Diatryma
18th Aug 2009, 04:31
Lexology - Scope of Damage by Aircraft Act considered (http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6dc76284-1669-49a9-87dc-97d625279f42&l=6QJ0VU9)
Early on 28 December 2000 a crop dusting aircraft owned by ACQ Pty Limited and operated by Aircare Moree Pty Limited hit a power line whilst spraying a cotton field.
As a result of the impact the power line, a 22kV conductor, dropped to a height of about 1.5 metres from the ground.
The power company responsible for the conductor was promptly informed and sent two of its employees to deal with the problem. When they arrived it was agreed that one would drive to a site a further 7 kilometres away and isolate the conductor and the other would await isolation of the conductor before commencing assessment of the problem.
Contrary to that agreement, Cook the employee who remained at the site, entered into the cotton field before the conductor was isolated. The ground was uneven and very boggy and the conductor was difficult to see against an overcast sky. Cook stumbled and fell in the muddy field and came within 60 millimetres of the conductor causing an electric arc which resulted in serious injury.
In the High Court it was argued that ‘something that is a result of an impact’ should be construed as being a thing which ‘has an immediate (or reasonably immediate) temporal, geographical and relational connection with an impact’. It was argued that the chain of causation was too remote to apply to the plaintiff who, as a well trained worker, had attended the scene fully appreciating the danger from the damaged conductor. In a unanimous decision the High Court (comprising Chief Justice French and Justices Gummow, Heydon, Crennan and Bell) rejected these arguments.
This is craziness.....
You do the right thing and call the power company who send an "expert" along to fix the power line. He gets zapped and it's your fault!
Wot the ???
All aircraft owners can expect their insurance premiums to increase to cover these sort of "accidents" into the future.
Di :*
Early on 28 December 2000 a crop dusting aircraft owned by ACQ Pty Limited and operated by Aircare Moree Pty Limited hit a power line whilst spraying a cotton field.
As a result of the impact the power line, a 22kV conductor, dropped to a height of about 1.5 metres from the ground.
The power company responsible for the conductor was promptly informed and sent two of its employees to deal with the problem. When they arrived it was agreed that one would drive to a site a further 7 kilometres away and isolate the conductor and the other would await isolation of the conductor before commencing assessment of the problem.
Contrary to that agreement, Cook the employee who remained at the site, entered into the cotton field before the conductor was isolated. The ground was uneven and very boggy and the conductor was difficult to see against an overcast sky. Cook stumbled and fell in the muddy field and came within 60 millimetres of the conductor causing an electric arc which resulted in serious injury.
In the High Court it was argued that ‘something that is a result of an impact’ should be construed as being a thing which ‘has an immediate (or reasonably immediate) temporal, geographical and relational connection with an impact’. It was argued that the chain of causation was too remote to apply to the plaintiff who, as a well trained worker, had attended the scene fully appreciating the danger from the damaged conductor. In a unanimous decision the High Court (comprising Chief Justice French and Justices Gummow, Heydon, Crennan and Bell) rejected these arguments.
This is craziness.....
You do the right thing and call the power company who send an "expert" along to fix the power line. He gets zapped and it's your fault!
Wot the ???
All aircraft owners can expect their insurance premiums to increase to cover these sort of "accidents" into the future.
Di :*