Damages for dead Yak pilot's family

[QDMQDMQDM]

I am at a loss to understand why you appear to think that risk management does not apply in the medical field as it does every where else.

Of course we try to reduce risk all the time. My point is that it is completely impossible to eliminate it and that we get sued now almost as a matter of course when anything goes wrong. The courts are increasingly sympathetic to the plaintiff and the idea of a simple mistake or error of judgement seems to have gone out of the window.

I make any number of significant decisions a day, of which no doubt some could be better. I think I am a reasonably competent GP, but I think eventually I will get sued again. Do I think I'm being negligent on a daily basis? No. Do I think all claims against me will therefore be defensible? No. That's why I'm cynical about negligence cases. I could sit with you and go through the medical notes of patients I have seen in the last year and identify a number of potential lawsuits which have not yet happened. So could any GP.

I don't say no-one is ever negligent, but as a professional who faces this reality all the time, I am fatalistic. And cynical. I don't know the precise details in this case, but I know something similar could probably happen in any GP surgery or hospital in the UK.

Flying aerobatics is a dangerous business. My aviation life insurance doesn't cover it.

[stiknruda]

QDM wrote:

Flying aerobatics is a dangerous business. My aviation life insurance doesn't cover it.

Can you justify with evidence your rather broad brush statement? Just because the insurer perceives aeros as more dangerous is probably testament to his poor understanding of what is actually involved.

I am sure that CFIT and disorientation through inadvertent entry to IMC kills more pilots each year than a botched loop.

How many were killed in aviation accidents (specifically GA) during the year that Tony speared in - how many of the others that stoofed were involved in aerobatics?

[QDMQDMQDM]

stik,

I don't know the statistics and insurance is a blunt instrument, but neither my life insurance nor my travel insurance covers aerobatics. And aerobatic pilots wear parachutes, while the rest of us don't, which tells us something too. There may not be many accidents per year in aerobatic flight, but there aren't, proportionately, many aerobatic hours flown either.

The thing which irritates me about this thread, and why I finally decided to get involved, is the inability to divorce political correctness from an important discussion about the ins and outs of negligence, compensation and liability. I am also irritated by people like plussixpointfive, who obviously know more than most of us on this case, but therefore feel that the great unwashed has no right to comment. We still live in a free society, just, and this is a really important subject for all of us.

The standard of proof required in civil cases is far lower than in criminal cases, the cases in negligence proceedings are often heart-rending, as in this one, and the only entity to directly suffer financially is generally an insurance organisation. All good reasons to find in favour of the plaintiff. Further, with the rise of no-win no-fee, there is little reason for a potential plaintiff not to fire out a series of writs like a cluster bombload from an F16.

I'm not even saying that a finding of negligence in this case was necessarily unjustified, and I presume it was fundamentally because they didn't account for their tools, but again I don't know. What I am saying is that society is now in a situation where professionals like me, who practice in a dangerous sphere, but who do their job reasonably competently, view it as inevitable they will get sued. I already have been. I no doubt will be again. I feel there is only a limited set of precautions I can take to avoid it. You may think that's a good thing. I think it says there is something wrong and that we are entering open season on professionals.

Like I say, sh*t happens, but we've lost the knack of learning to live with it. Someone else so often has to be to blame, and that's sad.

QDM

[Justiciar]

with the rise of no-win no-fee, there is little reason for a potential plaintiff not to fire out a series of writs like a cluster bombload from an F16.

1. As a Claimant, you have to be insured against loosing, which means you can only get insurance if there is a reasonable prospect of success - solicitors who loose lots of cases generally stop being offered the insurance for their clients
2. No solicitor will take a hopeless case or the one which he does not think stands much chance, since bringing a case costs alot of money, including expensive medical reports which the claimant's solicitor pays up front
3. If anything, the number of cases taken under no win-no fee has decreased as compared with a few years ago since any lawyer who is not ruthless in his selection of cases will go bankrupt quite soon!

We generally carry 10s of £1,000s in disbursements for our personal injury clients at any one time. Money is often paid out for the client years before it is recovered. We cannot afford to run dodgy cases with the risk of not getting repaid.

Clinical negligence is not done under no win, no fee. These cases are run by the small number of firms who still have a legal aid contract for this type of work. They are audited on success and failure. To many hopeless cases lost means loss of the contract.

