a recent event
I am aware that there is an appeal lodged in this case so we are not "out of the woods" yet by any means by way of precident.
But this is what has happened to me.
A Cautionary “Tail”.
Once upon a time a young, or not so young, gentleman aeroplane enthusiast had been entrusted by the gods of aviation with the care of some elderly aeroplanes. This trust carried with it the implication that the enjoyment of these aeroplanes should be given to folk who expressed an interest. So this enthusiast would freely give flights in the DH89 Rapide to which he felt privileged to be the caretaker..
On one occasion some members of HARS had helped get the aeroplane ready for it’s 100 hourly and they flew with the aeroplane to Albion Park for the HARS open day. This was very successful and the next year two of these HARS members also flew to the next open day. At that stage the Rapide flew in company with a Comper Swift and the opportunity was taken to get some excellent air-to –air photographs.
Everyone was elated on landing at Bankstown and as we taxied up to the hangar we were all in excellent spirits. The engines were still running and cooling whilst a member of the crew was tasked with getting out and preparing the chocks. The pilot had just shut the engines down when he received the unwelcome news that one of the HARS members , had alighted from the wing root and hurt himself. As we all got out it was evident that he was close to the tail plane and that he must have jumped from the wing root and broken his leg. We asked him what had happened but as he was in shock we assumed he could not remember. His protestations at the time were that “don’t be worried, I will not sue you”.
As expected this proved to be false and some time later court proceedings started which resulted in the judge awarding this person a total of $506,000.
After much to-ing and fro-ing the insurance company Vero, the company with which our broker had placed the insurance, decided to depart the area of aviation insurance and treated the case as a “tail” thus paying this person a swag of monies that I believe he was not entitled to. Solicitor barrister and QC engaged by the insurance company advised against settlement for any monies but the insurance company relying on their cross insurance wanted to depart aviation insurance.
Farther details of the case were that the individual concerned had
1 but little aviation experience but had been a policeman and a “financial adviser”
2 he had been introduced by a friend, a skilled HARS member, and had during the previous period been tasked with cleaning and “gophering” as his contribution to the 100 hourly. As part of this he had been instructed on how to enter and exit the Rapide safely.
3 during the court case we had to change judges as the judge who was appointed had judged him adversely in a previous case regarding financial impropriety so she had to excuse herself.
4 the major claim of negligence was that steps should have been provided and that he had fallen from the wing root rather than jumped.
Now this is the very rough outline of a case which has taken several years to progress to this stage and you must realize that the above statement is very superficial and there are lots of other features of which due to lack of time, general irritation and a wish not to waste good ink on I must decline to expound upon but if you want to know more give me a phone call or an e-mail.
But the real purpose of this article is to warn you all to the legal implications of offering “buddy flights”.
Firstly there are lots of lawyers out there who are hungry for work. This is proved by the advertising seen of the type “you deserve compensation”. They will not be put off by whether the case is right or wrong.
People will change their minds about their actions when they are perhaps advised by, for example, a greedy member of the family.
There is a group of people who believe that they are not suing an individual but suing an insurance company so that somehow makes it OK to exploit the insurance company as “they have plenty of monies”. There also seem to be those in authority who work on the premise of “what can we award to get this thing to go away”.
It is critically important to have insurance as otherwise this could have been a financial disaster
Exam question.
Discuss, We have a legal system but not a justice system!