Leicester City crash victim's family sues owners for $10m

[davieG]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-49794557

 

The family of a woman who died in the Leicester City helicopter crash has sued the estate of the club's billionaire owner, Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha.

Nusara Suknamai, one of Mr Vichai's staff, was on board the helicopter when it crashed outside the stadium in October 2018.

Her family has sued for 300 million baht ($9.8m; £7.9m) in damages.

All five people aboard, including Mr Vichai, died in the crash.

The helicopter spiralled out of control after taking off from the club's stadium on 27 October.

It came down in a car park near the stadium and exploded in flames, just over an hour after Leicester had drawn against West Ham United in the Premier League.

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch said in December that cockpit pedals had disconnected from the helicopter's tail rotor.

Ms Nusara was an employee of Mr Vichai's King Power Group. Her family's lawyers said the company did not compensate them in any way.

Leicester City helicopter crash: The victims
City helicopter crash officers honoured
Statue plan to honour Leicester chairman
The family only received 75,000 baht ($2,460; £1,980) for the funeral and some money to donate to monks, the lawyers told reporters.

In addition to the funeral costs, they had been offered first $25,000 (£20,100) and later $50,000 (£40,200) but declined to take the money as it would have required them to waive rights to further insurance claims.

The BBC Thai service has contacted King Power Group for comment about the case, but has yet to receive a reply.

The trial is scheduled to begin on 25 November.

(L-R): Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, Kaveporn Punpare, Nusara Suknamai, Izabela Roza Lechowicz and Eric Swaffer were killed in the crash
Ms Nusara was the main financial supporter of her parents, the lawyers said.

She had been a runner-up in Miss Thailand Universe in 2005 and her performance won her the title Miss Intercontinental Thailand and Miss Photogenic.

[StanSP]

Why would the family compensate them, out of interest? 

 

The family and/or business weren't responsible for the deaths? 

[Jordan]

Just now, StanSP said:

Why would the family compensate them, out of interest? 

 

The family and/or business weren't responsible for the deaths? 

I’m no lawyer, but I’d guess the levels of liability in a civil case are complicated.

 

I would guess Khun Vichai’s estate executor will want to settle this one out of court.

[Beechey]

Of anyone, surely AgustaWestland or the people who are supposed to maintain the aircraft should be being sued?

[LestaAl]

 I am guessing the parents of the girl feel as they were financially dependent on their daughter their loss needs to be compensated by someone. They have started with the owners and may then move on to others if needed. The accident should not have happened but we still wait to hear who is considered culpable.

[lifted*fox]

you would assume that the helicopter provider / maintainer would be liable but obviously the fact that they've been advised by lawyers that the family are the people to sue here means it is what it is

[urban.spaceman]

Being financially dependant on her they know how wealthy KP are - I imagine their argument would be that KP put her in unnecessary danger by expecting her to travel by helicopter with her boss. There's two reasons right off the bat to sue KP; who will just argue that there had never been an accident with that type of aircraft before so it is reasonable to expect flying by helicopter to be relatively safe.

 

Bit of an absurd amount of money to demand but they've lost their daughter and ability to fund themselves so they must feel entitled to compensation given how she died.

 

Sad that these things get messy but I suppose that's inevitable really.

[Ric Flair]

Wouldn't this be a claim to the insurers who provide the King Power Group their employer liability indemnity? This particular member of staff has died tragically whilst working, i'm sure there would be grounds for a claim but it isn't necessarily negligence. The loss of earnings etc to her family if they relied on her may come in to play which could make any such claim seem high as if successful they'd have to be paid for 40+ years of remaining years of service uplifted with various factors such as inflation, pay rises etc.

[urban fox]

She was an employee of king power. As her unfortunate death occurred whilst on company premises and involved equipment leased to/operated on behalf of the company, any initial claim would be made against the employers liability insurance. The insurance company would then obviously take a view as to whether or not the claim is reasonable and if admitted (either in or out of court) would then no doubt be looking to offset against the helicopter manufacturers/maintainers/operators insurers if possible.

