Settlement in Duxford L-39 Accident...

[Warbirdnerd]

THE widow and three children of an ex-SAS soldier who died in a horrific aircraft accident have won nearly a quarter-of-a-million compensation at London's High Court.

Gary Clark was the co-pilot of an Albatross jet training aircraft which overshot a runway while landing at Duxford Imperial War Museum in June 2002.

The two-seater ex-military jet ploughed across a field, through the aerodrome's perimeter fence, down the embankment of the M11 motorway and over the central reservation before finally coming to rest on the southbound carriageway.

But, by then, Mr Clark, 45, who was in the front cockpit and undergoing flying instruction at the time, had ejected.

His seat was fired onto the other side of the motorway where he slammed into the ground before his parachute could deploy. He died shortly afterwards.

Left to grieve were his widow, Tina, now 45, formally of Pine Grove, Brookmans Park, his son, James, 11, and his daughters Katerina, nine, and five-year-old Jessica, who was only a few months old at the time.

Mrs Clark sued flying instructor, Andrew Gent, of Balmoral Court, High Wycombe, Bucks.

She also claimed damages from the owners of the jet - Rocketseat, based in Hailsham, East Sussex - the company's chief pilot, Philip Greenhalgh, and its director, David Hayes.

All four defendants deny liability for Mr Clark's death, but today (Thursday) agreed to a compromise of the case which, after legal costs are paid, will leave the family with £246,500.

Mrs Clark's counsel, Anthony Scrivener QC, said the three children would receive £5,000 each, and the rest would be devoted to their private education.

The court heard that, on a full liability basis, the family's claim had been valued at around £600,000.

Approving the settlement, Mr Justice Underhill said a "major discount" had had to be applied to the family's payout because of the "complex" issues raised by the case.

The judge told Mrs Clark: "I think you have been well advised and, in these very unfortunate circumstances, it seems to me that this is a good outcome for you and your children.

Found it here:
http://www.herts24.co.uk/content/whtime ... 3A09%3A190

[oscardeuce]

I wonder what the lawyers cut was?

[Randy Haskin]

Not knowing anything about the details of the accident, other than what that story said...

WHY would the owners of the airplane have ANY liability for a pilot-error caused accident?

Was there no hold-harmless agreement?

[mgeorge51]

I wish the Hold Harmless would work but unfortunately it is not possible for a passenger or student to sign away the rights of their relatives. So while you can sign away your rights you can not sign away the right to sue of anyone else who may be harmed by your death or injury. It is out of control and one of the reasons I do not give rides anymore. I think everyone knows what we have to do to all the lawyers.

[TJJ]

Gary was a friend of mine, and it was a sad loss. This court case has been pending for a long time and has caused a lot of bad feelings. It is typical of the 'have to find someone to blame and make them pay' culture that is all too prevelant nowadays. The rest of us grieved and moved on, I hope his family now do the same.

The link to the AAIB report is here:

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications ... 022817.cfm

[Randy Haskin]

Man, after reading the report, now I'm more confused as to why there are any bounds for any legal/financial recourse.

[DB2]

In the US the award probably would have been $10 million or more.

I was very badly injured in a aerobatic crash several years ago, and was swamped with attorneys promising huge settlements. It was unbelievable; they didn't even care about a single fact. One even said "you were in an airplane crash. That's all I need".

I told them all to p*ss off. Even though a mechanical failure played a large part in my accident, my view was that I knew and accepted the risks involved with flying every time I took off. I think every pilot should make sure their family know this is his or her attitude as well.

Sadly, I will say that my experience has made me very reluctant to take up passengers now.

[k5083]

This is such a thorny problem. I wish I knew the answer or even thought it was possible to know it.

The way the regs are written, when there's a crash, somebody must have screwed up. The regs are based on the airman's credo that flying an airplane is basically a safe activity, and there can't be an accident unless somebody made a mistake. Even if the mistake was going to the airport and taking the plane out of the hangar that day. The government accident reports rarely if ever conclude, "The accident occurred because of tough luck." We are very demanding on ourselves that way, and so is the government.

And that philosophy is why the plaintiff is already at third base in the inevitable post-accident litigation. You know you are going to be able to point the finger at someon--pilot, maintainer, manufacturer, or all of the above--and it will probably be done for you. DB2's would-be lawyer was right about that. The only way you can lose is if the victim was the only one killed and if it was all his fault.

We could have defeated this presumption (it is now too late, of course) if our attitude toward flying had been that it's inherently risky and sometimes accidents are someone's fault and sometimes not. Many of us actually feel this way. If that were our view and society's view, then anyone who went up in an airplane might be considered to be assuming the risk of injury or death, like a contestant in a boxing match, and recovery would be more difficult. But, is this really the view of aviation that we want to communicate to the world? The aviation fraternity has decided that politically it is essential to put forward the view that flying all kinds of airplanes, even warbirds, is basically safe, and all accidents are preventable. In the ongoing fight for freedom to fly, probably that's wise.

