Suing the MoD

Discussion in 'Blogs' started by pinkprincess, Jun 27, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. It makes me so angry!

    A civvie (Engineer) is suing the MoD because he was injured in a bomb blast in theatre.

    This is not a rant at civvies, I am one. He would have applied to go into theatre and be paid handsomely to do so. He cannot be so stupid that he was unaware of the fact that he may get killed or injured. No, he is just being greedy.

    Claims like this mean less money where it's needed, cutbacks. My Unit is vital and if we don't get the money that we need, thousands of servicemen (not being sexist - I'm a girl - just generic term) will die.

    I wish these people would get a grip. :twisted:

    Copied from blogs (original entry) - post comments here.
  2. Avariciousness, is the driving factor. He was employed by a civil contractor who presumably was contracted by either HM Govt or the Iraq government. Liability should therefore rest with the company who accepted the contract and their insurers.
    I suspect that there are thousands of ex-servicemen/women who have suffered hearing loss/white finger injury/asbestosis who have not claimed as yet or perhaps never will. Some because the symptoms have not manifested themselves as yet and others because they they are too proud to claim.
    At the end of the day most of these claiments are just out to see what they can get and the unfortunate and deserving servicemen/women struggle to get any decent pension or compensation when their life circumstances change for the worse.
    The only winners are as usual the solicitors, barristers, and their shareholders. (I hope I've got it wrong and am not being just too cynical)

  3. Yes I tried unsucsessfully to sue the government.
    Whilst in Aden, a big bonb exploded, which caused me to sh*t myself and it ruined my best trollies.
    I wanted a top up for my KUA but they dismissed my claim.
    Barstewards. :cry: :cry: :oops: :D :D
  4. Mixed feeling on claiming/suing the MoD.

    I agree he knew or would have been made aware of the risks in a war zone. Yes he would have volunteered to go.

    At the end of the day he was injured and may never again carry out the work he is trained for. As such I would agree with a claim. However, if he was still able to continue his selected occupation after the blast. Then sod off mate, you knew the risks.

    I note the cunning sod had said the MoD failed to take proper care of him.

    With the current MoD, H&S culture regards "Duty of Care" towards it's employees, I dare say he'll get a fair wedge.
  5. The 'duty of care' aspect is the relevant bit. There have been challenges to the MoD who have tried to avoid their duty of care to servicemen in operational areas. And that wonderful phrase of 'crown immunity'.

    As far as I'm concerned, if the British government wants to send people to to unstable, violent and dangerous parts of the world where there is a risk to life or limb, (even if they are civilians under sub-contract), then the government should accept responsibility for what happens to them. Duty of care is now part of the modern world which EVERY company and organisation must uphold, and as such the government has the responsibility to maintain and uphold it themselves, and should not be immune from facing the consequences when they have failed.

    In this case, if it was thought necessary for dignitaries and simple serpents to travel in armoured convoys then the MoD were fully aware that there was a high risk to life or limb and should have provided the same protection for the civvy engineer. After all, the geezer on the end of the remote control half a mile away wouldn't know just who was in the vehicle and neither would he care. Just hoping for another dead infidel.
  6. Inner or outer harbour patrol? Or was it a run ashore to the Mad Mitch camp?
  7. I was in Sheba mate. :twisted: :cry:
  8. In the ideal(?!) world whomever sues the MOD for not providing the best care that they are capable of, and then the MOD turns around and sues HM Government for not providing enough funding in the first place...

    If no-one complains (and the only really viable way to do it is to sue) then they can continue to get away with supplying our people with innappropriate tools for the job. Case in point, the MOD being sued for the use of snatch landrovers.
  9. As far as I'm aware, and I believe it used to be the case, one government department cannot sue another.
  10. Please be aware the case is Sub Judice, ie still before the Courts.
  11. I doubt this would really affect the sums going to other uses, paying staff, buying gear. The money used for this if and when he wins, would come out of another separate pot, still a further drain on our taxes but nevertheless shouldn't affect anything greatly. Just sucks that he gets money and you, I and everyone else doesn't.
  12. I'm still awaiting the new three piece suite from Courts didn't realise they did Sub Judices as well. Are they any better than the footstools?

  13. I thought sub judacy was an Israeli submarine 8O 8O :oops: :D
  14. This is the essential point.

    And given that some are turning this into a rant against civvies, I won't go into details here for obvious reasons but I know of at least one major case being brought against the MoD by injured service personnel and their families on the grounds of a a failure to maintain the duty of care.

    I have no problem with this in principle; if the MoD has failed to provide the best possible chance for its personnel because of 'cuts', 'shortages' etc., then they should be sued. Most servicemen and women I know are sanguine about the risks they face as part of the job; the burden of the issue of lawsuits is whether these risks were greater than they needed to be on the basis of negligence on the part of the employer.
  15. As an ex matelot now strawberry just returned from offshore work in Iraq, I would not have gone without a suitable insurance policy from my employer be he MOD or Civvy. Yes I signed on to work out there and certainly upped my day rate but it was my choice and that included making sure I had suitable protection and insurance. If my employer had let me down on my protection/insurance I would have been quick to take him to court so why not MOD. If the MOD wish to play in the civvy market they should follow civvy rules.
  16. Balls. If civvies go out there they get paid silly amounts to do so. The reason they get paid so much is because of the danger factor. If they then can sue if something happens, why bother paying them extra?

    Either take the usual (ie UK) rate and sue if something happens, or take the enhanced rate and live with what happens. You can't have it both ways.
  17. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    "Press For Change - Campaigning for respect and equality for ALL transexual people" will no doubt be delighted at the amount of hits their site's just received from the Naval community.

    There's me thinking PFC stood for Pompey F.. .... Then again, maybe it still does.
  18. The enhanced rate is to cover the normal risks of war, which a civilian wouldn't ordinarily face. That's the 'danger factor' you speak of.

    It's not there to cover further risks above and beyond these existing risks caused by negligence on the part of the employer. We might describe this as the 'MoD danger factor'. Both service personnel and civilians are suing on this latter basis.

    I am surprised that members of a site who have rightly condemned the MoD on many occasions for their shocking levels of negligence towards personnel in theatre see the word 'civilian' and then abdicate their critical faculty. As I say, both service personnel and civilians are suing on the basis of the latter criteria.

    In short, if you're a civilian in a warzone, you get paid extra because you wouldn't normally work in a warzone. It doesn't mean you're not entitled to all due protection because you're being paid extra. If you don't get proper protection, you're entitled to sue.

    As I say, it's up to the judge to decide.
  19. But that protection is from their own company, not the MoD. The individual has a contract with a company, not directly with the MoD.

    I also disagree with Service personnel suing the MoD - take your shilling, take your chance. It's part of the job.

    Society is far too bloody claim-conscious. If you want to be an engineer, get paid an engineer's salary. If you want to be an engineer in Afghanistan under contract with the Government then you will be paid more as it is a warzone. Fair enough. There are risks to being in a warzone, which this enhanced money is to cover. End of. If you decide you want to claim if something goes wrong, then what was the point of paying you more in the first place?

    This is pure greed - whether the claimant is in uniform or not.

Share This Page