 

I have no doubt that this will rumble on for some time as is the way of such cases (sometimes years). What many will not realise is that even if Top/king power were sympathetic to making a payout, it is entirely out of their hands as it is the insurers who ultimately will decide whether to pay out or fight the case, even if that runs contrary to the insured wishes. Any ex-gratia payment made by King power without the permission of their insurers (other than reasonable costs such as funeral etc) would immediately render their insurance invalid and leave them wide open to all sorts of other claims in connection with this (Members of public, emergency services personnel claiming for PTSD etc ). In these days of ever increasing blame culture and litigation companies have to tread very carefully through the minefield of liability and culpability.

 

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, urban fox said:

She was an employee of king power. As her unfortunate death occurred whilst on company premises and involved equipment leased to/operated on behalf of the company, any initial claim would be made against the employers liability insurance. The insurance company would then obviously take a view as to whether or not the claim is reasonable and if admitted (either in or out of court) would then no doubt be looking to offset against the helicopter manufacturers/maintainers/operators insurers if possible.

 

I have no doubt that this will rumble on for some time as is the way of such cases (sometimes years). What many will not realise is that even if Top/king power were sympathetic to making a payout, it is entirely out of their hands as it is the insurers who ultimately will decide whether to pay out or fight the case, even if that runs contrary to the insured wishes. Any ex-gratia payment made by King power without the permission of their insurers (other than reasonable costs such as funeral etc) would immediately render their insurance invalid and leave them wide open to all sorts of other claims in connection with this (Members of public, emergency services personnel claiming for PTSD etc ). In these days of ever increasing blame culture and litigation companies have to tread very carefully through the minefield of liability and culpability.

 

Yeah that's my thoughts too, as said above.

[The Horse's Mouth]

You imagine this'll just get settled out of court

[ozleicester]

Surely a work related accident that the insurers will be paying

[urban fox]

3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Wouldn't this be a claim to the insurers who provide the King Power Group their employer liability indemnity? This particular member of staff has died tragically whilst working, i'm sure there would be grounds for a claim but it isn't necessarily negligence. The loss of earnings etc to her family if they relied on her may come in to play which could make any such claim seem high as if successful they'd have to be paid for 40+ years of remaining years of service uplifted with various factors such as inflation, pay rises etc.

Employers liability will generally only pay out if the claimant can prove negligence. In order to do this the stated case law determines that three fundamental tests have to be passed

1) that a duty of care was owed by the employer to the employee

2) That duty of care was breached

3) that the breach of duty led directly to loss or injury

 

This case would most likely be determined by whether or not King power breached their duty of care. If they can demonstrate that they had taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that "as far as reasonably practicable" they had complied with their statutory duties under health and safety legislation, (by for example ensuring that regular checks and proper maintenance schedules for the helicopter were being followed - not simply enough to have a contract in place, and that all pilots were suitably qualified etc etc)  then there would be no breach of duty of care on their part, and any claim would then move onto the likes of the helicopter manufacturers.

[MPH]

you are all being very diplomatic about this  so i’ll try and follow suit...

 

 

I am not sure how this will stand up in court but then again this is going through the Thai court system so they might have different rules..

 

 

It was  almost brand new so it can’t be claimed they were negligent in any way surely? maybe suing the makers of the helicopter might be a better place to start.

[MPH]

2 minutes ago, urban fox said:

Employers liability will generally only pay out if the claimant can prove negligence. In order to do this the stated case law determines that three fundamental tests have to be passed

1) that a duty of care was owed by the employer to the employee

2) That duty of care was breached

3) that the breach of duty led directly to loss or injury

 

This case would most likely be determined by whether or not King power breached their duty of care. If they can demonstrate that they had taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that "as far as reasonably practicable" they had complied with their statutory duties under health and safety legislation, (by for example ensuring that regular checks and proper maintenance schedules for the helicopter were being followed - not simply enough to have a contract in place, and that all pilots were suitably qualified etc etc)  then there would be no breach of duty of care on their part, and any claim would then move onto the likes of the helicopter manufacturers.

 

 

 

as pointed out in my post just above, is this the Thai legal system you are quoting or the british? 

 

 

it might have different laws..

