|
Scope of Damage by Aircraft Act considered
Lexology - Scope of Damage by Aircraft Act considered
Early on 28 December 2000 a crop dusting aircraft owned by ACQ Pty Limited and operated by Aircare Moree Pty Limited hit a power line whilst spraying a cotton field. As a result of the impact the power line, a 22kV conductor, dropped to a height of about 1.5 metres from the ground. The power company responsible for the conductor was promptly informed and sent two of its employees to deal with the problem. When they arrived it was agreed that one would drive to a site a further 7 kilometres away and isolate the conductor and the other would await isolation of the conductor before commencing assessment of the problem. Contrary to that agreement, Cook the employee who remained at the site, entered into the cotton field before the conductor was isolated. The ground was uneven and very boggy and the conductor was difficult to see against an overcast sky. Cook stumbled and fell in the muddy field and came within 60 millimetres of the conductor causing an electric arc which resulted in serious injury. In the High Court it was argued that ‘something that is a result of an impact’ should be construed as being a thing which ‘has an immediate (or reasonably immediate) temporal, geographical and relational connection with an impact’. It was argued that the chain of causation was too remote to apply to the plaintiff who, as a well trained worker, had attended the scene fully appreciating the danger from the damaged conductor. In a unanimous decision the High Court (comprising Chief Justice French and Justices Gummow, Heydon, Crennan and Bell) rejected these arguments. This is craziness..... You do the right thing and call the power company who send an "expert" along to fix the power line. He gets zapped and it's your fault! Wot the ??? All aircraft owners can expect their insurance premiums to increase to cover these sort of "accidents" into the future. Di :* |
In the High Court it was argued that ‘something that is a result of an impact’ should be construed as being a thing which ‘has an immediate (or reasonably immediate) temporal, geographical and relational connection with an impact’. It was argued that the chain of causation was too remote to apply to the plaintiff who, as a well trained worker, had attended the scene fully appreciating the danger from the damaged conductor. In a unanimous decision the High Court (comprising Chief Justice French and Justices Gummow, Heydon, Crennan and Bell) rejected these arguments. I read it three times and still can't understand what it means :ugh: Can someone translate ? |
WTF...Was this written by Kevin Rudd ?? I read it three times and still can't understand what it means Can someone translate ? |
Contrary to that agreement, Cook the employee who remained at the site, entered into the cotton field before the conductor was isolated. The ground was uneven and very boggy and the conductor was difficult to see against an overcast sky. Cook stumbled and fell in the muddy field and came within 60 millimetres of the conductor causing an electric arc which resulted in serious injury. And who will stand up to this BS? I would if I could, but who can, where does the BS stop? I hear about this kind of thing every week and its getting worse! J:mad: |
OK - I'll try....
The Damage by Aircraft Act says the aircraft operator is strictly liable for the "...result of an impact." The operators legal reps said that shouldn't extend to an electricity worker getting zapped because the connection between the impact and the injury is too remote... In other words, once you have reported the incident to the electricity company your resonsibility should stop as you have no control over what they do in fixing the cable. The court - in their wisdom - disagreed!! Di :( |
And who will stand up to this BS? I would if I could, but who can, where does the BS stop? I hear about this kind of thing every week and its getting worse! Hopefully the White Paper to be released by the Govt later this year will address the problem somewhat. See "Review of Carriers Liability Act and Insurance" Green Paper which quotes this particular case (page 28): http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/avi...sion_Paper.pdf Di |
The justice's applied a little commonsense (for once) in that someone trained in the danger of a situation & then does something stupid should not be rewarded for that stupidity Di |
Yet another?????????
Yet another aircraft brought down by power lines.An no-one cares.
|
Bushy,
Aircraft stayed aloft and landed safely. Di :ok: |
Maybe the pilot could then sue the power company for putting the powerline there in the first place.
What a crock. |
Cynical,
In short, yes. If you are the car that damages the pole, you get the bill. Last time I noticed, the various Damages by Aircraft Acts have one thing in common, they are all "absolute liability", no defense. Tootle pip!! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:40. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.