Greed by YM

[Guest]

Much ado about nothing

First, you can only be sued if you've been negligent (ie. if you haven't done something that a reasonable person/skipper ought to have done in the circumstances) and your negligence has caused someone damage. Why shouldn't you pay in those circs.?

To take the example of a crew member suffering brain damage after being hit on the head by the boom: you're unlikely to be liable to someone who has sailed before since they should know about the boom danger. With a person who has never sailed before you can avoid being sued simply by doing what any reasonable skipper would do: point out to them when you set off that they should keep their head out of the way of the boom when running downwind/gybing.

Second: everyone seems to think that no win no fee means unlimited free litigation. Lawyers don't like working for free. They will only take on cases that stand a reasonable chance of winning. After that it's up to the judge to decide whether the negligent skipper ought to compensate the victim for the skipper's stupidity. So, if you think people are being awarded damages where they don't deserve to, blame the judge. Actually that's kind of tricky since the judge will have spent days pouring over the facts and all the arguments whereas you will probably make your decision based on 5 minutes reading some twisted dross in a newspaper.

The no fee no win arrangement is actually a useful way of allowing people who are not rich but have a genuine complaint a chance to get compensation. Otherwise litigation is just for the rich. If someone brings a claim which is clearly frivolous the judge will order him to pay the other side's legal costs anyway.

Everyone seems to be assuming that they will be the one being sued. Actually in a typical law case, for every person being sued there is typically also one doing the suing. So you could just as easily be a victim of someone else's stupidity as you could be the one who was stupid. Your perspective on whether you approve of suing people may change dramatically.

p.s. no I am not a no fee/no win personal injury lawyer

 

[tcm]

Obviously not a lawyer

Nice, if it worked that way. But it doesn't. When real litigation hits you, you're presented with the option of fighting against a case for £500k (say) which will cost (say) 100k of a really decent legal team (because you just have to win) ...or settling out of court for perhaps 25k plus fees of 15k. Your call...

 

[escape]

Re: Much ado about nothing

Thats right Simon , layers don't like working for free. So they take out insurance policies which cover their costs win or loose.
And guess why all insurance costs are sky rocketing..not all down to 11/09

 

[Guest]

Insurance?!

Wow, that's a new one. Please put me in touch with the insurance company that is sucker enough to do that!

I would like to take out a policy with them against the risk that my salary doesn't double next month.

 

[bigmart]

I noticed that the cretin that placed the ad had the nerve to use the RYA Yacht Master as a qualification for his dispicable trade.

In a just world one might hope that he would be drummed out of the organisation & have his Skippers Hat ritually burnt.

There again one might hope that non paying guests on boats might be deemed to have given up most rights to sue because of the lack of regulation of private vessels.

Unfortunately we all know that the legal system is already weighted in favour of the criminal so what chance has the average law abiding yachtie.

 

[Guest]

Why not a lawyer?

... or if for any reason you don't happen to have a spare £100,000, or even £15,000, sitting round you can agree with the lawyers (if they think you have a good case) a no fee/no win basis. If you win, they take the amount you agreed up front out of your winnings.

Actually I am a solicitor. But don't do personal injury litigation, so have no axe to grind.

In fact I agree with the general sentiment that society is becoming too litigous. Or rather, public perception is becoming too concerned about litigation. The reality is not that bad - in fact, the law in this area has barely changed over the last few decades. What has changed is that people take it much more seriously than they used to.

My feeling is that, compared to all the other things that the sea can do to you when you are sailing, the risk of being sued by a fellow crew member is right at the bottom of my list of concerns. I can avoid liability at law just by taking the precautions that any reasonable prudent skipper would do. If I make a balls up and things go horribly wrong, being sued will still be at the bottom of my list of priorities.

 

[tjc]

The main reasons that these firms of claim handlers/lawyers now exist and therefore advertise is

1 You ( the public ) complained about Legal Aid and it's availability.

2 Because Legal Aid is now diminished and (wrongly) less available as a result of no.1 we have contingency fee arrangements. ie no win no fee.

3. they cherry pick what comes their way. Throw enough at the wall and some will stick

4. as a result of ever changing times the Law Society have relaxed rules on advertising.

Basically we only have ourselves to blame I am afraid. Most lawyers are rather against this for the reason see no 1 above but it will only get worse. Eventually, and probably alraedy, you will see lawyers in hospital waiting rooms and casualty touting for clients. Ambulance chasers is the technical term.

imho

 

[billmacfarlane]

I read the advert and felt slightly uneasy. Even though I usually sail with my other half or with mates on the odd boy's bash , and I've never ( frantically touching wood ) had an accident yet that involves an injury to the crew. An advert like that can actually cause problems where none existed before. I agree with the person who said that this looks like a company dipping its toe into a new market and seeing what happens. Let's hope nothing . Incidentally on the subject of advertising there was an advert in PBO for impotence problems a couple of months ago . Now we've got this advert in YM. What does that tell us about the readers of each magazine ?

 

[Viking]

Re: Legal reason to refuse an Ad?