By the way, we no longer have writs

[shortstripper]

Farming is in a ****e state at the moment, but listening to all this guff about the work of lawyers and doctors .... I think I'll stick to it

Funny thing though, I recently had an HSE inspection where they chastised me for for having to climb three rungs of a ladder to turn a tap each day, but had no comment on me having to seperate a horny 900 kg bull from a cow on heat ... go figure!!!

SS

[Mixed Up]

Quote:
So a shark heard a couple of bickering parties and legally settled a spat.
Mied Up: Hopefully you will never be in the position of the widow in this case. Had you ever lost a loved one in a tragic and possibly avoidable accident you might have been less inclined to make such a flippant and disparaging comment

If I recall correctly, a solicitor, and p/t Employment Tribunal Chairman, literally told me of the purpose of the ET: "It's got nothing to do with finding the truth; it's about settling a spat between two bickering parties". I guess a civil court is similarly viewed by solicitors, and that is the view I was expressing. I have another couple of solicitor friends (decent people) who have recently expressed to me dismay at the legal system/culture.

Most solicitors are not sharks, but the legal profession does seem to attract a higher percentage of them than other professions - and that is my personal experience.

I expressed my view of the parties earlier, when I said: It's a tragic accident and I feel for all involved (except the legal sharks).

I guess we'll never really know how much the legal teams for the two parties received, but I bet they did nicely out of it.

[NutLoose]

Originally Posted by IO540

It's negligent to design a plane so that something can transit from the passenger space to somewhere where it matters.

Why do people design them in that way?

If you ever managed to designed a perfect safe and totally bulletproof aircraft it would never get off the ground period........... nothing is or will ever be 100 % safe.

I read the report when it came out and thought tragic as it may seem, the pilot may of indeed borrowed the Screwdriver to use before his flight, this could never be proved and I do not wish to cast dispersions on his character as no one will ever know the truth.

But I would say please, imagine how the poor Trainee Mechanic must feel..... he had been totally honest, came forward and honestly told the truth that he was missing a similar screwdriver. This as said could have been borrowed without his knowledge and caused the demise of both the aircraft and pilot................... but without it being clear cut if the pilot borrowed this tool, he has to live with this for the rest of his life.

He could have simply lied, but he didn't and for that I respect him wholeheartidly.

Myself I have been in a position where I have seen pilots simply walk in and "help themselves " to the contents of my toolkit as if it is their God given right...... I have had severe words over the years with many, I myself operate a self disipline when working on Aircraft in that I check my tools at the end of each Job to ensure I have them all back where they should be in my tool kit...

Perhaps this accident as tragic as it may have been will bring a greater awareness to both pilots and engineers as to proper tool control.

[NutLoose]

Originally Posted by QDMQDMQDM

stik,

I'm not even saying that a finding of negligence in this case was necessarily unjustified, and I presume it was fundamentally because they didn't account for their tools, but again I don't know.

QDM

The problem I have with this line is the fact that it infers correct tool control was not possibly in place, If the Aircraft had been worked on prior to the incident and a tool check had been carried out and all tools where accounted for, that would not prevent someone simply walking in and borrowing a tool without any of the owners knowledge in a maintenance facility.. where people are working on different aircraft you would check your tools before moving on to the next aircraft. now in a perfect world this would be ideal, but if someone needing a screwdriver perfectly innocently walked in and picked one up from someones kit to open or close a panel for a moment after the relevent checks had been carried out a tragedy is in the making and this is something that no one could forsee or prevent.................... again I am not making assumptions, but just putting a scenario before you all that could show how easy it would be.

[QDMQDMQDM]

Yak UK has issued a statement, denying liability:

http://www.pilotweb.aero/content/art...e.aspx?id=3435

[Mixed Up]

Justiciar:

So the judge did hear all the evidence and then made a decision.

So this was not the case.

[S-Works]

Back to the comments about lawyers being the only people that make money in these circumstances. Cheaper for the insurance company to settle without acceptance of blame than feed the lawyers for a long and drawn out trial................

