He suffered a depressed skull fracture, a cerebral haemorrhage, a collapsed lung and other injuries but survived.
After a string of operations and intensive round-the clock care, he has had to learn again how to walk and talk.
I remember meeting a young lad on a course at college ex rock ape. He was buried in a avalanche while climbing in the alps. Told me one day he was going for a medical review with the MOD. Similar as the bootie he had to learn how to walk and talk again.
Great news he told me now my reading has improved the MOD are decreasing my disability pension!!!!!
Leaving aside the tragedy of this young man's travails and the fact that within a few posts someone will scream "sub judice" this is a very interesting situation in general ie the chain of command's duty of care in all aspects of the ongoing operations. He wasn't qualified (presumably he has a driving licence but was not a "driver"?) but was allowed to draw a vehicle (carrying passengers?). Was that MT reg not complying with MT standing orders or a CO's directive to allow this type of vehicle use (formal risk assesment, etc?). His immediate superiors should have known exactly what he was qualified to do (Tp Sgt and CSM particularly) and again either gave dispensation (not allowed to do so unless authorised from the CO) or ignored the requirement, and so on. Now before anyone suggests to me that "it's just the way it is", wrong. All of the above have perfectly acceptable and legitimate fixes that should be applied to protect all involved.
It also, on the day the MoD compensation case comes to court highlights, to my mind, the pernicious nature of the MOD compensation regime. Simon Weston said in a TV interview today (paraphrasing) that society/government sends young men to fight and expects that they do their best, on their return the nations owes them the same and must lokk after them in the best way possible.