Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by crabby, May 25, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
More claims to follow?
What exactly were his family being compensated FOR?
Loss of a member of their family due to gross negligence on the part of the MoD... or something...
You'd not be especially happy if the MoD decided to gas you with something nasty (not CS), and then you're pushing up the daisies and the MoD tries to claim it's not their fault.
500 x Â£100,000=
Where will the money come from?
What will they stop spending on?
wasn't this the case where they put nerve agent on the soldiers clothing to see how long it would project his skin
I would, before death intervened, be extemely unhappy.
I'm not saying this man's death was not wrong, tragic, an example of an uncaring system, whatever.
But what does the money represent? Guilt? Penance? The value of his life? A punishment for MOD?
Well that's the very nature of compensation.
The MOD put Â£4billion away each year to cover compensation claims or so I am lead to believe!
That was a typo... Â£4 a year...
For the taxpayers among us, that is OUR money.
I still don't understand what this family are being paid for
- the loss of this man's potential earnings had he lived? Who knows what he would have earned and how he would have spent it.
- is it a punishment of MOD - well, in the great scheme of p--sing defence money down a drain, the sum is derisory.
- to assuage the family's feeling - well how do you judge that? Would they be less upset if the award was 10, 000; or would 50, 000 have mad e them feel much better?
Where the defendant's (here the MOD) tort has caused the death of a breadwinner, the Fatal Accident's Act 1976 allows damages to be awarded to 'dependants' of the deceased for loss of the financial support during what would have been the remainder of his working life.
The aim is to give the dependants the sum of money which will allow them material benefits: Mallett v McMonagle  AC 166, of the same standard for the same period of time as the deceased would have provided had he lived for his normal expectation of life.
Section 1(3) of the 1976 Act, as amended by section 3 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 defines dependants. The main categories are the wife or husband of the deceased; any parent or other ascendants and any child or other descendants. The list also includes former or de facto spouses; persons treated as a parent, or as a child of the family; illegitimate children, step-children and certain relationships by affinity.
Section 5 of the 1976 Act has the effect of reducing the damages for the dependant where contributory negligence is found on the part of the deceased.
A fatal accident claim is restricted to the financial loss of the dependants, which will always be less than the deceased's loss of earnings. The proof of loss of future financial support from the deceased is usually b y showing actual dependence in the past.
I apologise if this post is a bit legalistic and long-winded for some but I thought it might go some way towards providing an explanation as to what is taken into account by the court in such cases.
It is my understanding that in this particular case, the financial award is to be shared among several of the deceased's relatives.
Many regards to all.
"Family of nerve gas victim win compensation
LONDON (Reuters) - The family of a British soldier who died over 50 years ago after taking part in a deadly nerve gas experiment have finally won compensation for his death.
Ronald Maddison died after having droplets of the lethal agent sarin dabbed on his arm at a chemical warfare laboratory in southern England in 1953. He was just 20 years old.
The government at the time, led by Winston Churchill, ordered an inquest into the death which concluded he had died due to misadventure.
Maddison's family have campaigned against the verdict for years and in 2004 won a ruling from a coroner's court which said the Royal Air Force man was a victim of "unlawful killing".
The Ministry of Defence confirmed on Friday it had agreed to accept that verdict and pay compensation.
"We very much regret the unfortunate death of Ronald Maddison," an MoD spokesman said. "We are delighted that an amicable settlement has been reached with his family."
It declined to confirm reports of a pay-out of 100,000 pounds."
About bloody time, now hopefully the plight of the Nuclear Test veterans will be dealt with. Amazing that in the compensation culture that we live in that those that truly deserve help are denied it.
Separate names with a comma.