I’m trying to understand why the circumstances and outcome the subject of the OP seem to be striking anyone with the force of novelty and causing moral consternation.
Last time I checked, the pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the safety of the flight. In an instructor / student relationship, the instructor is – or at least should be - the person with superior knowledge and skills. The instructor is – or at least should be – aware of the possibility of the student doing something or failing to do something the outcome of which act or omission may put the safety of the flight at risk. So far as I am aware, the student in the circumstances the subject of the OP didn’t pull out a gun and shoot the pilot in command / instructor.
Seems to me like a durr-obvious situation in which the PIC/instructor bears some or all the responsibility for the outcome and for which the PIC/instructor’s employer is vicariously liable. What is the basis of any moral objection to the legal outcome?
I assume that those who disagree with the outcome will, in the event that their son or daughter is involved in an accident while being taught how to drive or tested by a driving instructor, step in and attribute entire responsibility for the accident to their son or daughter. Don't contribute to the decay of our society! Stand your ground and don’t let those lawyers complicate things by trying to attribute any responsibility for the accident to anyone else but your son or daughter. They shouldn’t have reacted in the way they did, even though the circumstances were an unusual surprise due to inexperience. They should not have assumed that the person in charge was competent and ultimately responsible for their safety.
Keeping good training records? That’s some risk mitigation genius, right there. Someone should add that to the
Big Person’s Book Of Survival In The Real World.
"he/she/they didn't do the brief with the correct coloured pens on the whiteboard when I did my PFL lesson. I ran it out of fuel and pranged post PPL and its the instructors fault from 5 years ago"
Can anyone cite a single instance in which an instructor/training organisation has been held partly or wholly liable by a Court in Australia for death, injury or damage in an aircraft accident because of some deficiency in the training, 5 years before the accident, of the licensed pilot in command?
Just one?