Bernice Ann Curran (Widow And Executrix Of The Estate Of Brian Curran, Deceased) V (1) Derbyshire And Lancashire Gliding Club
(2) Peter Lewis Roberts (Administrator Of The Estate Of Caroline Roberts, Deceased) (3) Kenneth Robertshaw & Joan Margaret Robertshaw (Administrators Of The Estate Of Stephen Paul Robertshaw, Deceased) (2004)

The second and third defendants were liable to the claimant for a fatal accident following a glider collision, subject to contributory negligence assessed at 40 per cent.

The claimant (C) sought damages in negligence for a fatal accident in which her husband (H) was killed. The second and third defendants (D) were the administrators of the estates of the two other victims of the accident (R). H had been flying his glider when he was involved in a collision with a glider being flown by R. Visibility on the day was good. H had taken off first and R's glider was believed to have been some way behind on a parallel flight path.

H executed a 180 degree turn. Neither glider made any attempt to avoid the other and a head-on collision ensued in which all passengers were killed. Expert evidence showed that both H and R should have seen each other at some stage during the course of the turn. C alleged negligence in the flying of R's glider. D denied liability and alleged contributory negligence on the part of H. C submitted that R's failure to see and avoid H strongly suggested that R was trying out a hood which he had made for the purpose of training pilots for conditions of poor visibility. The hood denied a pilot a view of anything except the flying instruments.

HELD: H had been executing a potentially hazardous manoeuvre and had had a realistic opportunity to see R's glider. H made no apparent attempt to avoid R. However, two pairs of eyes were available in R's glider and, when H made his turn, H's glider would have become more visible than before. R also made no attempt to avoid H. The evidence suggested that R had been using the training hood. The failure of R to attempt any avoidance on any view showed a serious and sustained failure of lookout and the explanation for the failure made a debatable contribution to the assessment of blameworthiness not least because H had wholly inexplicably also failed to avoid R. C therefore succeeded against D subject to contributory negligence assessed at 40 per cent.

Judgment for claimant.

Negligence - Aviation - Personal Injury

QBD (Manchester) (Holland J) 29/3/2004

LTL 7/4/2004 (Unreported elsewhere)

Document No.: AC0108106

Bernice Ann Curran (Widow And Executrix Of The Estate Of Brian Curran, Deceased) V (1) Derbyshire And Lancashire Gliding Club
(2) Peter Lewis Roberts (Administrator Of The Estate Of Caroline Roberts, Deceased) (3) Kenneth Robertshaw & Joan Margaret Robertshaw (Administrators Of The Estate Of Stephen Paul Robertshaw, Deceased) (2004)

The second and third defendants were liable to the claimant for a fatal accident following a glider collision, subject to contributory negligence assessed at 40 per cent.

The claimant (C) sought damages in negligence for a fatal accident in which her husband (H) was killed. The second and third defendants (D) were the administrators of the estates of the two other victims of the accident (R). H had been flying his glider when he was involved in a collision with a glider being flown by R. Visibility on the day was good. H had taken off first and R's glider was believed to have been some way behind on a parallel flight path.

H executed a 180 degree turn. Neither glider made any attempt to avoid the other and a head-on collision ensued in which all passengers were killed. Expert evidence showed that both H and R should have seen each other at some stage during the course of the turn. C alleged negligence in the flying of R's glider. D denied liability and alleged contributory negligence on the part of H. C submitted that R's failure to see and avoid H strongly suggested that R was trying out a hood which he had made for the purpose of training pilots for conditions of poor visibility. The hood denied a pilot a view of anything except the flying instruments.

HELD: H had been executing a potentially hazardous manoeuvre and had had a realistic opportunity to see R's glider. H made no apparent attempt to avoid R. However, two pairs of eyes were available in R's glider and, when H made his turn, H's glider would have become more visible than before. R also made no attempt to avoid H. The evidence suggested that R had been using the training hood. The failure of R to attempt any avoidance on any view showed a serious and sustained failure of lookout and the explanation for the failure made a debatable contribution to the assessment of blameworthiness not least because H had wholly inexplicably also failed to avoid R. C therefore succeeded against D subject to contributory negligence assessed at 40 per cent.

Judgment for claimant.

Negligence - Aviation - Personal Injury

QBD (Manchester) (Holland J) 29/3/2004

LTL 7/4/2004 (Unreported elsewhere)

Document No.: AC0108106