Will be interesting to follow the development of this...
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: At Work
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is important to remember that the phrase "justice system" is simply a marketing tool used by the legal industry in various countries to make the public believe the legal industry is about "justice".
It is not, it is about winning and losing money either through judgements or legal bills.
No matter how much logic ordinary people attempt to apply to the legal industries, there will be some case, some set of facts that belie that logic.
Naturally the case brings up the obvious question which is, if an employer is subject to a standard of care with respect to inquiring about the aircraft, its' history of maintenance, its' performance capabilities and the like; And if the employer is also subject to a standard of care with respect to the pilots training, history, past performance and the like, what is the purpose of Regulators, Regulatory Authority and the myriad of arcane regulations?
More importantly, since fault was found by this court, why are the regulators not also responsible and paying, if this is actually about justice and laying fair fault?
It is not, it is about winning and losing money either through judgements or legal bills.
No matter how much logic ordinary people attempt to apply to the legal industries, there will be some case, some set of facts that belie that logic.
Naturally the case brings up the obvious question which is, if an employer is subject to a standard of care with respect to inquiring about the aircraft, its' history of maintenance, its' performance capabilities and the like; And if the employer is also subject to a standard of care with respect to the pilots training, history, past performance and the like, what is the purpose of Regulators, Regulatory Authority and the myriad of arcane regulations?
More importantly, since fault was found by this court, why are the regulators not also responsible and paying, if this is actually about justice and laying fair fault?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pittsextra
You make repeated references to UK accidents/incidents - a very different environment to this Peru accident. As I've asked you before, could you please say what steps you think a UK employer should take to fulfil its duty of care obligation to ensure safe helicopter travel for its employees?
You make repeated references to UK accidents/incidents - a very different environment to this Peru accident. As I've asked you before, could you please say what steps you think a UK employer should take to fulfil its duty of care obligation to ensure safe helicopter travel for its employees?
Rotorspeed - hi.
SH is an LLP and the pay for this employee is likely (although I have no specific knowledge of SH I am very familiar with similar entities) to include bonus treated as a repayment of capital which is beneficial for tax purposes. I'm not sure how in the legal world what effect that has but anyone working in a senior position for such entities does operate with a great deal of autonomy. Certainly it is highly unlikely that (for example) some HR / support staff would call up suggesting that a trip be cancelled especially given they would likely have no idea what is or is not relevant detail wise in aviation.
In that regard this judgement reflects a very poor knowledge of the dynamic within this kind of working environment.
Regardless. You asked what steps a UK employer should take. It's a very good question. What does one ask? I could give you a bunch of flim/flam about seeing an AOC, etc but reflecting on SH being a finance company without knowledge of the relevant documents / process how does one even know?
in the judgement there is reference to a using respected travel agents but what elements allow them to pass that test?
My reference to UK accidents however was not related to that. It is merely a nod to the fact that here is a judge making comment upon the process and tests that they believe are reasonable in terms of assessing risk and having assessed that risk having a reasonable action. The accidents I refer to involve entities that are not merely casual users of helicopters (as was the case with SH).
Therefore it is surely reasonable to expect (for example) a greater awareness. If we simply take the comments made in this case here:-
"StormHarbour did owe a duty to take reasonable care not to subject Mr Dusek to unnecessary risk in travelling to the Project site for the purpose of his employment"
Upon reflection how would the EC225 be viewed?? Just for example.
SH is an LLP and the pay for this employee is likely (although I have no specific knowledge of SH I am very familiar with similar entities) to include bonus treated as a repayment of capital which is beneficial for tax purposes. I'm not sure how in the legal world what effect that has but anyone working in a senior position for such entities does operate with a great deal of autonomy. Certainly it is highly unlikely that (for example) some HR / support staff would call up suggesting that a trip be cancelled especially given they would likely have no idea what is or is not relevant detail wise in aviation.
