See you in court

russ · 10-04-2007, 07:56 PM

Mate owns a remote fishing / camping lodge up here in the "NT"

A guest with kids etc was booked in.....no probs

Kid was riding about on his bicycle, lost control, ploughed into a parked boat trailer, hit his head on the winch handle, lost his eye.

Mate has been issued witha summons, they is goin him for over a million $ damages. His insurance company says he's not covered, coz he never insisted all trailers be parked in a fenced / locked enclosure. He says, since when did i have to do that, they said read the fine print.
He has now been told to remove all clothes lines, as they could poke some ones head etc etc as well

Christ............sorry about the kids accident, but where the hell we goin here in Oz now.

photopete · 10-04-2007, 09:02 PM

Your mate's in big trouble maybe Russell,i hope not.Last year a mate had to juveniles break into his factory thru the toilet window and one of them broke his wrist bouncing off the toilet seat in the dark,and the other one got bitten on the arse by the next door factories watch dog on the way out.Cost him 26 grand and he reckons he got off lightly so best of luck to your friend.Not far behind the yanks are we?

niquenaque · 11-04-2007, 12:45 AM

Russ.

This is dreadful, not only for the child but for your mate as well, being held to ransom for something he could do little to predict with nothing short of 20/20 hind sight.

I'd estimate the parent's lawers have taken a scattergun approach and have decided to shoot anything that moves, the parents sure as 5hit won't look at themselves as being the predominantly responsible party.

Sugestions for your mate:

If his insurance policy does not cover the issue and the requirement to enclose the trailers was in the fine print then he has an issue, because that will instantly imply that he is negligent by virtue of the fact of his 'implied knowledge' of it being a potential cause of harm - ie, the insurance company told him it could happen - he read the contract and he took no steps to guard against, blah, blah,...etc What ever your mate does his lips should be sealed in relation to this fact.

0. This issue is about 'negligence', pure and simple. Who's negligence was it?????? IF these guys are going for $1m and the rest then he has to mitigate by assigning blame to the parents to the most complete extent possible. Does he have a clause in his accomodation agreements that says that children must be supervised at all times?? This may be a get out of jail free card if it is there, get him to check his disclaimers, though nobody can really contract out of liability completely.

1. Parking of a boat trailer was a known entity for the parent, they were there presumably to indulge in the same issues as the other guests, so they too were aware of the risks, they were negligent due to this. Was it their boat? Do they have a boat at home? Did the child ride around it at home as well? Could they have perceived the child losing control of the bike[yes], why did they let the child ride the bike if they knew he could run out of control[negligence by them]. has the child fallen over and hurt itself before[yes] why did they allow the child out of bed if they knew it might injure itself[negligence], but, aha! They thought it was safe! Could you be killed by a meteorite?[yes] What is the risk? Where do we stop and take responsibility for ourselves and our children? Was it dark, why did they allow the child to ride while it was dark?
2. Supervision of child is the parent's responsibility, if your mate was 'child minding' it *would be* his issue, I assume he wasn't so the negligence also resides with the parents to some degree. Did your mate say something to the parents about the child riding the bike, most likely not as he could not have perceived it would happen, otherwise he would have compounded the trailers.
3. There is nothing to differentiate what would happen to the child in public place as would occur on his property, in fact if there were more than 20 people allowed or accomodated on the site it 'could' be construed as a public place, where in a public place is it required that a trailer be kept in an enclosed compound? It can be treated as if the boat were on the street, a remote location is as good a place to have an accident as is an urban street scape, in fact a remote location implies the parents should have been on high alert due to the risks of snakes, spiders, furry animals that bite and pathalogical tourists armed with .227 ruger rifles.
4. Blame the boat owner as well, though the parents will already be having a shot at the owner too, no doubt. Did the boat owner park in the designated parking area or was it just out in the bush somewhere where there was no designated parking spots - do the australian road rules apply here? Who didn't take the handle off the winch. Blame the winch manufacturer - why didn't they leave instructions on the winch to the effect that the handle would damage a child's eye if same crashed into the winch - kids do that all the time don't they?
5. Contrast this issue with similar damages and compensation in the workers compensation and motor traffic accidents compensation cases, as I understand it an eye is only worth $6k if you lose it in NSW in a car accident.

Your mate might equally be blamed for a woman being bitten by the deadly puff adder and then being sued for the resulting child if it could be proved the puff adder bit the woman on his property. The fact of it is that the child will suffer an ongoing disability, and it is a serious one as I have a friend who lost one eye and then the other, his loss of the first eye was a contributor to the loss of his second, he lives a poorly life indeed, the parents are merely trying to ensure that the child is kept as best possible considering the circumstance, most likely though as it usually seems, the kid won't get a quid out of this, not in the long run unless the funds are protected very carefully.

My commiserations to both of them.

russ · 11-04-2007, 09:35 AM

The location etc, the setup, if you will, is you tow your boat there, select a campsite get setup and uncouple your trailer and park it alongside your campsite.
Sometimes there could be 40 or more fishos all camped about.
Some folks go,just to "get away".........relax / swim / whatever

Whatever the outcome here, it's going to cost the resort owner a bundle, just for legal defence.

I made mention of the "waivers" we get students to sign before we take em flying, suggested he do the same.........yea, he spoke about that, and the erecting of signages etc to his solicitor..........answer.....
might reduce his liability..............geez, buggered if i know. Makes you think real hard about about engaging in anything that involves the "public".

One of the days we were there, some dickhead drove his boat some 70 k's downriver, got there no probs with a 8 kt run in the rivers waters, coming back he had to battle against that flow...........ran out of fuel about 40 km downstream. Calls the resort on his sat ph...............HELP............should've left the idiot there, but of course, me mate loads up and helps the dickhead..............just for the cost of fuel. I bet if that dickhead had an incident within the camp, he would probably concidered sueing me mate...............mongrels

Fencing Wire · 11-04-2007, 07:57 PM

Yer got that listed fairly well, Nick. It's my generation's fault. We trained far too many lawyers (back in the 60's). Now they're all looking for something to do.

Brian · 11-04-2007, 09:01 PM

Never a truer word spoken Fred.