roving
An interesting, if somwhat dated document that illustrates some of the issues regarding compensation. I believe that it concludes, in summary, if the presence of an aircraft causes death, injury or damage on the ground, liability falls with the aircraft owner.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that the incident wouldn't have happened in the absence of an aircraft flying overhead.
As to the responsibilities of those on the ground, if they were not complicit in the incident i.e. obstructing the aircraft in some way, or within some prohibited area, then compensation is equally payable to all.
I think there is a strong probability that a case can be made that an area of parking restrictions in the interests of promoting free traffic movement is not a prohibited area for the purposes of an air display nearby.
In the 72 years since that digest was published, the law may have accepted that aviation is less dangerous, but the consequences of an incident/accident still remain with the aircraft owner and/or their insurers.
I conclude that all casualties from the Shoreham incident are entitled to compensation for their losses without deduction for their own liability in being within an area subject to parking restrictions. This is because the parking restrictions were imposed to promote the free flow of traffic past the flying display event and not as a safety measure against the possibility of an aircraft crashing within that area.
So no real issue here at all.