Jockey to sue wife of Pilot
Pukka PPRuNer!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: PRMK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jockey to sue wife of Pilot
From BBC 'Ceefax'
The Champion Jockey, Rey Cochrane, who saved the life of fellow jockey Frankie Dettori in a plane crash two years ago,is suing the wife of the Pilot who died.
He was awarded the Queen's Commendation for Bravery for dragging Dettori from the burning wreckage, but was unable to save Pilot Patrick Mackey.
The crash, in Newmarket, Suffolk, ended the career of the injured jockey.
He is suing Jill Mackey, and the owners of the plane, for loss of earnings.
The Champion Jockey, Rey Cochrane, who saved the life of fellow jockey Frankie Dettori in a plane crash two years ago,is suing the wife of the Pilot who died.
He was awarded the Queen's Commendation for Bravery for dragging Dettori from the burning wreckage, but was unable to save Pilot Patrick Mackey.
The crash, in Newmarket, Suffolk, ended the career of the injured jockey.
He is suing Jill Mackey, and the owners of the plane, for loss of earnings.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Essex, Innit
Age: 55
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the BBC website March 2001
A posthumous award went to Patrick Mackey, 52, from Axminster, Devon, the pilot who died after using his skill to save the lives of jockeys Frankie Dettori and Ray Cochrane when their plane crashed at Newmarket.
The jockeys insisted they owed their lives to the pilot avoiding a steep bank.
Mrs Mackey, who was receiving the award on her husband's behalf, said: "I'm very proud of his actions. He's my hero and this means a great deal to me.
'Modest man'
"He was a very modest man who just enjoyed his job and I think he would be a bit embarrassed by today."
- Not just sad but with a memory problem as well. Presumably dying whilst saving others lives just isn't enough for this guy.
The jockeys insisted they owed their lives to the pilot avoiding a steep bank.
Mrs Mackey, who was receiving the award on her husband's behalf, said: "I'm very proud of his actions. He's my hero and this means a great deal to me.
'Modest man'
"He was a very modest man who just enjoyed his job and I think he would be a bit embarrassed by today."
- Not just sad but with a memory problem as well. Presumably dying whilst saving others lives just isn't enough for this guy.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: over here
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"He was awarded the Queen's Commendation for Bravery for dragging Dettori from the burning wreckage, but was unable to save Pilot Patrick Mackey"
..........so she could sue him for not saving the pilot first...?????
..........so she could sue him for not saving the pilot first...?????
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before people get too apoplectic, this action may be necessary in order to establish liability, since I do not believe that the AAIB has yet established a "cause".
Some insurance companies require this before making a payment. It is highly likely that Ray Cochrane had an insurance policy to cover him for accidents.
Since Patrick Mackey sadly died in the incident, I am assuming that it would be necessary to sue his estate, which is likely to have passed to his wife. So, unless I am hopelessly wrong, don't blame Ray Cochrane, blame the red tape which makes this unpleasant action necessary!
I am sure that Flying Lawyer will be able to provide a better explanation.
Some insurance companies require this before making a payment. It is highly likely that Ray Cochrane had an insurance policy to cover him for accidents.
Since Patrick Mackey sadly died in the incident, I am assuming that it would be necessary to sue his estate, which is likely to have passed to his wife. So, unless I am hopelessly wrong, don't blame Ray Cochrane, blame the red tape which makes this unpleasant action necessary!
I am sure that Flying Lawyer will be able to provide a better explanation.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: U.K.
Age: 53
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Newswatcher is right here. I have been told that in a two crew environment a Captains estate would sue the company (obvoiusly depending on the incident/ accident) whilst the F/O's dependants would sue the Captains estate. As I understand it it's just the formalities of the law that dictate this and this situation could be similar.
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if the legal action finds liability against the pilot does this supercede the AAIB report when it comes out? Likewise, if the AAIB finds that the pilot was not liable, can the widow then sue Ray Cochrane and the courts for defamation of character? And I always thought the AAIB was the official body for aircraft accident investigations.
I understand the AAIB investigates to determine causes, it doesn't determine liability. In fact, on their web page the text below appears :
The fundamental purpose of investigating accidents is to determine the circumstances and causes of the accident with a view to the preservation of life and the avoidance of accidents in the future; it is not to apportion blame or liability.
