Originally Posted by
Johnny_56
in this case it sounds like the instructor/PIC tried to take over and recover - possibly without saying the magic words - but the student then also manipulated the controls and it was the ‘dual input’ that possibly caused or at least contributed to the subsequent stall/crash.
I haven’t read the case but should the student pilot bear some responsibility as they shouldn’t have been on the controls once the unusual attitude/undesired aircraft state developed?
In principle, a plaintiff can be held contributorily negligent (responsible in part or whole for their own injury), but that does not appear to be what's been found in this case. The judge at first instance (in the Victorian County Court) held that "
the plaintiff bears no contributory responsibility for the collision". Ripper v Gobel Aviation Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] VCC 1907 (19 December 2024). The Judge's findings of fact leading to that conclusion start at paragraph 494 of the judgment.
I can't find the published decision of the Supreme Court yet, but it should be published here shortly.