[jonkil]

This Country (Ireland) and to a lesser degree, the UK is becoming more and more like the USA.
Take a trip down any "interstate" in the USA and you are bombarded by NO WIN-NO FEE billboards for lawyers that don't give a hoot about the consequences of their actions on third parties.... all they care about is a quick buck. Ireland has become a real "claim culture" in the past decade and it is almost completely impossible to insure yourself against it.
Yes, there may be a case to answer for for negligence that was apparent, but to follow the letter to the law, cross each t, dot each i & to follow health and safety to the letter of the law will wreck any business.
I have been audited by H&S and it became so apparent that I was leaving myself open for some shark of a lawyer to hit me big time that I dont offer maintenance at all any more.
The fact of the matter is that the guy is dead, don't matter how much we rabbit on about it, don't matter about any finincial settlement... he isn't coming back.................. and that my friends is it in a nutshell.
We aint here for a long time, we're here for a good time... chill and get on with it.

[Zulu Alpha]

From the latest reports this settlement looks like one insurance company not wanting to pay for a trial. The damages are relatively small vs the potential earnings of the deceased. The insurance company had a choice between pay £270,000 or risk paying £2+M. Only they know why they chose the option they did.

As YAK UK have said they deny liability and as it was never taken to a court of law then we do not have a 'verdict' only individual opinions. My view for what its worth is that there are very tenuous links to negligence by YAK UK.

One question that has been raised is whether there should be no win no fee cases. I used to be of the opinion that this was a bad idea as it encouraged ambulance chasing like in the US. However, I have changed my mind after talking with my Uncle who is a judge and my Grandfather who was a master. Their view is that before no win no fee was allowed in the UK there were many large organisations (including insurance companies) who could easily take ordinary middle income people like me and you to the point of bankruptcy rather than settle. The less well off got legal aid but not anyone with a reasonable income. Therefore people like you and me had really no option other than settling for reduced payouts just because we could not risk the potential financial costs of a court case. No win no fee does not automatically mean frivolous cases because no Solicitor or Barrister would take a hopeless case.

One safeguard we have in the UK is that we do not have punitive damages. They have these in the US, they are effectively a punishment added on top of the actual loss of the victim. These can be large if negligence is proved and can exceed the actual financial loss. This payout does encourage more speculative cases. My understanding is that we do not have this in the UK so do not have as many speculative cases as the US.

I am sure there are Solicitors and Barristers on the forum. perhaps they would like to comment.

[plussixpointfive]

Yak UK Ltd statement

Isn't it predictable that even a respected publication like Pilot magazine can print a statement with the same accuracy as a tabloid newspaper.

The article on pilotweb, The statement says the accident occourred in December 2002, The crash actually occourred on January 5th 2003.

The statement also quotes the AAIB as stating that the pilot was the last person to "handle" the screwdriver. The quote from the report is reproduced below.

The loose article found in G-YAKW was a short-handled flat-bladed screwdriver. Although the most likely source of the screwdriver was during maintenance in November 2002, what is not known and could not be established is how the screwdriver found its way into the aircraft. Screwdrivers of this type are used by pilots to carry out normal routine servicing on the aircraft. All the other pilots who flew the aircraft from November 2002 however were able to account for their tools used for this purpose, and the 'Swiss Army' knife normally used by the pilot involved in the accident was recovered. DNA testing however, showed that the pilot had come into contact with the screwdriver at some point prior to the accident but it could not be established when or how this occurred.

For the record, please also note that the pilot killed in the crash had not visited Yak UK Ltd for any reason including delivering or collecting the aircraft.

The trainee who lost the screwdriver told the inquest that the last time he had seen the screwdriver was to open a tin of paint.

[QDMQDMQDM]

plussixpointfive,

You have already declared a close interest in this case, for which you are to be applauded, but one cannot help feeling your partiality is clouding your objectivity.

The statement says this:

DNA tests presented at the inquest by the AAIB firmly established that the pilot had been the last person to handle the screwdriver before it jammed the controls. No evidence was ever presented in the proceedings to suggest otherwise.

You just said:

The statement also quotes the AAIB as stating that the pilot was the last person to "handle" the screwdriver. The quote from the report is reproduced below.(Quote from the AAIB report follows)

The statement, as I quoted above, refers to DNA tests presented at the inquest by the AAIB, not the AAIB report. I wasn't there -- maybe you were -- but evidence at an inquest can be more extensive than an accident report or questioning by the coroner may bring out different aspects.

