I saw this headline on the BBC News website:
Helicopter Crash Legal Action Begins
That's odd, I thought, surely they are still investigating what went wrong. It seems a bit early to be taking legal action. So I read the article, and I got to this quote:
"Irwin Mitchell [the legal firm in question] partner Elaine Russell said: "... we continue to eagerly await further information from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch regarding the progress of its investigations.
"However, we have now issued a letter of claim to Bond Aviation Group which, as the owner and operator of the aircraft, is legally liable for the deaths of the police passengers and the ground victims in the pub, as well as those who were injured in the pub, under a legal concept known as strict liability.""
Oh.
Actually, if I've understood the concept correctly, the Clutha incident is a good example of how strict liability works. The helicopter could easily have come down without injuring anyone on the ground (I looked at Streetview, and there's quite a big space just in front of the pub) but even though the deaths & injuries on the ground could quite reasonably described as "bad luck" doesn't stop the owner & operator of the helicopter being legally responsible.
(Cue some comment about people in crowded bars jumping out in front of unfortunately falling helicopters in order to claim compensation...)
posts