The full accident report can be read here.
The fundamental purpose of investigating accidents is to determine the circumstances and causes of the accident with a view to the preservation of life and the avoidance of accidents in the future; it is not to apportion blame or liability.
The full accident report can be read here.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Great White North eh!
Age: 84
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other side.....
So what? The editor’s headline is probably misleading.
If various awards hadn’t been involved, this wouldn’t have seen the light of (media) day.
I doubt that the jockey is bringing suit against the wife directly; but, against the estate of the pilot. If the wife of the pilot is the executor/trix then she will be named.
Before you get your knickers in too big a twist; let’s reverse the roles: You are at a country meet and said jockey loses control of mount and leaps fence. Horse proceeds to do a number on your head, eyes, arms, etc. End result is that you lose you pilot’s licence - no income.
Do you sue? Of course you do: jockey, owner, course owner, etc. Or, more likely; the carrier of your loss of licence (disability) insurance starts paying you and then sues the above. I assume that you have disability insurance!!!! :o Read the fine print in your policy. You are required to submit to medical examinations and appear in court as a witness as part of your contract with your loss of licence insurer when your insurer sues subject jockey, et al .
The jockey, no doubt has disability (loss of licence) insurance. His insurer is probably the party suing the pilot’s estate.
I may be a little off base on UK law but the common law principle is the same.
Given the risk, above; it behooves one to arrange one’s affairs appropriately: I own very little beyond clothes and flying gear, helmet, etc. Mrs. S owns cars, has title to house, etc. Life insurance is assigned directly to wife, son and therefore does not pass through estate - can’t be attached in suit and / or estate taxes. Do not have life insurance payable to 'estate'.
Again caveat about UK law applies.
Moral: Set up your affairs so that something this would be a none event for your loved ones. They will have lost enough anyway. Of course; this assumes that one are not prone to AIDS.
If various awards hadn’t been involved, this wouldn’t have seen the light of (media) day.
I doubt that the jockey is bringing suit against the wife directly; but, against the estate of the pilot. If the wife of the pilot is the executor/trix then she will be named.
Before you get your knickers in too big a twist; let’s reverse the roles: You are at a country meet and said jockey loses control of mount and leaps fence. Horse proceeds to do a number on your head, eyes, arms, etc. End result is that you lose you pilot’s licence - no income.
Do you sue? Of course you do: jockey, owner, course owner, etc. Or, more likely; the carrier of your loss of licence (disability) insurance starts paying you and then sues the above. I assume that you have disability insurance!!!! :o Read the fine print in your policy. You are required to submit to medical examinations and appear in court as a witness as part of your contract with your loss of licence insurer when your insurer sues subject jockey, et al .
The jockey, no doubt has disability (loss of licence) insurance. His insurer is probably the party suing the pilot’s estate.
I may be a little off base on UK law but the common law principle is the same.
Given the risk, above; it behooves one to arrange one’s affairs appropriately: I own very little beyond clothes and flying gear, helmet, etc. Mrs. S owns cars, has title to house, etc. Life insurance is assigned directly to wife, son and therefore does not pass through estate - can’t be attached in suit and / or estate taxes. Do not have life insurance payable to 'estate'.
Again caveat about UK law applies.
Moral: Set up your affairs so that something this would be a none event for your loved ones. They will have lost enough anyway. Of course; this assumes that one are not prone to AIDS.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: over here
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can understand suing the person in control, as it happened to my sister when she crashed her car on ice some years ago....her husband was injured, and he had to sue her for the injuries; it's just how insurance law works - but Mrs. Mackey has no connection with this accident - is it because she is the representative of his estate?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now now Big Tudor, a touch of mischief creeps into your reply.
It is now 2 years since the accident. Ray Cochrane was incapacitated for some time, and has now retired as a jockey, although how much of this was caused by the effects of the accident, I am not sure. Incidentally, I believe he now acts in the capacity of a racing agent for Frankie Dettori.
A jockey's income is largely derived from the number of races he rides, enhanced by the occasional "win bonus", unless he is lucky enough to earn a retainer from one of the leading owners.
