# Cadet sues MoD for £20,000 after training accident left her scarred



## big bad john (24 Jul 2006)

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1034&id=1002832006

Cadet sues MoD for £20,000 after training accident left her scarred
AN ARMY cadet is suing the Ministry of Defence for £20,000 after a training exercise accident left her scarred for life. 

Claire Huntington claims military chiefs were to blame when a rock broke free during a climbing exercise and struck her on the face. She said she instinctively looked up when a warning was shouted from above and was struck by a rock which had fallen 30ft. 

Miss Huntington, from Shetland, said her superiors should have checked the rockface for loose stones and should have moved waiting cadets away from the foot of the climb. 

The 21-year-old has lodged a claim for £20,000 damages against the Advocate General, representing the Ministry of Defence, at Perth Sheriff Court. She claims she was participating in a "climbing, abseiling, adventure training exercise" on 6 April, 2003 when the accident happened. 

Miss Huntington and a group of other cadets attended the course at a rockface near Blair Atholl in Perthshire as part of her duties as a cadet with the Lerwick-based Shetland Independent Cadet Battery of the Royal Artillery Army Cadet Force. 

After the accident she was airlifted to Ninewells Hospital in Dundee and needed stitches to a 6cm cut across her cheek. 

Miss Huntington claims she has been scarred for life and left with a "permanent facial deformity as a result of the accident". 

The Ministry of Defence is defending the action and states that Miss Huntington was at least partly to blame for her own misfortune. 

"She had a duty to stand clear of any area where she might be struck by falling rocks," their response states. 

The case is expected to be heard later this year.


----------



## ExSarge (24 Jul 2006)

Suck it up sweetheart! We used to have a saying when someone whined when injured or wounded. “Shouldn’t have joined if you can’t take a joke!”


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Jul 2006)

ExSarge said:
			
		

> Suck it up sweetheart! We used to have a saying when someone whined when injured or wounded. “Shouldn’t have joined if you can’t take a joke!”



Yep,

And because of that stupid attitude many that needed help were too scared or embarrassed to do so.

Give your head shake.

dileas

tess


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jul 2006)

I would hope that for £20,000 she had more than a 6 cm scar.  


Heck.....I could be a Millionaire, and not know it.


----------



## ExSarge (24 Jul 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And because of that stupid attitude many that needed help were too scared or embarrassed to do so.
> 
> Give your head shake.




I would suggest you read the article again, as well as my comments. I did not infer that this cadet should not report the accident, or that the instructors running the exercise should not perform due diligence. I was commenting on the fact that this cadet should have realized that these activities are inherently dangerous. Even when all precautions are taken accidents happen (that’s why they call them accidents!). When they do occur, you deal with them. In fact this cadet was some place she should not have been. As a result she was injured. She needs to take responsibility for her actions! 
As for people that may be too scared or embarrassed to seek help. The last time I looked it was an NCOs’ responsibility to look after the health and welfare of their troops. I believe this philosophy is also taught to cadet NCOs’ as well. Your argument is without merit and quite frankly is a little to PC for my taste!


(Edit:  Corrected code - Added "[" to "/quote]" )


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Jul 2006)

> I would suggest you read the article again, as well as my comments. I did not infer that this cadet should not report the accident, or that the instructors running the exercise should not perform due diligence. I was commenting on the fact that this cadet should have realized that these activities are inherently dangerous. Even when all precautions are taken accidents happen (that’s why they call them accidents!). When they do occur, you deal with them. In fact this cadet was some place she should not have been. As a result she was injured. She needs to take responsibility for her actions!





> Suck it up sweetheart! We used to have a saying when someone whined when injured or wounded. “Shouldn’t have joined if you can’t take a joke!”



Sorry if I could not read between the lines on your comment as there was only one asinine statement.




> As for people that may be too scared or embarrassed to seek help. The last time I looked it was an NCOs’ responsibility to look after the health and welfare of their troops. I believe this philosophy is also taught to cadet NCOs’ as well. Your argument is without merit and quite frankly is a little to PC for my taste!



Tell that to the umpteen NCO's that do not recognize the symptoms.  And too PC,  sorry some of us are not snake eaters and bullet spitters, sorry if Scraped the steel hard skin of yours.

Your comment was disgusting,  unprofessional,  and is no different than when Patton slapped the soldier in the face.

We need people to realize, that broken  soldiers, make poor soldiers.  And if we go around "sucking it up" we won't get 'em fixed.

Good on her if she is suing, maybe it will create a much safer environment, and reason for "NCO's" and Officers to want to recognize the symptoms

dileas

tess


----------



## Towards_the_gap (24 Jul 2006)

Well, just to add my two cents to the debate...

