News:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Dock Road Accident 4th December 1951  (Read 70480 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Dock Road Accident 4th December 1951
« Reply #108 on: June 01, 2012, 18:17:43 »
The Queen Victoria Hospital,
East Grinstead,
Sussex.
15th September, 1953.

Dear Sirs,

re: Peter Griffiths.

I saw the above named in my Consulting Rooms ten days ago and without repeating my previous report to you the position is as follows:-
He has now a considerable range of movement in his left upper lid but, as you will see, there has been considerable loss of skin.  The paralysis caused by division of the nerve supporting the left side of the forehead is still present and this constitutes quite a difficult problem.  The watering from his left eye is much the same and I am, therefore, arranging his admission to cure this and add enough skin to his upper lid so that it will close as well as open.

Yours faithfully,
F.T. Moore, C.B.E., F.R.C.S.



September 9th, 1953.

Roy Lyall,
47, Haig Avenue, Chatham, Kent.

I have to-day seen and re-examined the above named boy, now aged 13 ½.

Since I last saw him on March 3rd of this year, he has continued at school, but his father tells me that he has been away for periods of two or three days on two occasions on account of symptoms, the occasion being in July.  He has, however, not had to see his own doctor since about June.

Present symptoms:  The former frontal headaches have improved considerably, gradually becoming less frequent, and he has not experienced such a headache for the last six to eight weeks.  The boy tells me that his vision was sometimes blurred at school, and they told him there was something wrong with his eyes.

His father states that he is still somewhat restless and continues to have occasional phases of irritability, but rather less frequently than formerly.  At school he has improved to a slight extent, with improved attention in subjects that interest him; his memory is still somewhat unreliable, but spelling ability is improving.  He had rather a better report last term than the previous term.

Physical examination:  The pupils continue to be normal in size and react normally to accommodation-convergence.  The appearance of the sclerotic suggests that he recently had a mild attack of conjunctivitis as a purely intercurrent condition.  All deep and superficial reflexes are within normal limits.  Co-ordination is normal, and he remains steady in the Romberg position.  No further involuntary muscular jerks; pulse regular at 72; heart normal.

Scar on upper lip and inner side of right knee as before.

Commentary:  As anticipated, this boy’s condition has improved to a further extent since March, when I last saw him, and my conclusions are much the same as stated in previous reports.  He is still suffering from the after-effects of the head injury in the symptoms described, but these appear, as expected, to be gradually lessening.  I still consider that the ultimate outlook is good, but that progress towards probable recovery is still likely to be somewhat slow, and that some symptoms may persist, as stated previously, for a further six if not twelve months.  It would be as well to re-examine him in six months time.

C. Worster-Drought, MD. F.R.C.P.

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Dock Road Accident 4th December 1951
« Reply #107 on: May 31, 2012, 17:50:28 »
18th September 1953.

Dear Sir,

Chatham R.M. Cadets.

We write to say that we remain completely in the dark as to the progress of this matter, and shall be grateful if you can bring us up to date, as you were conducting the negotiations in which our Clients are interested.

Will you kindly confirm that you have been able to reach a settlement on the terms agreed at out conference – that no finding of negligence against our Clients should be made, which, in view of the decision to relieve our Clients of any financial responsibility, is the only point in which they remain interested.

Will any case be taken publically through the Court in such a way that there is a risk of negligence being imputed?

Yours faithfully,
Baker & Baker



26th September, 1953.

Dear Sirs,

Chatham R.M.Cadets

I thank you for your letter dated the 18th instant.

Since I wrote to your London Agents on the 5th May 1953 there is nothing further to report.  The only action in which your Clients are a party is the action of Griffiths v. Carter and Carpenter and Others but having regard to the nature of the injuries this claim is not one for settlement and is unlikely to be settled for some time.  If it is impossible to negotiate an amicable settlement with the result that there is a hearing in Court I will of course let you know.  As to the remaining claims, there are in process of negotiation but in these cases your Clients are not a party to the proceedings the only Defendants being the Chatham and District Bus Company.  I hope that these Claims will be settled amicably but in the event of a hearing of any of these actions in Court I do not see how there can be any suggestion of negligence against your Clients as they are parties.