Continuing my previous argument, if RC is still awaiting an insurance payout, he may need to take some action, either because he is "Broke", or because there may be some sort of "statute of limitations" on his ability to take legal action as a result of the accident.
The AAIB report to which the Nr Fairy refers, appeared in February 2001. I assumed that this was an interim report, although I am sure that someone will advise whether there will be a further report on this accident.
Certainly an AAIB report will aid any decision of the courts in awarding compensation but, as has been pointed out, is not by itself capable of doing this.
Whilst writing this, I see that Aspinwing sums it up nicely, but perhaps I should also suggest that such action is more likely to be to determine whether there was any "liability" insurance policy held by Mr Mackey at the time, rather than a direct assault on his estate for damages!
Also remember that a court case does not necessarily deliver the "expected" result. When the parents of a boy killed when a helicopter on a "joy ride" crashed, the judge found that, although the pilot flew with misted-up windows, the Crown had not proved that this was an action that no other competent pilot would contemplate, and therefore threw out the case!
It is now 2 years since the accident. Ray Cochrane was incapacitated for some time, and has now retired as a jockey, although how much of this was caused by the effects of the accident, I am not sure. Incidentally, I believe he now acts in the capacity of a racing agent for Frankie Dettori.
A jockey's income is largely derived from the number of races he rides, enhanced by the occasional "win bonus", unless he is lucky enough to earn a retainer from one of the leading owners.
Continuing my previous argument, if RC is still awaiting an insurance payout, he may need to take some action, either because he is "Broke", or because there may be some sort of "statute of limitations" on his ability to take legal action as a result of the accident.
The AAIB report to which the Nr Fairy refers, appeared in February 2001. I assumed that this was an interim report, although I am sure that someone will advise whether there will be a further report on this accident.
Certainly an AAIB report will aid any decision of the courts in awarding compensation but, as has been pointed out, is not by itself capable of doing this.
Whilst writing this, I see that Aspinwing sums it up nicely, but perhaps I should also suggest that such action is more likely to be to determine whether there was any "liability" insurance policy held by Mr Mackey at the time, rather than a direct assault on his estate for damages!
Also remember that a court case does not necessarily deliver the "expected" result. When the parents of a boy killed when a helicopter on a "joy ride" crashed, the judge found that, although the pilot flew with misted-up windows, the Crown had not proved that this was an action that no other competent pilot would contemplate, and therefore threw out the case!
Last edited by newswatcher; 27th Jun 2002 at 15:43.
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newswatcher
No mischief, just slightly cynical from the growing number of selfish claims being submitted by 'injured parties'. It is becoming more difficult to differentiate between genuine claims for financial hardship and a (seemingly) endless supply of 'stick a claim in and see what you get' claims.
Aspinwing
Yes, I would expect a claim against a jockey if he/she "loses control of mount and leaps fence". I would also expect a claim against a pilot who lost control of an aircraft. But I would not expect a claim against either if the loss of control was due to a malfunction that was outside the control of the operating person.
The final outcome of the crash investigation is yet to be published and yet RC is commencing court action that will effectively attribute blame. IMHO it will be a travesty if this action results in the pilot being liable for the crash, and therefore RC's injuries, and is then cleared of all blame by the AAIB report.
No mischief, just slightly cynical from the growing number of selfish claims being submitted by 'injured parties'. It is becoming more difficult to differentiate between genuine claims for financial hardship and a (seemingly) endless supply of 'stick a claim in and see what you get' claims.
Aspinwing
Yes, I would expect a claim against a jockey if he/she "loses control of mount and leaps fence". I would also expect a claim against a pilot who lost control of an aircraft. But I would not expect a claim against either if the loss of control was due to a malfunction that was outside the control of the operating person.
The final outcome of the crash investigation is yet to be published and yet RC is commencing court action that will effectively attribute blame. IMHO it will be a travesty if this action results in the pilot being liable for the crash, and therefore RC's injuries, and is then cleared of all blame by the AAIB report.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anybody know what type of operation this was ? If it was a genuine AOC operation, then the passengers should be able to make a straightforward claim against the aircraft's insurance.
