Being sued by SACW

[Bill Scull]

I was the skipper of a yacht on an expedition around the Solent from Gosport. Unfortunately one of the crew had a head to boom interface and she sustained a serious head injury. She was lifted from the vessel by a Coast guard Rescue Helicopter call sign "Rescue India Juliet". We set sail back to Gosport and all of the correct paperwork was filled out on our return to shore.
It later transpires that she left the RAF due to this injury and is now suing me through the MOD for substantial damages. Does anybody know if I am personally liable as this was an expedition and she was on duty. There was blame apportioned at the time, although it does sound like she is now trying to blame me for this incident. How will it affect my financial status if I try and apply for a mortgage or bank loan in the future? Anybody have any ideas?

[dead_pan]

Err - perhaps you ought to raise this with your insurers (assuming you were insured).

[corsair]

Are you just the skipper or owner of the boat? Presumably the boat was insured for just such an incident? Often in these situations there is a tendency to sue everyone in the vicinity. I wouldn't neccessarily take it too personally as it's really the intention that the insurance company pays.

[BluntM8]

As I understand it the issue will come down to the duty status of the personnel involved. (FYI I worked at HQ PTC on employment of service personnel on third party income generation projects, and spent a great deal of time clarifying the issues regarding duty status and insurance).

Of the top of my head: If the female concerned was deemed to have been "on duty" at the time of the accident then it would be the MOD which owe her a duty of care, and their responsibility for ensuring that adequate H&S measures were in place. They in turn could delegate that aspect to you, in this case it would be them who could make a claim against you, and you would be liable should they be able to prove that you had not carried out a risk assessment and implemented reasonable risk controls.

If she had been "off duty" then the matter would be between you and her. In this case it would fall to her to make the case that you had been negligent in your control of the risk.

In both cases, you need to assess how far this is likely to go, and to engage the services of a good Personal Injury lawyer. My gut feeling - and I'm not a lawyer, but I am marrying one and the child of two more - is that the key issue here will be the adequecy of risk control, and if you can prove that you carried out a robust risk assessment, and properly applied and risk controls deemed necessary then you ought to be fine.

I'm afraid I have no idea about the subsequent impact on your creditworthiness. But I would hope that it would be minimal.

best of luck!

[parabellum]

If you are insured you must inform your insurers of a pending claim and they will almost certainly subrogate and use their own lawyers (and everything that BluntM8 said!).

[Union Jack]

Reading between the lines, it would seem appropriate to be in early contact with:

Joint Services Adventurous Sail Training Centre
Haslar Road
GOSPORT
Hampshire
PO12 2AQ
on 023 92765333 (Mil 9380 65333) [email protected] ([email protected])

since I am almost certain that they must have be the single contact for a case of this nature, assuming that it was a Service yacht that was involved, as well as having access to all the documents likely to be required.

Jack

PS I sympathise with both sides, not least because I was sent flying overboard in the West Solent earlier this year when the topping lift of a charter boat parted!:ok:

[Two's in]

Make sure you get all the supporting documentation that stated this was an officially sanctioned expedition (Station Orders, JSASTC Instructions, Joining Instructions for the vessel etc.). Try to get a copy of the accident report, or any supporting documents, especially as this led to an SI. I am surprised some level of BOI was not held following the accident - or was it?

Adventurous training by its nature carries an inherent level of risk, as long as you did not add to that risk through your own negligent actions you should be covered under the MoD liability. Just make sure that there are no "surprises" over the duty status of the victim when the incident occured.

[L J R]

Lots of legal advice on the PPRUNE forums lately....why is that...? Does Legal advice not exist anymore from the Professionals (legal types I mean - not pilots..)??

[bakseetblatherer]

I guess PPruNe is a hell of a lot cheaper!

[Pontius Navigator]

BluntM8s second paragraph is the cruncher as the law has changed recently and you would be to blame if you had been reckless; gibing without due regard, that sort if thing.

But it was a recent change and probably not applicable to a preceeding incident. It was really written to cater for training exercises where safety might have been disregarded 'to get the job done.'

Other than that, it is a routine, if distressing, insurance process. Sue, claim, counter-claim, award, profits.

[Occasional Aviator]

Surely if you're on duty on an official exped, the MoD will have vicarious liability - ie you are sued, but the MoD pays (unless you were reckless and did not come up to the standard of a reasonably competent indtructor). This seems to be supported by your asssertion the she is suing you "through the MoD" - people do this because organisations are able to pay, whereas individuals often don't have the funds to settle a substantial compensation claim.

I think you need to speak to your HR staff and find out exactly what is happening "through the MoD".

Criminal liability is, however, completely different.

That's how I understand the law anyway, although my knowledge is limited to an OU Law degree done a few years ago.....

[JagRigger]

If that was G-CGIJ as the Coastguard SAR, the incident would have to have been this year.

[Satellite_Driver]

First, a tiresome but necessary disclaimer: I am not a qualified lawyer yet and so the following is not formal legal advice.

[Some context - I did a law degree with the Open University during my final years before leaving at 39, and am now doing the Bar Vocational Course. If you're watching the BBC2 series on barristers, you'll have a good idea of what my life is like now.]

