Appointing responsibility after a tragedy?

Banzai_Joe · 7 Nov 2011 at 12:13

Guys, bit heavy for a monday, but thought-provoking nonetheless i think.

So, from the desparately sad tragedy on the M5 at the weekend, there are rumours that a local bonfire's smoke may have been to blame.
If this proves to be the cause, i guess there'll be looking to apportion blame to whoever organised the event?
If they single out an individual, what then?
What will be the outcome? Is it an entity to point the finger at so insurance companies can make a claim on behalf of those involved in the tragedy?
Would the person who is ultimately held responsbile be charged with a vew to imprisonment?

Not sure where i stand on all this, it just got me wondering; do you think the person who was in charge could ever have envisaged that such a tragedy could happen from such an event?
Would punshing this person serve any real purpose?
Would it bring closure to those stricken by the tragedy?

The M5 crash is the example im using but there are doubtless plenty of others where looking to appoint blame and responsibility seems to hold priority.

For lessons learned it should be done, but to actually punish a person(s) who in all probability could never have anticipated that a tragedy could unfold from such an event.......would it achieve anthing?

What are your thoughts on such circumstances?

cm1179 · 7 Nov 2011 at 12:19

the person responsible will be whoever did the risk assessment ''what's that?'' no risk assessment was done? then it's the fault of the organiser, probably the rugby club chairman.

mattyfez · 7 Nov 2011 at 12:22

Presumably the event was authorised by the local authority, so them ultimately?

antijoke · 7 Nov 2011 at 12:32

Banzai_Joe said:
Guys, bit heavy for a monday, but thought-provoking nonetheless i think.

So, from the desparately sad tragedy on the M5 at the weekend, there are rumours that a local bonfire's smoke may have been to blame.

What are your thoughts on such circumstances?

But the rugby said they didn't have a bonfire....

Banzai_Joe · 7 Nov 2011 at 12:36

Yes, but lets say this person is held accountable, what then, lock them up?
Isn't imprisonment a punishment to say "don't do it again!?" Are they likely to do it again? They're more likely to be totally grief-stricken by this. Certainly not as much as those involved obviously, but would there be sense in locking them up?
What are the chances they could ever have anticipated such a catastrophe happening from this?
Would a risk assessor have catered for wind direction do you think?
Again, I'm playing devil's advocate here, i'm not terribly sure i have an opinion on this, just trying to view it from various angles.

Banzai_Joe · 7 Nov 2011 at 12:38

anticonscience said:
But the rugby said they didn't have a bonfire....

aahh ok....just going by what i heard on the news this morning mate.
M5 crash was a (bad?) example, i'm talking about responsblity after any kind of tragedy really.

Nexus · 7 Nov 2011 at 12:40

We already have a thread for this discussion, why do we need another?

Windle · 7 Nov 2011 at 12:42

There are obligations on organisations to undertake risk assessments for activities they undertake, these apply to many different types of thing and does include activities like bonfires/fireworks and also undertaking work of any type. This is to ensure that any risks to persons present or nearby are allowed for and mitigated. If no risk assessment was undertaken it is likely that criminal proceedings/compensation claims may be brought if it can be proved that this was the cause.

I_M_Weasel · 7 Nov 2011 at 12:45

Sometimes things are just accidents and should be accepted as such, I'm sure no one at all intended to be in that crash that day, even if they were the one who caused it.

Haggisman · 7 Nov 2011 at 12:45

Windle said:
There are obligations on organisations to undertake risk assessments for activities they undertake, these apply to many different types of thing and does include activities like bonfires/fireworks and also undertaking work of any type. This is to ensure that any risks to persons present or nearby are allowed for and mitigated. If no risk assessment was undertaken it is likely that criminal proceedings/compensation claims may be brought if it can be proved that this was the cause.

And what if it were found to have been an individual's personal bonfire?

Linkex · 7 Nov 2011 at 12:50

This kind of thing is always a can of worms. It is human nature to want revenge on someone when you feel they have harmed you, and its human nature to want someone to blame when you are harmed. Should someone be deemed responsible and punished? I don't think so personally, but then I wasn't hurt directly by this. There will be people out there who will want someones blood. The law will never be able to reconcile these 2 perspectives, so the middle ground will likley be to find someone at fault and jail them.

Banzai_Joe · 7 Nov 2011 at 12:52

Nexus said:
We already have a thread for this discussion, why do we need another?

The M5 crash was an EXAMPLE mate, please read the OP.