I've climbed before, and I know that if someone shouts 'BELOW' that usually means there's  a rock or bunch of rocks hurtling down, and I should look directly at the rock-face so the helmet is exposed, not my soft face. 

I agree with the comment that broken soldiers make poor soldiers.....However, common sense must come into play. If she sues, then I bet all rock-climbing activities are halted until new regs are drawn up, and safety becomes an over-riding issue, at the expense of actually doing proper training.

Health and safety regulations should be there to protect from inherent risks....not to protect from human stupidity/lack of common sense.


----------



## ExSarge (24 Jul 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Sorry if I could not read between the lines on your comment as there was only one asinine statement.
> 
> Your comment was disgusting,  unprofessional,  and is no different than when Patton slapped the soldier in the face.





Surely to God we can have a debate without resorting to personal attacks or insults?

Before this gets out of hand I’m going to suggest we both step back and reassess the situation.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2006)

ExSarge said:
			
		

> Surely to God we can have a debate without resorting to personal attacks or insults?
> 
> Before this gets out of hand I’m going to suggest we both step back and reassess the situation.



+1


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Jul 2006)

Agreed,

I took the PC comment too personally.

Cool off period, let's head to the mess for a pint.

dileas

tess


----------



## ExSarge (24 Jul 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Cool off period, let's head to the mess for a pint.





Trust a highlander to think of the booze (god love’m)!  ;D

OK, you get the first round! We’ll bitch about the Navy (the lousy swap jockeys!)  

For those that are wondering ragging on the navy is not only allowed it's darn near mandatory!


----------



## career_radio-checker (24 Jul 2006)

big bad john said:
			
		

> http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1034&id=1002832006
> 
> Miss Huntington, from Shetland, said her superiors should have checked the rockface for loose stones and should have moved waiting cadets away from the foot of the climb.
> 
> ...



I dunno, it seems like a reasonable claim, 20,000 is not overzelous for a bodily injury. plus the article doesn't specify where exactly she was when the rock fell. If she was on the rope she couldn't exactly move away, If she was at the base getting unclipped then again it wasn't really her fault. If she was loitering at the base... well then...    :-\


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Jul 2006)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Well, just to add my two cents to the debate...
> 
> I've climbed before, and I know that if someone shouts 'BELOW' that usually means there's  a rock or bunch of rocks hurtling down, and I should look directly at the rock-face so the helmet is exposed, not my soft face.



Would you have known that your first trip out?  Or blame someone for forgetting it and going with the natural human instinct - to look in the direction of someone calling?

I think a 6cm scar is a serious injury, though the woman in question seems to be pushing the "facial deformity" line a bit far. Is she entitled to a 50,000 dollar award to correct her "deformity" or merely seeking merely to cash in? What about her injury would preclude her from continuing either military training or for that matter any kind of employment short of modelling? Should mere peace of mind be considered in the decision?

As usual, there are too many things not reported in the article for any of us to come down correctly on one side or the other. Had she been trained not to look up, as Towards_the_gap suggests she should have been? Were they ordered to stand too close ot the rock face? Had they been ordered not to, and ignored the order? Was it reasonable to expect the instructors to have known about loose rock - or for a complete inspection of the rockface to be done prior to the exercise? I suspect no, but am not an SME.  A lot of unanswered questions in the article.


----------



## ExSarge (24 Jul 2006)

Just to put my original comments in perspective, let me provide you with some background.  When I was in the service one of my best friends was an instructor at the Ranger mountain warfare school. As well as teaching Ranger candidates how to climb they also taught the local Boy Scout troops. Before any new climber, especially the scouts were allowed anywhere near the rock wall basic safety training was conducted. Climbers were briefed, as only the military can brief, on safety and contingency plans for darn near any emergency situation you could conceive of. The rock face was climbed and inspected by the instructors prior to the students arriving on site. Loose rocks were either removed or the climb location was moved to an alternate site.  All equipment was inspected and replaced if not 100 %. Climbers not on the ropes were marshalled away from the face for safety. The scouts on their first assent or decent climbed in tandem with an instructor.

My comments were based on the assumption that the British army practices at least as much due diligence as the U.S. Army. Assuming the last statement is true; this young woman must assume some responsibility for what happened. If I was face to face with this young lady my response would be; “Suck it up. Yes you are injured, but medical science can repair the cut on your face”. In fact the present states of cosmetic surgery can in most cases repair the injury and leave no scar whatever. A law suite smacks of a cash grab, and will no doubt mean that cadets will no longer be allowed to take part in this type of training.


----------



## Trinity (24 Jul 2006)

What's she going to do with the money?

Unless it's facial surgery to correct the problem... it's a cash grab.

Money NEVER solves any loss, hurt, or damage left in ones life.  

If it goes towards rehabilitation or to correct the problem as best as possible
then it may be justified.