You may rest assured that when there are any further developments in the Griffiths case I will let you know.

Yours faithfully,


Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Dock Road Accident 4th December 1951
« Reply #106 on: May 31, 2012, 09:56:34 »
17th August, 1953

Dear Mr. Frost,

Chatham 204/51 – 5 – Burke

In this case Thompson originally suggested £500. and I countered with £350.  This was refused and Thompson said his Client’s figure was £600.  I endeavoured to do a deal between the two, but failed.

Thompson said he thought he should have a further medical examination by Dr. Griffiths and I enclose a copy of this gentlemen’s last report.

Thompson says his Client’s figure has now gone up to £750.

I think we should have this boy examined by Dr. Jeffery, but perhaps I could have your views on this aspect and generally.

Yours faithfully,
Nash
Chief Insurance Officer



2nd September, 1953.

Dear Sir,

I saw and examined Mr. Denis Webb this morning in the prescence of his aunt.

I have read the medical reports of Mr. McGregor dated 29th October, Mr. Barry dated 15th July and Mr. Geoffrey Bateman dated 4th May 1953.

The boy tells me that there is still some slight discharge from his left ear which he gets every morning and that there is some slight impairment of hearing in the left ear only, otherwise he feels quite well.

On examination I found that in the upper part of the ear channel on the left side neat the ear drum there was some moist granulation tissue.  Only half the ear drum was visible and this appeared normal.

The ear drum on the right side was quite normal.  His hearing is slightly impaired in the elft ear only as the charts below show.

He is able to hear with his right ear speech at conversational level easily from 30 feet away whilst in the left ear it is reduced to 10 feet.

His nose and throat are quite healthy.

He has an active though slight infection in the left ear which I think is the result of his head injury in December 1951.  It may be that there has been a fracture with a piece of dead or infected bone in the roof of the middle ear itself.

I think this will need treatment and it may in the end need operative treatment.

Though the condition is not a serious one and the hearing is not seriously affected, I think it may prevent him from being a member of any of the armed forces and certainly it is unlikely that he will be accepted for the Royal Marines.

I think this ear condition must be attributable to the accident.

Yours faithfully,
T Cawthorne

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Dock Road Accident 4th December 1951
« Reply #105 on: May 28, 2012, 11:21:30 »
July 30th 1953

Peter Burke.  Age 12
Marine Cadet.

I have today re-examined this boy in the presence of his mother.  He has not had any treatment since I saw him last.  Mrs. Burke tells me that recently he has not been allowed to compete in sports at school because he broken down apparently when attempting hurdles.  A letter which she produced, from the headmaster of the school, confirms this.  He has also recently failed in his technical examination.

On examination of the left leg I find there has been further improvement in the muscular development of the leg.  The scar is soundly healed and now supple but remains very tender to light pressure.  The maximum development of the left calf is 13” which is equal to that on the right side.  He is unable to take his weight on the left foot in the tiptoe position.  There is full movement of the knee joint.  Dorsiflexion of the ankle is full; combined plantarflexion of the ankle and foot is full in range but there tends to be a little inversion of the foot during extreme plantarflexion.  This is due to weakness of the peroneal muscles.  There is a full range of eversion of the foot.  There is good toe movement.   There is no obvious flattening of the arch of the foot today.  There appears to be considerable hyperaesthesia of the skin of the front of the leg in its upper two-thirds.

Today this boy is more nervous than he was at my last examination.  His mother tells me that he is very erratic and he seems to have spasms of nervousness.

I think this boy has now probably reached his optimum state, with the exception of the tenderness and hyperaesthesia on the front of the leg will probably disappear in time.  It is also probable that he will overcome his anxiety state.  I do not think that his leg is likely to recover sufficiently for him to excel in active sports.

