If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Camera Litigation in UK
Oh boy,
I thought that we had frivolous lawsuits in the US only.....looks like the Brits are catching up with us. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Camera Litigation in UK
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Camera Litigation in UK
Very intetesting read thank you.
Mal |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Camera Litigation in UK
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Camera Litigation in UK
At 14:48 27 January 2006, Rory O'Conor wrote:
A most unwelcome development. I agree wholeheartedly with that 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. Sadly Rory I have to disagree there is really no defence. The responsibility for ensuring safety sits very firmly with the captain of the aircraft. Whatever goes wrong the captain is responsible. This type of case is probably the future for many pastimes. As with many things if a person is not specifically warned against something then the organisation that should have given the warning is frequently held liable, and there but for the grace of God............ I hope that we can find a way of persuading the individual to withdraw this writ without everyone incurring large legal costs. That I somehow doubt. I can't see the plaintiff doing anything other than 'winning', but stanger things have happened. I remember a case where a pupil mishandled an aircraft when receiving instruction and the instructor, as captain, was sucessfully sued as a result, and an equally interesting case where an instructor attempted to sue a pupil for causing an accident, which he undoubtably did, but the case failed and costs were awarded against the captain of the aircraft. Both these over 20 years ago so it isn't even new. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Camera Litigation in UK
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Camera Litigation in UK
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Camera Litigation in UK
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What camera for pictures from a glider cockpit? | Eric Greenwell | Soaring | 34 | December 10th 05 06:19 AM |
C206H w/Leica camera mount STC for sale | Juan Jimenez | General Aviation | 9 | February 1st 05 04:59 AM |
C206H w/Leica camera mount STC for sale | Juan Jimenez | Owning | 9 | February 1st 05 04:59 AM |
For Auction: Thermal Imaging Camera - One Day Left | sell2all | General Aviation | 0 | April 29th 04 08:09 PM |
A-4 gun camera question | Guy Alcala | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 10th 04 06:33 AM |