Its a sign of the times it seems

"If it cooks, flys or floats - Sue it"!

 

[sailbadthesinner]

Re: let\'s all sue YM

maybe that firm of lawyers on page 51 will represent us?



Wants woman with boat
Send photo of boat

 

[Viking]

Re: Justice for all?

If Justice is a 'natural right' like health care. Why isnt the Justice system nationalise like the health service? Or is Justice only for those who can pay for it?

 

[sailbadthesinner]

Re: Why not a lawyer?

Not being a lawyer I cannot argue with what you say re what actual trends .
I do feel there has been a change in perception probably due to the increased publicity these accident lawyers are giving themselves.
Although i think many (myself included) may have more concern than there is need for. It is a worry that someone could bring a claim.
Personally i am ultra careful, it was the way i was started at sea, but i would be saddended to see warning stickers all over boats. I donot want to be pitching out on to the foredaeck in a blow to put up a yellow triangle sign saying 'warning wet surface.' ;-)


Wants woman with boat
Send photo of boat

 

[tcm]

Oops he IS a lawyer

What I meant was that the case comes at you, and as the defender you have to decide fairly early on (and before discovery) whether to settle for x even though you think you have an excellent defence, or whether to hire mucho expensive lawyers to defend a court case and risk losing 20x.

Perhaps I should have deduced that you obvuiously ARE a lawyer as you view a potential court case with equanimity, whereas others (e.g. me) who've seen it go badly wrong when it shouldn't (as well as going right on other occassions) are more cautious and wary. Perhaps this is only the same as an inexperienced boatie (we're going to sink!!) and an experienced boatie.

I feel that the no win/nofee merchants prey heavily on the fear factor and press for settlement on a vaguley plausible case that should be defended- but the cost/risk of settlement is much lower than the cost of defending.

 

[AndrewB]

Just to add my concern to others about YM running this ad, which seems to me to run quite counter to the spirit of yachting.

We are arriving at a point where I for one will not be prepared to take anyone else aboard my yacht; particularly inexperienced people who might be able to argue they didn't fully understand the risks involved. So how will anyone gain experience? These shyster law firms don't care.

 

[sailbadthesinner]

Re: Oops he IS a lawyer

I agree on the fear factor
Very few of these lawyers' cases have seen the inside of a court room
IMHE

Wants woman with boat
Send photo of boat

 

[AndrewB]

Hear, hear!

I was so disgusted I dropped my copy of YM on my foot. Such pointy corners are a plain case of negligence.

Looking forward to your cheque by return, Kim.

 

[kingfisher]

First, legal representation costs are included in my boat insurance policy.

Second, 'No cure, no pay' is not allowed in Belgium

Third, 'I only take friends and family, they are less likely to sue': don't buy that for one second.

Fourth, what about the 'waterfront property' section in the mags?I want a boaty magazine, not a real estate paper.

Obi-Wan
http://sirocco31.tripod.com

 

[kimhollamby]

Censorship

Okay, so let's get this right.

When we delete material or don't allow it to appear it is censorship and we are judged against for not allowing the grown-ups to be grown up.

When material does appear we are in the wrong because we are sponsoring and encouraging whatever that material represents.

Forewarned is forearmed I would have thought; is it not better to know what is going on rather than have such outfits lurking around the edges? If anything, by advertising in YM they are far more likely to be alerting their potential adversaries than their target market.

I didn't much enjoy seeing the ad either but I would rather know about it than not...

kim_hollamby@ipcmedia.com

 

[Endymion]

Disagree MOST strongly with all of this!

Sorry, but feel that someone has got to speak out for YM on this one.

Sailbadthesinner wrote - "I do not like the fact that YM has to taken these people's money but understand we cannot silence those we donot agree with, but a part of me ( the childish part i fear) is murmuring 'its not fair! YM are meant to be on OUR side."

With the greatest of respect, YM ARE on our side by accepting advertising such as this. I personally don't like this type of advertisement, but appreciate that to make a magazine such as YM profitable, advertising from ANY legitimate source that meets the ASA code of conduct is fair game.

We all appreciate the quality of the magazine (decent weight of paper for the cover, decent weight of paper in the body of the mag, good quality good register colour, good quality editorial, many exclusive piccies etc etc) all of this costs money that does not get into the coffers by way of the cover price...the only other source of revenue is advertising. OK, the advert in question was only a quarter page mono, but these are the adverts that are the "bread and butter" of ANY advertising department.

All because this 'ambulance chasing' practice want to advertise, doesn't mean that any of us have to pay any attention or respond to their advert does it? If they want to throw their money at a yachting mag and thus help to fund our leisure reading all power to 'em I say!!!

Endy

 

[bigmart]

Re: Censorship

I don't get this Kim.

What makes you think you have any right to be right.

It's just like the old saying.

"If a man cries out in the woods, & no woman hears him, is he still wrong?"

My sense of fair play says "Insert something exceedingly sharp & uncomfortable up this lawyer fellow & tell him to depart whilst fornicating" Regardless of the rights & wrongs of the arguments. I don't like this bloke!