Nexus · 7 Nov 2011 at 12:58

Banzai_Joe said:
The M5 crash was an EXAMPLE mate, please read the OP.

I did read the OP.

My point is that this thread is just a discussion of the M5 accident and it's consequences which is what we are already discussing in that thread.

semi-pro waster · 7 Nov 2011 at 12:59

Haggisman said:
And what if it were found to have been an individual's personal bonfire?

The risk assessment should take account of things that may occur and include the likelihoods as well as what actions can be taken to mitigate against them, however it isn't possible to always foresee every potential risk.

If it was the actions of a private individual that the person doing the risk assessment had no knowledge of and no reasonable expectation of them causing the problem then they are highly unlikely to be held responsible. General principle of a chain of causation and reasonable foreseeability would apply.

Haggisman · 7 Nov 2011 at 13:02

semi-pro waster said:
The risk assessment should take account of things that may occur and include the likelihoods as well as what actions can be taken to mitigate against them, however it isn't possible to always foresee every potential risk.

If it was the actions of a private individual that the person doing the risk assessment had no knowledge of and no reasonable expectation of them causing the problem then they are highly unlikely to be held responsible. General principle of a chain of causation and reasonable foreseeability would apply.

Hehe, I think you misunderstood - I meant what if it was someone's bonfire in their back garden, are they expected to have done a risk assessment before hand?

Banzai_Joe · 7 Nov 2011 at 13:03

Nexus said:
I did read the OP.

My point is that this thread is just a discussion of the M5 accident and it's consequences which is what we are already discussing in that thread.

Well i can't legislate for what other people want to post. My OP quite clearly states that i was using the M5 crash as an example, but there must be quite a few similar events where my questions apply. But it could be a made up situation too i guess.

To take away from the M5 crash, how about a the Red Arrow tragedy that killed the pilot? Would someone be held accountable for that? What if the pilot had actually crashed into a crowd? Then what?

Ahleckz · 7 Nov 2011 at 13:05

Haggisman said:
Hehe, I think you misunderstood - I meant what if it was someone's bonfire in their back garden, are they expected to have done a risk assessment before hand?

Yea. But that could be as basic as:

Risk - Large collection of oil drums at the back left corner of the garden.
Action taken - Don't light the bonfire at the back left corner of the garden.

Obviously, it doesn't need to be written down or anything official.

iamtheoneneo · 7 Nov 2011 at 13:06

yeh risk assessing would be the obvious goto scenerio...i remember working on the beach a few years back and in the summer we always used to get a little bonfire going - before hand we always had to let the lifegaurds know so that they didnt think it was a major accident.

im sure the same must apply to places such as clubs etc and the council.

ultimately understanding how an accident occured and why then leads into the who to blame - sometimes its not one person its many. much like the Southern Airways Flight 242 plane crash in the us years and years ago:

1) plane flew into a storm (system error - lead to pilot error)
2) control said to decend aggresively (human error)
3) causing the aircraft to lose both engines (hardware failure )
4) plane attempted to land on the motorway but hit a gas station (pilot/system error)

cm1179 · 7 Nov 2011 at 13:09

semi-pro waster said:
The risk assessment should take account of things that may occur and include the likelihoods as well as what actions can be taken to mitigate against them, however it isn't possible to always foresee every potential risk.

If it was the actions of a private individual that the person doing the risk assessment had no knowledge of and no reasonable expectation of them causing the problem then they are highly unlikely to be held responsible. General principle of a chain of causation and reasonable foreseeability would apply.

the defence will argue that the assessor took steps to ''as far as is reasonably practicable'' levels, it would not be easy to assess with the weather.

PlacidCasual · 7 Nov 2011 at 13:10

Even if they are found to have broken some H&S law the purpose of the punishments isn't to destroy organisations or individuals. Only in the most blatant cases of disregarding peoples welfare would someone get a custodial sentence and the fines will be scaled in line with the ability of the organisation to actually pay.

I would suggest that smoke obscuring a road doesn't constitute a blatant disregard for safety unless you have been clearly warned about the risk beforehand.

For instance certain industries might be banned from creating visibility hazards as part of their licence and this often means building taller chimneys or adjusting the process. A bonfire is unlikely to get that prior scrutiny.

If the person orgainising or managing and event or business has taken reasonable efforts to manage the risk but has miscalculated they will have broken some aspect of H+S law because a crime has been committed but probably wouldn't get the worst end of the Management of H+S Regs chucked at them which is where a lot of prosecutions come from.