Inflatable fatalities

[kerry davies]

Thanks, Simon.

If you find out where the full judgement is published could you post a link, please?

 

I note that the judge stated that, had Maurice Agis still been alive, he would have been the predominantly guilty party though BIL and the LA would still have shared the responsibility.

The judgement shows how careful one needs to be where vicarious liability or responsibility for anothers actions is concerned. It also reinforces the fact that the paperwork of an RA is no defence if it is not implemented fully.

 

The apportioning of damages reflects the differences between criminal and civil law.

Criminal = guilty or not beyond reasonable doubt.

Civil = how guilty or not on the balance of probability. Massively easier to "prove".

[Junior8]

Here is a link to the judgement Kerry http://www.judiciary...nt-16052011.pdf

 

As with all Mr Justice Foskett's Judgments it is model of lucidity and eminently readable. I recommend it to all.

 

For me the crucial paragraph comes early in the judgement and should be carefully noted by those who might be tempted to stray outside their comfort zone:

 

One thing is, however, absolutely clear: Maurice Agis, who had no engineering or technical qualifications or expertise, had never fully and properly assessed and addressed the question of whether the anchorage for Dreamspace V was adequate for all reasonably foreseeable weather conditions nor had engaged anyone on his behalf to do so. I will return to that later (see paragraphs 17-22). It follows that what this case is really about is the question of the extent, if any, to which the Council and/or BIL should have assessed and addressed that issue for themselves or raised questions that others needed to answer satisfactorily before the exhibition at Chester-le-Street commenced.

 

I covered this event for the trade press at the time and was staggered at what was revealed. Had this been a normal amusement fun-bag it would never have passed a design review or have been allowed to operate.

[dbuckley]

I note that the judge stated that, had Maurice Agis still been alive, he would have been the predominantly guilty party though BIL and the LA would still have shared the responsibility.

Not quite....

 

The action was about deciding percentage of blame to be apportioned betwixt the parties at fault, and the Judge noted, in line with your suggestion "It is, of course, the case that had Maurice Agis been an effective party to the present proceedings, he would almost certainly have been found responsible to the largest extent of any of the three parties responsible for what happened"

 

But para 16 notes: "As I have indicated previously, Maurice Agis died soon after the hearing of the appeal against sentence in the criminal proceedings that took place in August 2009. There was no money in his estate and he was uninsured. Accordingly, whatever share of the civil legal liability might otherwise attach to him, there is no money with which it can be met. On that basis, the two parties before the court are the only two effective parties."

 

So Maurice would never have been an "effective" party through the fact he had no money, so his percentage of liability would apparently never have come up.