[yorkie1999]

I thought the whole point of insurance was the insurers are responsible for any financial claims.

[LestaAl]

2 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I thought the whole point of insurance was the insurers are responsible for any financial claims.

Its probable that FT is not yet in possession of all  the facts associated with events leading up to the crash so difficult to confirm where liability will eventually settle.  

 

 My hunch will be the people responsible for the maintenance and then possibly the manufacturers. But it will be a while before that all gets out in the open. 

[Ric Flair]

13 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I thought the whole point of insurance was the insurers are responsible for any financial claims.

The claim might still be classified publicly as a claim against King Power though, but their insurers obviously manage it, defend it, repudiate it etc

[foxinsocks]

25 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Yeah that's my thoughts too, as said above.

If it had been a car accident then surely the claim would be against the 3rd party insurance of the driver...rather than the employers liability insurance

[urban fox]

13 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

 

as pointed out in my post just above, is this the Thai legal system you are quoting or the british? 

 

 

it might have different laws..

Accepted. The court systems may be different but the test for negligence is universal. As it is a civil matter the burden of proof would be based on the balance of probabilities.

Not sure of international law status, but I would think that any claim would need to be made through the british courts as that is where the accident occurred, and I would presume where she was employed.  However, if her contract of employment was based in Thailand and she was on a temporary work placement in the UK then that would be a totally different kettle of fish and the claim then would arise out of her employment in Thailand and come under their jurisdiction maybe.

 

As I said earlier these things are always complicated and can take years to sort out. When international companies are involved, then the complexity of such issues increases manifold and one of the first things that would need sorting out is under which judiciary the claim arises.

[Ric Flair]

Just now, foxinsocks said:

If it had been a car accident then surely the claim would be against the 3rd party insurance of the driver...rather than the employers liability insurance

So in this instance the helicopter pilot or manufacturer? As Urbanfox says they may well go after the helicopter manufacturer but firstly it might be that negligence against the employers can be brought if they are found to have been liable. The fact the helicopter make and model in question has now had a few tragedies would suggest the latter is still very likely.

[urban fox]

3 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

If it had been a car accident then surely the claim would be against the 3rd party insurance of the driver...rather than the employers liability insurance

Yes but it was not a car. And anyway, if a company vehicle is involved it is not the driver, but the companies fleet policy that any claim would be against due to vicarious liability. ie the employer is responsible for the actions of their employees whilst at work, apart from in certain circumstances such as a deliberate criminal act buy the employee.

[urban fox]

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

So in this instance the helicopter pilot or manufacturer? As Urbanfox says they may well go after the helicopter manufacturer but firstly it might be that negligence against the employers can be brought if they are found to have been liable. The fact the helicopter make and model in question has now had a few tragedies would suggest the latter is still very likely.

Bang on.  Any initial claim would be against the employer, who's insurers may then attempt to lay off the claim by showing that any negligence was on the part of others outside the control of the employer. (manufacturers/maintainers etc)

 

There is one huge assumption here in that she was actually "at work" at the time and not just enjoying the hospitality of King Power. A fine line as she was an employee, but then claim may not be under the employers liability but the operating insurance for the helicopter, which I would presume included the carriage of passengers for other reasons than in connection with their employment (ie guests and such like)

[CosbehFox]

The issue I see is that you have an event which occurs on British soil subject to British law in terms of compliance ie. insurance but it is being pushed through the Thai courts. 

 

Either way the figure is absolutely unreal - the loss of earnings wouldn't compensate for £8 million. 

[Ric Flair]

11 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

The issue I see is that you have an event which occurs on British soil subject to British law in terms of compliance ie. insurance but it is being pushed through the Thai courts. 

 

Either way the figure is absolutely unreal - the loss of earnings wouldn't compensate for £8 million. 

Not outrageous to think as Vichai's PA she could be on anywhere between £50-100k a year, which if she had another 40 years of working life ahead of her with inflation and pay rises etc that would all get factored in by experts and you'd not be far off with a compensation for the death element as well. There has been a significant change in the Personal Injury Discount Rate (PIDR) as well in the last few years which has made claimant costs, as well as premiums increase significantly.