----------



## Torlyn (24 Jul 2006)

ExSarge said:
			
		

> For those that are wondering ragging on the navy is not only allowed it's darn near mandatory!



I've FINALLY figured it out!!  The Army wears green...  Green is the colour of envy...  Thus, the army wears green out of ENVY for the senior service!  No wonder they rag on us all the time...  

T


----------



## GAP (24 Jul 2006)

Naw....that's just the fun part of the day   ;D


----------



## ExSarge (24 Jul 2006)

Nah, we rag on you because it’s fun. Besides we tried ragging on the Air Force, but it just made them cry!


----------



## GAP (24 Jul 2006)

ExSarge said:
			
		

> Nah, we rag on you because it’s fun. Besides we tried ragging on the Air Force, but it just made them cry!



We were always told it was the navy who would cry, because they had to make their own water


----------



## Torlyn (24 Jul 2006)

ExSarge said:
			
		

> Nah, we rag on you because it’s fun. Besides we tried ragging on the Air Force, but it just made them cry!



Yeah...  I mean, even WE make the (ch)Air Force cry when we tease.  Sensitive lot, them.  

T


----------



## Shamrock (24 Jul 2006)

I hope she wins this case, I really do.  She's received a deformity because of someone else's actions, and if she's successful, I can sue the pants of my parents.


----------



## Sig Mullet (24 Jul 2006)

"All right troops, today we are going to learn how to rock climb, then we are going to go climb on a rock face." 

This thing needs to get tossed straight out the window. Why?!?

1. She volunteered (to be a cadet)
2. You can have no expectation of safety when doing something inherently dangerous like rock climbing
3. She was airlifted to a hospital for a 6 cm cut I don't think anyone dropped the ball as far as taking care of her injury
4. Just on grounds of being a stupid case
Its to bad she got hurt, but **it happens. She got fixed up its time to get over it.


----------



## GO!!! (28 Jul 2006)

Lesson 1 of EVERY Rock Climbing School/Instructor on the planet;

"When someone yells 'rock', step close to the rock face and don't look up"


----------



## Klc (28 Jul 2006)

What? In this day and age she never signed a waiver? There were always several involved whenever I did any absailing/climbing with army cadets, on base or at civvie facilities. I specifically remember the abundance of waivers all over the place. We always knew there was a degree of danger (small, of course) that came with the training. One of the few remaining things keeping it from being taxpayer-funded boy scouts with rank.


----------



## Navy_Blue (28 Jul 2006)

If we got hurt in the forces today and we had a large facial scar I think they would cover some basic surgery to fix it??  If they didn't and you went to a social worker and said it was effecting you mentally they would get it fixed pretty quick. This was some kid and a young girl at the time, on what comes down too MoD time.  She has a facial injury and if not as a solider than as a Cadet you should be covered for the plastic surgery.  If she was suing for millions well that's just crap but 20,000 pounds that's just enough for some minor surgery to cover up a scar.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jul 2006)

I'm with Navy_Blue on this one without knowing all the details.  It is probably the lack of private health care in this country that is confusing the issue. We generally work under the assumption that you get what you need free of charge.  Therefore if you have to pay for it you don't need it.  From that it follows that if you're suing it is for frivolous or punitive reasons.

In Britain they have a public/private system with some doctors being outside the system. If you want their services you have to pay for them.  More often than not that means finding an insurance company to pay up.

In the US it is not uncommon for neighbours, friends or even family to sue each other, with no rancour involved at all, in order to get the medical coverage needed.  A buddy of mine in the states had a 13 year old boy, by definition and idiot, who got a hold of some of his dad's black powder, a length of pipe and a couple of potatoes.  He and his buddy thought the first couple of rounds went off just fine so they upped the charge and the load and the inevitable happened with trips to the hospital all round.  Painful memories and a learning experience.  Although both idiots were complicit in the activity Dan's buddy sued him to get the medical treatment that his son needed.  Because it was my buddy's powder he won the coverage.  My buddy was fine with this.  The neighbour was fine with it and they still drink and hunt together.  It was strictly a cash transaction.

That's the way I see this situation.  The cadet has likely received treatment but has a scar.  She has also likely gone to a private plastic surgeon who has given her an estimate on getting a better job done.  This is likely to cover that cost.

And if any of you have ever had teenage girls or been a teenage girl then you can probably guess how important a scar on the face might be.  Pimples call for couselling.  ;D


----------



## Klc (29 Jul 2006)

Teenage girls - I could completely understand... 
Teenage Cadet females - Not so much... I've met ones who are proud of training scars.

Of course, as was said - we don't know the details...


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Jul 2006)

Only 20l GBS? Thats not kmuch money for compo, and trhe scar must be pretty tiny. The payout is worth more than the court costs.

20K does not buy much these days period!


----------