Aviators are very independent, self-reliant folk and almost all of us would sign away our rights to sue after an accident. The trouble is, we rarely survive them, and our survivors do not share our attitudes. DB2 suggests to make sure your family knows what your attitude is. Well, good luck with that. Some families do understand, and don't sue, especially if they are financially comfortable and are also into aviation. Others might say, "Forget it. I loved my husband/father and let him fly his darn fool airplanes, and maybe even told him I wouldn't sue anyone if he got killed, but I'm not leaving millions on the table after some other idiot killed him in an airplane and left us without any means of support." And I can't say that I blame them.

Just no easy way out of this one.

August

[oscardeuce]

Hold harmless clauses, even when signed protect no one. In fact its right there when you sign into our Emergency Department. So, in theory the patient should not be able to sue the doctor or hospital if they sign the statment. We all know how well that works in practice.

I thank the lawyers every day for the fact that if I find a burglar in my bedroom and I plug him, I go to court. I'm the one who wronged someone, and lastly I should pay for shooting someone who broke into my house to take my property, and possibly harm my family or me.

[k5083]

Sounds like your real problem is with the law, not lawyers. Honestly, where do people get the idea that lawyers make laws? Talk to your legislator and see if you can get him/her to change the law. Criticizing lawyers for laws you don't like is like criticizing pilots for airplanes you don't like.

August

[JDK]

English Law applies in this case, with escalation to European court if a litigant party chooses. US (or anyone else's) law or common practice isn't relevant or applicable.

[hang the expense]

Hey K5083, you say that if you have a problem with the laws take it up with the politician. The problem with that is the majority of the politicians are lawyers . Were you aware of that? So what kind of laws are the lawyer/politicians going to make? You guessed it, Laws that benefit trial lawyers.

[oscardeuce]

Honestly, where do people get the idea that lawyers make laws? Talk to your legislator and see if you can get him/her to change the law. Criticizing lawyers for laws you don't like is like criticizing pilots for airplanes you don't like.


As stated above most "politicians" in the US from local to federal levels ARE lawyers.

John Edwards made millions on the backs of physicians by channeling dead babies and the claim that every case of cerebral palsy was the doctor or hospitals fault. Let's say mom drinks, smokes crack, has no prenatal care, then comes into the ER for delivery of a less than perfect infant. Guess who pays... yup the doctors and the hospital, not the drug abuser.

Again I thank the Lawyers for the laws they pass to help themselves, and their unwillingnes to pass reform.


Aviation is next. Believe or not.

[T33driver]

Honestly, where do people get the idea that lawyers make laws? Talk to your legislator and see if you can get him/her to change the law. Criticizing lawyers for laws you don't like is like criticizing pilots for airplanes you don't like.


As stated above most "politicians" in the US from local to federal levels ARE lawyers.

John Edwards made millions on the backs of physicians by channeling dead babies and the claim that every case of cerebral palsy was the doctor or hospitals fault. Let's say mom drinks, smokes crack, has no prenatal care, then comes into the ER for delivery of a less than perfect infant. Guess who pays... yup the doctors and the hospital, not the drug abuser.

Again I thank the Lawyers for the laws they pass to help themselves, and their unwillingnes to pass reform.


Aviation is next. Believe or not.

It's already here in aviation. When liability reform was passed to give relief to aircraft manufacturers, the trial lawyers simply shifted their crosshairs to the owners and aircraft component manufacturers like Parker-Haniffin. One only has to look at skyrocketing aircraft liability insurance premiums the last few years to validate that. Having said that, practicing law is an honorable profession but like all professions there are bad apples like John Edwards. Beyond the legal profession, we (in the USA) as a society are willing accomplices to the would-be ambulance chasers and got our finger on a hair-trigger to sue.

[k5083]

Most legislators are lawyers. Most rapists are men. Are we all to blame for all the rapes? No, only the rapists are. So save your venom for the lawyers who are legislators.

Most legislators who are lawyers were NOT "trial" lawyers and have no motivation to pass legislation that benefits trial lawyers, which are a special interest within the legal profession. Nor do they have a record of doing so. They have a record of doing what it takes to get elected and reelected by us, the people. The laws are the way they are because the people, by and large, want them that way. If you are out of step with your country and don't like its laws, you can seek to change them or, I guess, just find a scapegoat to complain about.

JDK, I have purposely kept my comments throughout this thread applicable to the English situation as well as the American. Different laws, but same basic issues and process.

T33driver has it most nearly right, but still a bit backwards. We, the ones who sue, are not just "willing accomplices" to the lawyers who help us do so. It is our responsibility; lawyers are the accomplices. If you shoot all the lawyers, people will have to represent themselves in court, and the process will be messier and less efficient, but if you kill someone in your airplane their survivors will still wind up with your money. Sorry.

August