At 09:43 16/02/2010, you wrote:
----- "P Carey" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let me paint a scenario:
> Joe, who is not an instructor or office bearer, just an ordinary
> flying member takes out his glider, drives a peg into the ground
> and tie the wingtip down. <Later>Joe grabs his glider
> and takes off. Naturally, he forgets to remove the peg.
> Mrs.Trouble just walked onto the field to enquire about a glider
> flight and,
> on her way to the Duty Pilot, she trips on the peg, breaks her spine
> and starts proceedings against Joe, in the first place then against the
> Club. She claims, quite justifiably, $2 million.
To which Scott P replied:
Firstly - this does not constitute any legal advice...
She can't start proceedings against Joe, only the club. Not for
profit association members are protected, at least in Victoria. <and
then quotes an article in his club's newsletter, the GFA BBL
description, and the Victorian law to protect volunteers.
Again, stipulating that I am not a lawyer, it seems from reading the
GFA Notes that we would be covered in that case by the GFA BBL.
Scott
My take on that scenario is: Joe has been negligent and probably
disobeyed a club instruction to not leave pegs in the ground where
they could cause damage to people or gliders (e.g. he has not
hammered it in flush with the ground, has not marked it with a large
flag, and has not removed it when he untied the glider). Hence he is
not covered by the Victorian volunteers legislation as he has not
acted in good faith and in accordance with safe working practices. He
has breached instructions given by the community organisation.
If Joe is a householder with a mortgage his home insurance policy may
or may not cover his public liability for negligence elsewhere than
at his home. Depends on the insurer.
The club is covered by the GFA BBL policy despite failing to ensure
that Joe did not leave a hazard on the airfield before he took off -
but only for the first quarter of a million dollars of the total $2m
claim. Legal costs may well increase the total bill to $20 million to
defend the case or even to respond to it - a $2,000 claim by a member
of a similar club that had no "directors and officers' liability"
insurance cost over $25,000 - the entire club assets - to settle the
case. Thus the Club would be well advised to have its own insurance -
with an excess of $250,000 that would be covered by the BBL.
However, the volunteers legislation and the BBL policy protect Tim,
the club president who has personal assets worth $10 million; and
Fred, the duty instructor who is struggling to pay off a $300,000
mortgage; and Jim who is another ordinary club member who was gliding
that day and already airborne when Joe took off.
There is also the possibility that Joe, who was personally negligent
and should have known the risks posed by his failure to remove the
peg, may be cross-sued by the club's insurance company after they
settle the case because he failed in his duty of care to the club.
This is a process known as subrogation and some insurance companies
are less forgiving than others about such matters. Of course, if Joe
has no assets he will not be worth pursuing by any of the insurers as
he cannot pay out anyway. Hence it is in the Club's best interests to
be well insured.
This also partly answers Kym's question - if they stopped offering
AEFs and training they certainly would not need passenger cover, but
the third party insurance is still worth having and is not really
that expensive in the grand scheme of things. The recreational
aeroplane members of his club may pay more than gliders do to insure
their aircraft but a common policy spreads the risk at lower cost
than insuring them separately - and maybe the gliding members will
end up paying more subs to cover the glider costs, or maybe the
professional maintenance of the aeroplane costs more overall!
Al was stirring the pot with his question - even without much
training activity a small club needs a CFI and preferably other
instructors also to avoid burnout of one individual having to be
there all the time, and the new requirements for instructor currency
make it easier to keep a CFI who has not a lot of instructing to do.
Maybe we need to allow for "non-training" gliding clubs in the future.
Again the disclaimer that none of this constitutes legal or insurance
advice, only general thoughts of a non-specialist individual. Ask a
professional if you want proper advice.
Wombat
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
