Jockey to sue wife of Pilot

[swashplate]

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.

:rolleyes:

[White Knight]

What a sad git.....what's the pilot's poor wife got to do with it.

Some people need to get a life - unfortunately the pilot can't :mad: :mad:

[enq]

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.

[Julian]

Why go after the pilot or his wife for that matter?

If there is a compensation issue surely he would pursue the company involved? Or am I looking at it too simplisticly?

[Nopax,thanx]

"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...?????

[newswatcher]

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.

[Wheelon-Wheeloff.]

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.

[Big Tudor]

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.

[The Nr Fairy]

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 (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/feb01/gbmnt.htm).

[aspinwing]

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'. :mad:
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.
:p

[Nopax,thanx]

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?

[newswatcher]

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!

[Big Tudor]

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.

[LGW Vulture]

I see my post was too near the knuckle.....

Treat Cochrane with the contempt he deserves, truth is a not a word that can be associated with him!

[charterguy]

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 :confused:

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 !!! :mad:

[Seriph]

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.

[m&v]

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..
:confused:

[Captain Stable]

Of course it's illegl. And highly undesirable. IMHO any lawyer trying to make use of CVR material should have his case invalidated.

[doubleu-anker]

Unfortunately, law,especially english law, is not about justice. Pay us all to remember this.;)

[Stosser]

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.

[keendog]

1. There is nothing in the fact that the deceased pilot's wife is named in the proceedings. She is likely to be simply the personal representative of his estate.
2. The AAIB does not establish blame, although its findings may be used as evidence in the process of establishing blame.
3. There is no requirement to establish blame in general - the question of blame arises when one person attempts to sue another (or his estate).
4. The Claim may have been brought at the instigation of the Jockey personally (who, regardless of other considerations, has doubtless suffered considerable financial loss as a result of what happened) or, as has been pointed out above, if the Jockey had taken out and paid for his loss of income insurance policy, providing him with income in the event that he became too incapacitated to do his job, it may have been a term of that policy that the jockey was obliged to sue any possible wrongdoer i.e. if he wanted to be paid out under the policy he had no choice but to sue whether he liked it or not.
5. This is a battle of insurance companies - it is highly unlikely to be "personal" and is (leaving aside for the moment the more general arguments about the corrosive effect of a compensation culture and/or the effects of the Warsaw Convention) quite unremarkable. In law, as a passenger in a car or and aeroplane, the one person not at fault is you - there's an understandable presumption that something happened that should not have happened to the driver/pilot or car/plane so in situations such as this there is, on the face of things, a pretty good chance of recovering something. That presumption can, of course, be rebutted.
6. Is it right that a pilot who plainly battled to save his ship should suffer the ignominy of being "blamed" after his death for monetary reasons? I'm afraid that it is, unless our entire legal system changes to one that compensates people regardless of whether anyone else is "to blame" or not. The risk of this happening to us as pilots or drivers is the price we pay for being able to obtain and rely on insurance. I think it should also be remembered that being to blame in a legal sense is often very different from being to blame in a sense that would attract public criticism. Not a car journey or flight takes place without us doing or not doing something "wrong" in the sense that with hindsight we might to it a little differently in the interest of perfection. In the vast majority of circumstances, nothing comes of it. For the unlucky, a combination of circumstances means that a lapse makes the difference between a safe journey and an accident. There but for the Grace of God we go. This is, of course, not always the case - some errors are stupid, very stupid, reckless or suicidal. But in cases like this where if there was any lapse by the pilot (which is some way from being established) then I doubt very much that the imposition of "blame" by law amounts to nearly enough to eclipse, to the non-lawyers eye, what he did right.
7. I therefore doubt that this is a story about which to be too outraged.

[Cathar]

I was very interested in the comment that it was illegal in the US for lawyers to obtain "early" CVR information. I had gained the impression that when a major accident occurs in the US the CVRs are replayed on the news within 48 hours.

In the UK it is not illegal to obtain CVR or transcripts for use legal proceedings but it would require a court order. Before issuing such an order the court would have to be "satisfied that the interests of justice in the judicial proceedings or circumstances in question outweigh any adverse domestic and international impact which disclosure may have on the investigation into the accident or incident to which the record relates or any future accident or incident investigation undertaken in the United Kingdom." As the any relevant part of the transcript will be in the AAIB report I assume that such court orders are rarely obtained.

[See regulation 18 of the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996 which reflects the requirements of paragraph 5.12 of Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention.]

[STOP STOP]

Unfortunately, there is blame or liability to be established for insurances etc to pay out and settle.

