Warner vs Scapa Flow Charters Appeal

[notdeadyet]

I don't want to link to the BBC Orkney FB post as a lot of people moan about FB links and can't see it posted elsewhere yet so copied & pasted the text:

Stromness based Scapa Charters has successfully overturned a judge's ruling it was to blame for the death of a diver in August 2012. It’s the latest stage in a long running legal action, which may not be finished as the decision could be subject to further appeal.
The diver, Lex Warner from Sutton Coldfield, near Birmingham, died during a deep-water technical dive near Cape Wrath. Before entering the water he'd fallen and hurt himself while wearing heavy gear and fins as he crossed the deck of the dive boat Jean Elaine. He went ahead with the dive, not realising he’d sustained a serious internal injury. He died trying to make a rapid ascent to the surface.
His widow, Debbie, has been pursuing a case for compensation through the civil courts in the name of their son, who was just a baby when his father died. In September last year, Lord Sandison ordered Scapa Charters to pay the family £290,000.
But now senior judges in Scotland’s highest civil court have over-ruled that. In an Appeal decision published today, they say it was the divers' responsibility to move safely across the deck and they found Lex Warner and the others in his party were "highly skilled and experienced" - and that the risk of walking in diving fins was "obvious" to them. They also find that the boat operators, Scapa Charters, did not have the requisite technical knowledge or experience to dictate the way the divers put on their gear and moved about the deck and that to expect the skipper to be responsible was unrealistic, and would place an undue burden on him. So, the judges ruled fault or neglect on the part of Scapa Charters "is not established".
We expect statements and reaction from both sides' legal teams will be issued later.

Brilliant news for the diving industry. It was a ridiculous finding in the first place and I'm really glad it's been found in Andy's favour. It's a sad business but this is a good outcome. The skipper's job is not to police how experienced divers move around the deck in equipment they know better than anyone how to use.

[bottle maker]

I agree correct decision. Hopefully that's the end of it but I expect it will be pushed to further appeal by greedy lawyers.

Graham

[Neilwood]

I don't want to link to the BBC Orkney FB post as a lot of people moan about FB links and can't see it posted elsewhere yet so copied & pasted the text:



Brilliant news for the diving industry. It was a ridiculous finding in the first place and I'm really glad it's been found in Andy's favour. It's a sad business but this is a good outcome. The skipper's job is not to police how experienced divers move around the deck in equipment they know better than anyone how to use.

I hope that is the end of it but I suspect that it might still go back to the UK Supreme Court (who allowed the lawsuit in the first place).

[Tim Digger]

I agree correct decision. Hopefully that's the end of it but I expect it will be pushed to further appeal by greedy lawyers.

Graham

Not necessarily greedy lawyers, many of these type of blame cases are from "frozen grief" as the next of kin are still in the blame stage of the grieving process frozen there by the failure to address their grief needs for truth and reconciliation at the right stage.. Desmond Tutu was a great man possibly better than Mandela.

[cazyoung]

This is the BBC report which has a bit more info

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...lands-61393909

[graham_hk]

These kind of crazy cases will continue until there are penalties to the judges and lawyers for making such stupid decisions ... what a sorry state the legal system is in... What is next a Depp/Hurd style case?

[notdeadyet]

This kind of crazy cases will continue until there are penalties to the judges and lawyers for making such stupid decisions ... what a sorry state the legal system is in... What is next a Depp/Hurd style case?

It does show a real weakness in the system where lay-people are expected to make a decision in technical areas based on what an expert witness says. If you don't have any background then where do you even begin to process it? You don't even know what questions important or whether their opinion is even relevant. It was fairly obvious to most of us that someone who knew how to run a commercial dive boat wasn't necessarily an expert on recreational diving. But to a lay-person? Why sjouldn't it be applicable.

Anyway, must be a weight off Andy's mind. I'm glad he's been cleared of responsibility.

[graham_hk]

It does show a real weakness in the system where lay-people are expected to make a decision in technical areas based on what an expert witness says. If you don't have any background then where do you even begin to process it? You don't even know what questions important or whether their opinion is even relevant. It was fairly obvious to most of us that someone who knew how to run a commercial dive boat wasn't necessarily an expert on recreational diving. But to a lay-person? Why sjouldn't it be applicable.

Anyway, must be a weight off Andy's mind. I'm glad he's been cleared of responsibility.

Indeed which is why the judge and lawyers should be held accountable ... it is (or should be) their duty to find out the facts not act as a lay person.

[notdeadyet]

Indeed which is why the judge and lawyers should be held accountable ... it is (or should be) their duty to find out the facts not act as a lay person.

The lawyers' job is to win. Lawyers are scum but you at least know where you are with them. They present the best side of their case.

I suppose the judge's argument is that they just go by what is presented to them and if one side makes a balls of it then that's their problem. Kind of needs a third side, a professional devil's advocate, or judges need to be less passive and more like the investigating magistrates they have in Europe.

It is a bit perverse that courts can regularly be so wrong and nothing ever comes of it.

[Neilwood]

The lawyers' job is to win. Lawyers are scum but you at least know where you are with them. They present the best side of their case.

I suppose the judge's argument is that they just go by what is presented to them and if one side makes a balls of it then that's their problem. Kind of needs a third side, a professional devil's advocate, or judges need to be less passive and more like the investigating magistrates they have in Europe.

It is a bit perverse that courts can regularly be so wrong and nothing ever comes of it.

Unfortunately, as is the case with most legal systems, a lot comes down to how deep your pockets are and therefore the quality of the quality of representation.