Been Killed In A War That Was Not Your Fault....sue Someone Now...

[VHG]

The families of soldiers killed in Iraq can sue the government for damages under the Human Rights Act, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Surely if you sign up for the army the fact you may die is one of the risks if you go to war.

Maybe in future anyone joining the army will have to sign a document saying they understand they may die doing this job and therefore cant sue.

Good job we did not have this in the first world war or it could have bankrupt most of the countries in Western Europe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22967853

[Baldric]

Where there's blame, there's a claim!

[jno]

most of the countries in WWI managed to go bankrupt without it.

[Zeuhl]

Isn't this specific claim for soldiers killed by IEDs in the woefully inadequate 'Snatch Landrovers'?

The claim is that the UK government did not fulfil reasonable 'duty of care' because they deliberately sent troops into action in equipment everyone knew were unfit for purpose.

[jake-the-peg]

Are you deliberately misunderstanding this for dramatic effect? or are you just not getting it?


The point is that the judges have ruled that the MOD cannot hide negligence by pretending British law did not apply in Afghanistan.

This sounds to me completely the correct decision - Soldiers committing offences in Afghanistan are not handed over to Afghan courts and so clearly they are subject to UK juristiction

Given that they are subject to UK legislation they are entitled to the same duty of care from the MOD that they would be entitled to in the UK.

That's not to say that anyone killed on active service is entitled to compensation in the way you're suggesting but it does mean that if they died as a result of negligence on behalf of the MOD then they would be.

For example if the MOD supplied them with defective body armour, the MOD knew it was defective and that non-defective armour would have saved them I think most people would agree that a law suit and compensation would be appropriate

Wouldn't you?

[boxtops]

I agree with jake - if negligence is proven, then it should be the same rule for the MOD as for any other employer. Yes, soldiers know there are mortal risks but they should be able to expect to be provided with adequate kit to make the risk as manageable as possible.

[Gromit]

They can sue because the MoD failed to adequately provide them with the equipment to keep them safe.

That is different from being killed on the battlefield which every soldier must accept as a possibility.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - "The families of soldiers killed in Iraq can sue the government for damages under the Human Rights Act, the Supreme Court has ruled."

I think you have missed your calling - as a tabloid journalist.

What you have managed to do in one sentence is take a specific circumstance which is clearly outlined in your link, and turn it into a potentially sensationalist opening by generalising to the point where the essence of the facts are lost in a welter of knee-jerk outrage from readers.

It's quite a skill - but it does rather cloud the issue.

Of course soldiers must expect to die in battle, their raison d'etre is actually to fight an enemy rather than simply drill and rehearse for an entire career.

However, that is a world away from dying because of inappropriate safety measures and a lapse in a basic duty of care - which is the circmstance here.

"Good job we did not have this in the first world war or it could have bankrupt most of the countries in Western Europe."

On the contrary - if generals had been more accountable for the deaths of entire regiments, maybe they would have been a lot less cavalier about sending thousands of men to certain death by making them walk into the range of enemy guns with resultant carnage that belies belief even today.

[Gromit]

Think you mean VHG not AOG, Andy.

[andy-hughes]

I do - thanks Gromit - apologies to my initialised colleagues!

[ll_billym]

This story as it's written explains what is being claimed for here and the difference between that asnd the battlefield. The massacres of WW1 are clearly active combat situation, even if some 'bad' decisions were taken.

" The MoD had argued that there was "combat immunity" for troops in action and it was not "fair, just or reasonable" to impose a duty of care on the MoD when soldiers were on the battlefield.

During Wednesday's hearing, the Supreme Court justices ruled that immunity did not apply in this case, because the decision about the use of the tanks was "sufficiently far removed from the pressures and risks of active operations against the enemy"."

[Kathyan]

My husband served for 33 years in the Army and I hate it when people say 'they know what they are signing up for'! Yes they do, and if they didn't who would? Do we want to go back to conscription?

[friedgreentomato]

I think the point they are trying to make is that 35 of the deaths may have been avoided if they had been in armour cars rather than the non armoured variety the army seem to favour in this conflict.

However that said, I agree with the OP if you join the forces you must realise that there is a possibility that you will lose your life.

[emmie]

if it's negligence on the MOD's part then sure they should You can't send troops out into combat without the right kit, if the vehicles were known to be inadequate or guns that didn't work properly, then that would be down to the people who sent them out. they spend enough already surely the least service personnel can expect is decent kit. I remember the Americans who fought in the Battle of Bastogne in WW2 most of whom didn't have enough ammo nor warm clothing, we have gone past that stage one would hope. Sure i could find other examples of our own soldiers poorly equipped.

[Gromit]

Undoubtedly mistake were made and troops were sent out not adequately protected.

The MoD, The Labour Government and Defence Ministers all have blood on their hands. In any other circumstance, deaths of employees by negligence would carry massive fines and even prison sentences.

So they can count themselves lucky that this is just a bid for compensation.

[vulcan42]

At what point does a weapon or a vehicle become unfit for purpose? If I'm issued with the standard rifle and get shot by a sniper using a weapon capable of shooting further then mine, has my rifle become unfit for purpose? If the enemy try to blow up my vehicle and find they can't do and then make a bigger bomb and succeed, has my vehicle become unfit for purpose.

[emmie]

wasn't there a case where soldiers were sent out on night patrol without night goggles, if so perhaps the MOD thought they were bats and could see in the dark..

[emmie]

wantonly ignoring warnings perhaps that the kit that has been supplied is inadequate, if that is the case, why did they do it.

[Gromit]

Vulcan42

An armoured vehicle will become unfit for purpose if it get blown to bits killing the occupants. I gather, this is what occurred here.

[Kathyan]

"ignoring warnings perhaps that the kit that has been supplied is inadequate, if that is the case, why did they do it." If you mean why did the soldiers do it, because they don't have a choice. They do the job to the best of their ability with what they are given.

[emmie]

no, why do the top bods not recall kit if it's not fit for purpose, it's like giving a blunt spoon and tell a miner that is what he has to dig coal with.
one vehicle was blown up because the size of the bomb blew it into the air and it landed with such force that it crushed those inside, you can't cater for that i admit.