It's clear that you are out to rubbish Yak UK and their position because you think they are firmly in the wrong and responsible through their negligence for the death of your friend, colleague or relative, and I think the rest of us need to keep that in mind when reading your posts.

From my personal knowledge, I know that there can be a large gap between what an insurance organisation thinks is worth the risk of defending and barn door negligence.

This is a tragedy, but brings out really important issues with regard to risk and blame in society today and for that reason it is worth discussing here. I'm glad it has been.

QDM

[Mixed Up]

plussixpointfive:

I really don't see that you are making any point, merely posting one little bit of "evidence" that adds little or nothing to the totality of the story, and that simply invites others (and me) to respond with equallly valid "evidence". We are perfectly able to read and comprehend an entire AAIB report and make up our minds based upon the evidence it presents.

Please can someone tell us the actual verdict of the inquest? (In less than 5 words, e.g. "death by misadventure".)

[Justiciar]

I am not quite sure where this thread is now going

Yes I was wrong in assuming that the award from the High Court was after the case was tried. However, it seems to have been settled at some point either during or shrotly before trial. The insurers clearly took a view about the strength or otherwise of their case. In my experience insurers do not rush to settle claims of this sort. They will have considered all the factors, including the strength and reliability of their own witnesses before settling.

As I asked at the end of October, when this thread was last live, does anyone have a better way of dealing with these things?

[QDMQDMQDM]

Justiciar,

You make a good point: how could it be dealt with better? Probably, it couldn't be. The system works, but society has changed a lot and is more querulous than it used to be.

The point is that a reflex these days is to sue a professional if anything goes wrong: what the hell, you might get something, so give it a go!

Liability insurance for medics in Europe is a tiny fraction of what it is here. People have a different attitude to life and they don't always think someone is to blame.

Personally, I don't like the way British society is going in so many aspects and this is just one of them, but quite symptomatic of the whole.

QDM

[plussixpointfive]

Point taken

Yes you are correct, quoting small extracts from reports, is getting us nowhere. So lets approach it from a slightly different angle.

Yak UK have made sure they have never admitted any liability for the accident, & by posting the statement in pilot magazine, have re -opened this debate.

So what about responsibility.

Lets assume for a moment that no employee left the screwdriver in the aircraft. This means that a third party did take the screwdriver(we know it wasn't the dead pilot as he was not at the facility). What sort of aircraft maintenance operation has such lax security in place so as to allow someone to wander around unescorted and take a screwdriver from a toolbox. Tools and other equipment are expensive, no one can afford to keep losing items in this way. This also raises other important security issues if people have unauthorised access to aircraft.

Yak UK have thus blamed the pilot for being the last person to handle the screwdriver, as this is a pilots forum, let me ask you a question:-

After your aircraft arrives back after recent maintenance, you find an almost new & expensive screwdriver in your aircraft. What would you do with it?

I still maintain that Yak UK Ltd, whilst denying liability, are still in some way responsible for this accident.

I am also quite sure that, to ensure customer confidence, they have now got an almost military tool control system, security to stop unauthorised access to the aircraft and workshops, & a vigorous aircraft inspection programme.

pspf

[QDMQDMQDM]

Yak UK have thus blamed the pilot for being the last person to handle the screwdriver, as this is a pilots forum, let me ask you a question:-

After your aircraft arrives back after recent maintenance, you find an almost new & expensive screwdriver in your aircraft. What would you do with it?

I still maintain that Yak UK Ltd, whilst denying liability, are still in some way responsible for this accident.

I'll answer the question. I would either:

1. Ask whose it was and take it back to the maintenance facility. If it turned out to to be theirs and had been left behind at a recent maintenance check, I would expect suitable expressions of horror, abject apology and promises to put their tool control system right. If I didn't get that, I would be tempted to report to the CAA.

2. Say 'Oh, that's nice, here's a shiny screwdriver and use it henceforth for my pre-flight inspections.

If I opted for the second course of action and suffered a control jam as a result of my then leaving the screwdriver in the aircraft I would reckon it was my own fault and would not sue the maintenance organisation, nor would I expect my estate to do so. It seems only natural that following the second course transfers all responsibility to the person who pockets the screwdriver. Doesn't it?