Equally devestating are the conditions under which the accident occured. As you teach any student learning to fly there first twin - there is a "moment of truth". The grey area between which the aircraft flies not so good and stopping ain't your best choice either!!

The Seneca appeared to suffer an engine failure at or bloody close to Vmca from a short and slightly boggy (as I recall) grass strip. Worst nightmare with grass verges and banks ahead at Newmarket. Very Unfortunate!!

[ww1]

...and then the Purser's dependents will sue the F/O's estate, the 1st Cabin Crewmember's dependents will sue the Purser's estate, the 2nd CA sues the 1st, etc, etc, etc... Is that how this works? Sorry, W-W. I may have just shown a pathetic lack of knowledge of insurance law, but JEEEEZUS!!!

[mdb3]

Shouldn't it be the wife suing the jockey for making a better attempt at saving her husband.

[Steepclimb]

A fair few tabloidian emotive responses on this thread. Some of you are a little naive. You should get out more.
Don't make the mistake of thinking this is personal. It is merely, as one or two have already pointed out a legal point. Like most of these cases it's the insurance companies and lawyers in a impersonal dance.
I've heard of situations where a son/daughter sues the Father or Mother and other close relatives, but don't imagine there's a frosty athmosphere in the family home. No doubt they all go out together to celebrate whatever was awarded.
I've read elswhere that Ray Cochrane is also suing Godolphin, for whom Dettori has most of his rides. For those of you no au fait with the ins and out of the racing industry. Godolphin is racing arm of the rulers of Dubai, very deep pockets indeed.

I too used to decry the compensation culture that has grown up, particularly in relation to car accidents and other accidents. I used to think like that too until I gained some experience of how insurance companies work. I lay the blame fairly and squarely on them. Two situations with my Mother for example, where we were forced into legal redress by the attitude of the insurance companies. In my own case where my car was written off when rearended by a dimwit in the ubiquitious white Transit van, he came up with a pack of obvious lies and the insurance company was fully prepared to go to court rather than pay the £300 in dispute. Of course cynically they knew no solicitor would even answer the phone for that kind of money. In the end the solicitor I consulted tried to stiff me with £200 bill. I sent her the expenses and told her to sing for the rest.

I've learned my lesson on that one, both insurance companies and lawyers like the way things are right now because ultimately we pay for all the claims made. They still make nice profits.
Next time someone hits me or my car. I know what to do. I can aready feel the pain in my neck and back :eek:
But then I think of all that lovely money coming my way soon:D

[A300Man]

I am sure that the correct and appropriate steps are being taken here, i.e. that the survivor can only claim through the pilots estate beneficiaries........etc....

However, full marks again to the ******s in the tabloid press for **** stirring this out of all proportion.

[virgin]

What's been said about this one may be right, but it's not always the insurance co's.
It's a long time ago, but as I remember it, the wives of the men killed when Graham Hill crashed near Elstree sued his his estate.
Racing drivers didn't earn so much in those days (mid-60's?) and Hill's wife was wiped out.

[Bomber Harris]

Ah...finally someone gets to the key point here. Well spotted a300man.

To quote the opening post

"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"

which was a media quote.

Then all our legal eagles at pprune explain that this is rather normal procedure for processing claims through the court.

So surely the point is....why are the media making these statements. Do they not have there own legal advisors....or are they trying to sell their wares. If any of you vultures are reading this.......you are all turning into a body of writers not even fit to script a captain marvel comic. What happened to telling us the whole truth!! This is a fine example of sensationalism for the sake of it.

[hobie]

A gal I know was being driven home in her husbands car after a late night out ...... he fell asleep at the wheel and she was injured in the crash ...... to be fair, she needed some very expensive dental work and to cut a long story short, she sued her husband/his insurance company and won very substantial damages ....... when there's money involved you never know who you might claim against!

ps. there still happily married!

[Lawyerboy]

I'm probably doing no more than summing up what's already been said, but this really is

(a) quite normal; and

(b) going to have no effect whatsoever (financially) on poor Mrs Pilot.

As a number of people have already said, sons sue fathers, wives sue husbands and mothers sue sons all the time without rancour, because in fact it's the wife suing the husband's insurers, not the husband himself, and both parties end up benefiting. Often the only way to ensure that insurers pay up is to take the party they insure to court and to prove negligence.

And before you ask, no I don't agree with it. It certainly isn't personal, which is one saving grace, but I'd be the first to argue for a civil compensation culture which does not focus on apportioning blame (or at least avoids the courts). One step, I suppose, would be to regulate insurers a little more and make them pay up a little more readily, but quite how you go about doing that I leave to others.