Unfortunately many jockeys want to pay little or nothing to get from one race to the next. As a result they find themselves having to book with 'private operators' using small twins and even single engine aircraft !!!! If this was a so-called 'private' flight, then I am not surprised that Cochrane is having to resort to making a claim against the pilot's estate, Wonder if he kept his receipt
By the way, I am not criticising this pilot's ability.
I know quite a few commercial pilots who have earned their first 500 hours flying 'private' trips. Perhaps the CAA ought to revise their greedy scheme of charges. I am sure that a large proportion of these 'private' operators would chose to go the AOC route, if it didn't cost as much as it does.
As for Mr Cochrane, if his current career has ended, perhaps he should earn a PPL and see if he can do a better job !!!
Unfortunately many jockeys want to pay little or nothing to get from one race to the next. As a result they find themselves having to book with 'private operators' using small twins and even single engine aircraft !!!! If this was a so-called 'private' flight, then I am not surprised that Cochrane is having to resort to making a claim against the pilot's estate, Wonder if he kept his receipt
By the way, I am not criticising this pilot's ability.
I know quite a few commercial pilots who have earned their first 500 hours flying 'private' trips. Perhaps the CAA ought to revise their greedy scheme of charges. I am sure that a large proportion of these 'private' operators would chose to go the AOC route, if it didn't cost as much as it does.
As for Mr Cochrane, if his current career has ended, perhaps he should earn a PPL and see if he can do a better job !!!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The employer of the pilot is responsible for any liability resulting from his actions in the course of his employment. Wether he was acting within the company's instructions / SOP's is irrelevant, the fact that he was engaged in their business means that they, through vicarious liability, are responsible. It is also necessary, sometimes, for insurance purposes to establish liability, hence you can get husbands suing wives and visa versa to achieve insurance payouts in the event of road accidents etc.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: delta.bc.canada
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little know fact that all of the above is true!One must initiate 'litigation'to get some results.
A little known fact is that any airline Captn that carries a pax from either Newyork/Calif,who's involved in an accident/incident,has his estate immediately sued by those states practices.I've seen a case where the Captn was held on the hook until the eleventh hour-to be relieved by the Co'lawyers.
Some lawyers ,in the states always try to get CVR info early to assist their cases.Illegal of course,but the NTSB always have to remind all of the the priveleged aspect of same..
A little known fact is that any airline Captn that carries a pax from either Newyork/Calif,who's involved in an accident/incident,has his estate immediately sued by those states practices.I've seen a case where the Captn was held on the hook until the eleventh hour-to be relieved by the Co'lawyers.
Some lawyers ,in the states always try to get CVR info early to assist their cases.Illegal of course,but the NTSB always have to remind all of the the priveleged aspect of same..
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen
When seeking to recover monies against those paid out in the form of a claim, the insurance company must issue proceedings in the name of the insured. I wonder if the jockey has claimed against a personal injury or loss of earnings policy
For example, when my office landlord's contractors inadvertently damaged some property in my office, I claimed and was paid out and the then the insurers appointed lawyers who sought to recover.
However, there was no choice on my part, I had claimed and could not have stopped the insurers recovering even if I had wanted to.
So, although I do not know the facts in this instance, it may well be that a similar circumstance applies here and a man who suffered badly through this deradful crash is now on the end of invective through no fault of this own. I am sure that he wishes that the crash never happened.
The underlying logic here is that insurance covers the insured, but the insurance company is in the business of recovering what it can to offset the claim - that's the way it works.
When seeking to recover monies against those paid out in the form of a claim, the insurance company must issue proceedings in the name of the insured. I wonder if the jockey has claimed against a personal injury or loss of earnings policy
For example, when my office landlord's contractors inadvertently damaged some property in my office, I claimed and was paid out and the then the insurers appointed lawyers who sought to recover.
However, there was no choice on my part, I had claimed and could not have stopped the insurers recovering even if I had wanted to.
So, although I do not know the facts in this instance, it may well be that a similar circumstance applies here and a man who suffered badly through this deradful crash is now on the end of invective through no fault of this own. I am sure that he wishes that the crash never happened.
The underlying logic here is that insurance covers the insured, but the insurance company is in the business of recovering what it can to offset the claim - that's the way it works.
Last edited by Stosser; 28th Jun 2002 at 11:32.