As some of the other people here have said, the key issue is going to be whether you were on duty. The legal concept is 'vicarious liability'; an employer is deemed responsible for the acts of employees, subject to certain limits:

1) The employee must be an actual employee, not a contractor. This doesn't sound if it will be an issue in your case; if you're serving, you are an MoD employee.

2) You must have been doing the job your employer employed you for. This one is a bit more open to discussion; I suspect that if this was a properly organised expedition approved by the RAF then you would be deemed to have been acting in the course of your employment.

3) You must have been doing the job you were told to. If, for instance, the exped remit had been to sail up and down the Solent and you'd actually pottered over to Guernsey, where there had been an accident, then you might be deemed to have been on what lawyers quaintly call "a frolic of your own" and so outside your bounds of employment.

If it is accepted that you were on duty and acting within the remit of the exped then in theory the MoD is responsible. However, it is absolutely normal practice to issue a claim jointly against both the employer (under vicarious liability) and the employee and then let the court decide how to apportion damages. As such, you may be being sued as a backstop.

How have you heard of the claim? If the claimant's solicitors are following the pre-action protocol for personal injury claims then they have to write to you before formally starting action to let you know that you are going to be sued, so that you can seek legal advice. Actually being sued will involve getting a Claim Form, probably by post; if this happens SEE A SOLICITOR IMMEDIATELY as not responding properly within 14 days leaves you open to having a default judgment entered against you - these can be set aside but you really don't want the hassle.

In fact, what you really want to do is see a solicitor now. A lot of local firms offer an initial consultation either free or at a flat rate and will quickly tell you if anything urgent needs to be done.

Let us know how you get on as if this looks like it is proceeding further I may be able to point you at some helpful resources.

[Brain Potter]

I think that you need to clarify what is meant by suing me through the MOD

One form of direct dispute between the SAC and the MoD may well lie in the H&S laws and the "duty-of-care" owed to her as one of their employees.

BluntM8, is not quite correct in saying If she had been "off duty" then the matter would be between you and her. as Tort law encompasses the principle of Vicarious Liability. This means that the employer is liable for the negligence of their employee. She may well be citing your negligence as an employee in a case against your employer - the MoD. She could do this regardless of whether she was on-duty, off-duty or was just a passer-by. It makes much more sense to sue the MoD for damages as they have much deeper pockets than you. Are you actually named as a defendant in the case? If not, then you are not being sued.

Of course, interpretation of law is complex and there are many nuances depending on the status of the parties involved. As a quick example of the complexities of this law, one of the famous cases in this area is:

Lister v Romford Ice [1957] . A father was knocked down by his son, who was employed by Romford Ice, while backing his lorry in a yard. The employers were vicariously liable for the son's negligence and their insurers met the father's claim. The insurers sued the son in the company's name, exercising their right of subrogation under the contract of insurance. By a majority, the House of Lords held that the son was liable to indemnify the employer and consequently the insurers.

but

This case lead to controversy about insurers forcing employers to sue employees, which would lead to poor industrial relations. Employers' liability insurers later entered into a 'gentleman's agreement' not to pursue such claims unless there was evidence of collusion or wilful misconduct

Bill, I would suggest that you become as familiar as you can be with the terminology of Tort Law, Negligence and Vicarious Liability.

Here is a good place to start Tort Law Essay Writing Resources, Help Guides and Study Aids. (http://www.lawteacher.net/tort.php).

Take legal advice, starting with Defence Legal Services, but do be aware that they represent the MoD's interests. It might be wise to get your own solicitor if you suspect that your interests and theirs are not completely aligned.

Edited to say: Much less legal knowledge then previous poster, so take his advice over mine.

[sitigeltfel]

Not sure if you are wise to raise your plight in a public forum such as this. You have probably given enough info to enable others to identify you and they might not all be sympathetic to your case.

The compensation culture is very rarely on the side of the defender. Keep your head down, (as she should have done) and make sure you do not give the claimant any more ammunition than she already may have.

[Lyneham Lad]

Not sure if you are wise to raise your plight in a public forum such as this. You have probably given enough info to enable others to identify you and they might not all be sympathetic to your case.

The compensation culture is very rarely on the side of the defender. Keep your head down, (as she should have done) and make sure you do not give the claimant any more ammunition than she already may have.

Probably a good point. Bill Scull - AIUI, as the originator you can easily delete the whole post (having first copied the advice!). I only mention that as you appear to be a newbie on Pprune.

[deltahotel]

Ck yr PMs.

Hope it helps!

[Roger Sofarover]

Bil
The first thing I thought as I was reading your post was 'should this really be on a public forum?', with a potentially pending court case etc. My advice would be go to a solicitor straight away and delete this thread. Good luck.

[Saintsman]

Being sued by SACW

You only need to worry if she's a lesbian :hmm:

[Donna K Babbs]

JagRigger
If that was G-CGIJ as the Coastguard SAR, the incident would have to have been this year.

Bill only said "Rescue IJ". The Bristows S61N that was based at Lee-OnSolent for years before the CHC AW139 took over was also c/s Rescue IJ (BDIJ) for SAROps.

[N Joe]

Bill Scull appears to be off line and hasn't deleted the thread. Can the mods intervene and delete the thread as I'm sure he could work off his PMs?

N Joe