Jockey to sue wife of Pilot
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: North Wilts
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.]
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.]
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All Too Much
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: _
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...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!!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
suing
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
But then I think of all that lovely money coming my way soon
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
But then I think of all that lovely money coming my way soon
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Middle East
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suing Pilots Wife
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.
However, full marks again to the ******s in the tabloid press for **** stirring this out of all proportion.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
ps. there still happily married!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
(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.
