Cadet and MoD settle injury case

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
#21
mediumwhiteamericano said:
Legs said:
Biscuits_AB said:
No, but if you've really grown some tits....you might be in with a shout!
Woohoo!! ££££££££ Kerr-Ching!!!!
Hey Legs, you can't sue if you wanted them to grow.
Bugger.

But I did break a nail last week. What about that?
 
#22
Was a suitable risk assessment carried out by a competent person? - No

Was a briefing given to the cadets (children) before the exercise was undertaken? - No

Did one of the children suffer an injury which could have been reasonable foreseen? - Yes

Then get your f*****g hand in your pocket a pay out you bunch of scuffers!

Simple eh?
 
#23
this is going to kill one more activity for the Cadets due to greed and more paperwork for us Adults, are you surprised that some Adults find it easier not to organise an activity ?
 
#25
#26
i think she should pay mod for the rock in the face improving her looks and what part of the instruction on the word "BELOW!" didn't she understand
 
#28
jim4244 said:
Was a suitable risk assessment carried out by a competent person? - No

Was a briefing given to the cadets (children) before the exercise was undertaken? - No

Did one of the children suffer an injury which could have been reasonable foreseen? - Yes

Then get your f*****g hand in your pocket a pay out you bunch of scuffers!

Simple eh?
ACF Scotland does seem to have a problem with training safety and maintaining a duty of care to its cadets. If they're not being injured in rock falls, then they drown them in the Hebrides
I haven't read the full accident report (which you can get from the above link), but I understand the ACF officer was not fully qualified and failed even to carry out a headcount, which alone could have saved Kaylee's life. He obviously left his red book in the Mess that day. Good night in the bar, sir?

Most UK Bdes have a Training Safety WO on the establishment whose job amongst others is to provide the world's supply of risk assessment templates, including that for TR&A, which I take it was what the cadets were doing. When County HQ submitted their greenfield form (application to mount an exercise) the risk assessment should have been attached, and a recce carried out.

Anybody been disciplined or resigned I wonder?

Any ACF Scotland AIs wish to comment?
 
#29
slab said:
jim4244 said:
Was a suitable risk assessment carried out by a competent person? - No

Was a briefing given to the cadets (children) before the exercise was undertaken? - No

Did one of the children suffer an injury which could have been reasonable foreseen? - Yes

Then get your f*****g hand in your pocket a pay out you bunch of scuffers!

Simple eh?
ACF Scotland does seem to have a problem with training safety and maintaining a duty of care to its cadets. If they're not being injured in rock falls, then they drown them in the Hebrides
I haven't read the full accident report (which you can get from the above link), but I understand the ACF officer was not fully qualified and failed even to carry out a headcount, which alone could have saved Kaylee's life. He obviously left his red book in the Mess that day. Good night in the bar, sir?

Most UK Bdes have a Training Safety WO on the establishment whose job amongst others is to provide the world's supply of risk assessment templates, including that for TR&A, which I take it was what the cadets were doing. When County HQ submitted their greenfield form (application to mount an exercise) the risk assessment should have been attached, and a recce carried out.

Anybody been disciplined or resigned I wonder?

Any ACF Scotland AIs wish to comment?
I don't think it is appropriate to comment further until the Inquiry has concluded, I think the inquest has been held but the Inquiry to the incident is still ongoing.
 
#32
arby said:
I was always under the impression that the phrase, where reasonably practicable was the guiding factor?
Correct :wink:

However, there appears to mitigating and aggravating factors in this case, none of which are relevant now because it didn't go to court (looks like it was settled out of court)

Maybe (I'm speculating here) the exercise was not adequately planned/conducted (risk assessments, qualifications, etc) and the MOD didn't want this discussed in court, especially given that the complainant was a child at the time of the accident and suffered visible facial scarring (this would have been considered in court as breach of duty of care and significant injury)

Also being discussed here: http://new.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=312004 and here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/7192363.stm Her writ states: "It was their [the senior officers in charge] duty to see to it that cadets were not gathered at the foot of the rockface while it was reasonably foreseeable that they would be at risk from falling rocks.

"It was their duty to take reasonable care to survey the rockface for loose rocks. It would have been reasonable to have taken steps to move the cadets back a safe distance whilst persons were climbing.

"It was reasonably foreseeable that if such measures were not undertaken an accident of the type which did occur, would occur.

"In their duties the defenders failed, and by their failure caused the accident. Had they fulfilled the duties incumbent upon them the accident would not have occurred."

The MoD's response states: "The accident was caused, or at least materially contributed to, by the pursuer.

"She had a duty to take care of her own safety during the training.

"She had a duty to stand clear of any area where she might be struck by falling rocks."
 
#34
jim4244 said:
Was a suitable risk assessment carried out by a competent person? - No

Was a briefing given to the cadets (children) before the exercise was undertaken? - No

Did one of the children suffer an injury which could have been reasonable foreseen? - Yes

Then get your f*****g hand in your pocket a pay out you bunch of scuffers!

Simple eh?
WHAAAARRRRR
 
#35
The MOD should have asked why has she not sued her parents, surely they are responsible for the deformity!!?
 
#36
I'm going walking this afternoon and It has a rocks... yes that's right it's a mountain - now, If I injure myself from slipping down loose rocks would I be able to sue the local authorities as the mountain is in their "authority" and they should have had someone ensuring the way is clear?

How long before activity disclaimers come into play?

And on a finishing note, surely the staff where telling her to not look up more watch out and as a result of her not following this "command" she caused her own injury?
 
#37
In some cases, disclaimers already have..my uni held a disco on roller skates and everyone who used roller skates had to sign a disclaimer form incase the manages to fcollide with the speaker stacks and managed to bring them all down, thus crushing them anresulting in someone sueing. It doesn't take Einstien to work out though, that alcohol+loud music+roller skates are a f***king bad idea to begin with.
 

Latest Threads

Top