Hi Bob, As Rob pointed out, I can't see insurers reducing their premiums even though their claim exposure seems significantly reduced, at least in NSW.
We have the statement written on the briefing board in the hangar 'As an adventure sport, gliding has an element of risk' and commence our pre-flight briefing for all AEFs by drawing students' attention to this fact. Students are required to complete the short term GFA membership after they have heard the briefing as they are then in then an informed position to sign the waiver. (even though the ultralight case assumed the risks of participation whether informed or not) These actions combined with responsible and legal management of the flight is all the protection that is available to us and appears to me to be sufficient based on recent legal outcomes in NSW. Dave makes some good points. Possibly an outcome of a perceived loss of insurance protection, once it becomes more widely known, may bring about members of the public looking more thoroughly into who they fly with, where and when, at least for some. Regards Laurie Hoffman SYDNEY MOTOR GLIDER FLIGHT GROUP Introductory to Advanced Glider Flights Web: www.sydneygliderflights.com.au Email: [email protected] Phone: 0439 353966 Camden Airport NSW Australia On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 11:50 AM, BOB BALFOUR <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Rob, That's fine, I completely understand. It is good to circulate the factual stories and let others speculate. Catch up again soon. Regards Bob ----- Original Message ----- >From: Rob Thompson >To: [email protected] >Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:48 AM >Subject: Re: [DOG mailing list] Interesting legal information > > >Hi Bob, >I am happy for you to circulate details I have sent about the facts of the cases and legislation but I would prefer if the speculations and opinions I have made are left out. They are purely the musings of an amateur. > > > >cheers >Rob > >Rob Thompson >mobile 0429 493828 > > >........................................ > > > >On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 9:43 AM, BOB BALFOUR <[email protected]> >wrote: > > >Hi Laurie, >The two emails surely give rise to food for thought. >Would you mind if I circulated this to Sydney Gliding Club members?. >What are the ramifications. >Does this now diminish the possible financial liability that Insurance >companies have made provision for?. >It is always an area where I was wary of "what could happen" as a Pilot with >a passenger even with the Indemnity forms. >We very rarely hear what are the legal issues that eventuate after bad >gliding accidents. >Regards Bob >----- Original Message ----- >>From: Laurie Hoffman >>To: [email protected] >>Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:14 PM >>Subject: Re: [DOG mailing list] Interesting legal information >> >> >>Hi Rob, >>This is great in terms of extra protection against litigation for those of >>us who provide gliding training. >> >> >>I am really surprised however that the Act actually provides protection to a >> defendant who has been shown to be negligent in their responsibilities. I >>wonder if this negligence could be pursued under some other form of civil >>action? >> >> >>I found this article which provides further info and associated >>considerations on the event that Rob has described. >>http://www.cbp.com.au/Publications/Civil-liability-for-personal-harm---dangerous--(1) >> >> >>Regards >>Laurie Hoffman >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On Tuesday, 21 January 2014 6:56 PM, Rob Thompson >><[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>G'day All >> >>Happy 2014! >> >>Here is something that will interest those of you who are aircraft operators in Australia. Chances are you have heard about this but not the ongoing significance. >> >>It is a legal case that seems to have redefined legal liability for passengers and students...not only for ultralights (which was the subject of the case) but also gliding and GA. >> >> >>I have heard stories that the insurance companies are sitting on this one. They are still charging significant premiums for pax/student liability but it now seems unlikely that they will ever have to pay out. >> >> >>Hmmmm..read on >> >> >>cheers >> >>Rob Thompson >> >> >> >> >>Noel Campbell v Rodney Victor Hay [2013] NSWDC 11 >>March 27, 2013 >> >>Introduction >>The District Court of NSW recently dismissed a plaintiff’s claim for >>injuries suffered as a result of an emergency landing of a light aircraft on >>the basis that the injuries suffered by the plaintiff resulted from the >>materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity. >>Marks ADCJ held that although the defendant flight instructor was negligent >>in carrying out the emergency landing, the defendant was not