warn him
of those dangers, they screwed up. They should have insurance for such
things, and their insurance should have settled long ago.
If the plaintiff was warned about loose objects in the cockpit (and
there is some proof of that-a signed waiver for example) maybe the
instructor should sue him!

One hope would be that if the plaintiff desires to fly *anything* ever,
gliders, power etc. he should settle or he'll never find a willing
instructor.

Shawn

Rory O'Conor wrote:

I hope that we can find a way of persuading the
individual to withdraw this writ without everyone
incurring large legal costs.

"Loser pays" would be a nice start (here in the USA, too).


Jack

Jack wrote:
Rory O'Conor wrote:

I hope that we can find a way of persuading the
individual to withdraw this writ without everyone
incurring large legal costs.


"Loser pays" would be a nice start (here in the USA, too).

Pays what? Court costs? Sure. The other lawyer? F@ck that. Make the
losing lawyer pay.

Shawn