In that regard this judgement reflects a very poor knowledge of the dynamic within this kind of working environment.
Regardless. You asked what steps a UK employer should take. It's a very good question. What does one ask? I could give you a bunch of flim/flam about seeing an AOC, etc but reflecting on SH being a finance company without knowledge of the relevant documents / process how does one even know?
in the judgement there is reference to a using respected travel agents but what elements allow them to pass that test?
My reference to UK accidents however was not related to that. It is merely a nod to the fact that here is a judge making comment upon the process and tests that they believe are reasonable in terms of assessing risk and having assessed that risk having a reasonable action. The accidents I refer to involve entities that are not merely casual users of helicopters (as was the case with SH).
Therefore it is surely reasonable to expect (for example) a greater awareness. If we simply take the comments made in this case here:-
"StormHarbour did owe a duty to take reasonable care not to subject Mr Dusek to unnecessary risk in travelling to the Project site for the purpose of his employment"
Upon reflection how would the EC225 be viewed?? Just for example.
I'm personally looking forward to the day people start beating my door down looking for aviation advice to go on business trips for fear of failing this law and getting CMA'd.
I'm not really, IMHO this whole thing is a joke.
I'm not really, IMHO this whole thing is a joke.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter-RB
The next stage in these proceedings will be determination of the amount of damages and costs payable to her.
Separating determination of liability and determination of damages/costs is SOP in complex cases.
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 relates to criminal liability, not liability in civil law.
It replaced the old law of corporate manslaughter.
The Act applies to deaths after 6 April 2008.
It will be interesting to see whether Stormharbour appeals against the Judge's decision and, if so, what the Court of Appeal says about it.
FL
so as the Thread title suggests it will be interesting to see what the Widow does next
Separating determination of liability and determination of damages/costs is SOP in complex cases.
or indeed if she is successful in using something like this CMAct as the basis for any claim.
It replaced the old law of corporate manslaughter.
Unless the retrospective date of incident also plays such a part..?
It will be interesting to see whether Stormharbour appeals against the Judge's decision and, if so, what the Court of Appeal says about it.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 22nd Jan 2015 at 09:20.
FL,
It will be interesting to see whether Stormharbour appeals against the Judge's decision and, if so, what the Court of Appeal says about it.
What do you think will happen?
NS
It will be interesting to see whether Stormharbour appeals against the Judge's decision and, if so, what the Court of Appeal says about it.
What do you think will happen?
NS
Last edited by nowherespecial; 22nd Jan 2015 at 09:30. Reason: Poor English..... :)
Question on the freedom to express opinion
How would that freedom or otherwise extend to other professionals expressing their opinion? For example in recent accident threads there have been a range of expressions of experience around what is or is not accepted practices be it with an employer or type of aircraft. Even as recently as differences over 225's and compressor stall, if we want a less emotive topic.
Is the thinking that expressing such opinion may have negative consequences? Just prompted by you highlighting the "I said I am not free to do so."
Is the thinking that expressing such opinion may have negative consequences? Just prompted by you highlighting the "I said I am not free to do so."
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pittsextra
I can't speak for others.
The particular restrictions which apply to me in relation to 'legal' topics do not, as far as I am aware, apply to anyone else who posts on PPRuNe.
FL
I can't speak for others.
The particular restrictions which apply to me in relation to 'legal' topics do not, as far as I am aware, apply to anyone else who posts on PPRuNe.
FL
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been numerous aviation accidents of this type, resource company personnel without Aviation Advice, internal or external exploring in remote areas have often been the victims
It would have been cheap insurance for this company to have spent a couple of thousand on a simple desktop audit and risk assessment. This loss of life was totally avoidable. This aviation operation would have had red flashing lights for me within about 30 seconds.
It would have been cheap insurance for this company to have spent a couple of thousand on a simple desktop audit and risk assessment. This loss of life was totally avoidable. This aviation operation would have had red flashing lights for me within about 30 seconds.