liable for the >>plaintiff’s injuries pursuant to s5L of the Civil Liability Act (‘the Act’). >>Facts >>The plaintiff was a student of the defendant and was learning to fly a light >>aircraft. In the course of his second flying lesson the aircraft engine >>stopped. The defendant took control of the aircraft and executed an >>emergency landing during which the plaintiff sustained injuries. >>The plaintiff alleged that his injuries resulted from the defendant’s >>negligence in failing to abort the flight as soon as any engine ‘roughness’ >>appeared, attempting to land at an excessive speed, and flying over rough >>terrain with no suitable landing sites’, amongst other things. >>Marks ADCJ found that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care for >>the safety of the plaintiff in not ensuring that the aircraft was flown >>towards an appropriate landing strip immediately after the second set of >>engine vibrations started and continuing to fly rather than trying to land >>the aircraft.’ >>Dangerous recreational activity defence >>The defendant pleaded that the injuries suffered by the plaintiff resulted >>from the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational >>activity pursuant to s5L of the Act. >>Section 5L of the Act provides that: >>(1) A person is not liable in negligence for harm suffered by another >>person as a result of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity >>(2) This section applies whether or not the plaintiff was aware of the >>risk. >>Marks ADCJ considered three questions: >> * Was the plaintiff engaged in a recreational activity? >> * Was that recreational activity ‘dangerous’? >> * Was there an obvious risk? >>His Honour held that the plaintiff clearly was engaged in recreational >>activity; this was not controversial. >>In considering whether the recreational activity engaged in by the plaintiff >>was ‘dangerous’, his Honour referred to s5K of the Act which defines a >>dangerous recreational activity as ‘a recreational activity that involved a >>significant risk of physical harm’. >>In assessing whether a recreational activity involves a significant risk of >>physical harm, Marks ADCJ stated that he must take into account‘all of the >>relevant circumstances that bear on the activity in which the plaintiff was >>engaged at the time he suffered his injuries’. Those circumstances were that >>the plaintiff was flying with an experienced pilot in a single engine light >>aircraft, and that the aircraft was flying above ground and needed to be >>landed safely to avoid any risk of harm. >>His Honour held that there is a risk of something going wrong with the >>operation of any aircraft which will impact on the operation of the aircraft >>and the ability to land it safely. This finding was said by His Honour to be >>a matter of logic, common sense and general understanding likely to be >>shared in the public domain. >>Support for determination of the issues on this ‘common sense’ basis, >>provided there was a valid basis for doing so, was found in the numerous >>authorities to which Marks ADCJ referred. >>His Honour referred to and relied on evidence tendered by the defendant. >>That evidence included statistics in relation to the accidents involving >>light aircraft. >>His Honour held that having regard to the defendant’s evidence, the risk of >>something ‘going wrong’ in the operation of an aircraft in flight and in >>safely landing the aircraft could not be described as trivial, even though >>the risk of something going wrong occurred infrequently. >>On that basis, the court found that there was a significant risk of physical >>harm. This finding, coupled with the finding that there ‘was a not >>insignificant risk of something going wrong’ led the court to find that the >>recreational activity in which the plaintiff was engaged was dangerous for >>the purpose of s5L of the Act. Accordingly, the defendant was not found >>liable to the plaintiff for his injuries. >>Conclusion >>This case is useful in identifying the matters a defendant needs to prove in >>order to establish that the injuries suffered by a plaintiff resulted from >>the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity. >>Authored by Kathryn Langton, Lawyer, Sydney. >> >> >> >> >>........................................ >> >> >> >>On Thursday, 19 December 2013 2:25 PM, Ian Mc Phee <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >>The magazine Airwaves which has comes out with this months Aviation Trader >>has a feature article from Hoffman to today with DA20s & DA40s etc. May >>even worth a read >>Ian mcphee >> >> >> >> >>No virus found in this message. >>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7020 - Release Date: 01/20/14 > > >No virus found in this message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7023 - Release Date: 01/21/14