Sig Hugh Griffiths.
M.S., F.R.C.S.

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Dock Road Accident 4th December 1951
« Reply #104 on: May 28, 2012, 11:12:38 »
22nd June, 1953

Dear Mr. Nash,

Your ref: Chatham 204/51 – 24 – Webb.

I refer to this matter.  I have to-day seen the parents in this case and I regret that your offer of £1,000 is not acceptable to them.

As you know, this is a serious injury.  It is clear from the medical reports that this lad will suffer permanent partial deafness.

Quite apart from the serious handicap that this means for him in future life, I think it only right that I should tell you that the father is a time serving marine, as was his father before him.  This lad was destined for a career with the Marines, that career is now out of the question.  The position in which he is placed is that he is now barred from a career connected with the Marines or any other Service.  I can assure you that the parents of the lad regard this in a very serious light.

In all the circumstances I am instructed to say that the lowest sum they are prepared to accept is £2,000 plus my costs to be taxed.  I shall be interested to hear from you.

Yours faithfully.

W.H. Thompson


Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Dock Road Accident 4th December 1951
« Reply #103 on: May 24, 2012, 20:05:23 »
30th June, 1953.

Dear Sirs,

Chatham 204/51 – 1 Aitken.

I refer to this matter and to your letter of the 3rd June.  I have now had an opportunity of seeing the parents in this matter.  As I anticipated your offer of £1000 is not acceptable.

I do not propose at this stage to reiterate the medical evidence since you have had an opportunity of considering the last report obtained from Sig Hugh Griffiths.  It is clear that, although this lad has made a remarkable recovery from very serious injuries, there is still residual disability.  If Sir Hugh is right the hip joint alone will cause trouble for a while yet.

After very careful consideration the parents have come to the conclusion that the lowest sum they can accept is £1500 by way of general damages plus special damage.

Perhaps you will give the matter your further consideration and let me hear from you at your convenience.

There is one further point which I should mention at this stage.  Early in the case the special damage was agreed at £19.  14.  9. but since then further expense has been incurred by the parents.
There have been several visits to London – as you well know the parents here live at Southsea – and, further, the lad was taken for a convalescent holiday of there weeks in Eire.  I have carefully checked the additional expense and I am satisfied that £40 would be a reasonable figure, and think you will agree.  Therefore I am proposing that the special damage should not be increased to £59.  14.  9.  I do not think we shall quarrel on this item.

Yours faithfully,
W. H. Thompson




Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Dock Road Accident 4th December 1951
« Reply #102 on: May 21, 2012, 13:08:29 »
22nd June, 1953.

Dear Mr. Frost,

Chatham 204/51 – 19 – Perris.

I made an offer herein of £750.  And I now enclose a copy of the reply I have received from W.H. Thompson.

Before you came on the scene I had had a number of conversations with Charles about this and the other claims.  At that state I did not anticipate that this boy would make such a wonderful recovery and in so short a time.  My estimate then was £2,000 and in discussing the matter with Charles I said that if his Clients were prepared to consider a settlement at that stage my idea was £1,000.

Although Charles said it was much too early – I think quite rightly – to discuss a settlement he apparently told the father that we had made such an offer.

In the circumstances I can quite well understand the father refusing to accept less than the amount Charles and I had previously discusses, although it had never been in the form of an offer.

In view of what I say above I think the probabilities are that if we do not pay £1,000 the father will go on, and in these circumstances I am inclined to pay up, but would like to have your views.

Finally, I do not put an award of £1,000 as being out of the question.

Yours sincerely,
Mr. Nash



19th June, 1953.

Der Sir,

Cadet Peter Griffiths

I refer to this matter.  For your information I can tell you that the first operations herein have been completed.  The lad has been discharged from the Hospital and he will return for further treatment in about three months’ time.  You may be interested to know that the interim account U have received from the hospital for the first period of admission amounts to some £30.  3.  0.

I gather from Mr. Moore, the Surgeon, that the condition is a little more difficult than was at first thought.  Apparently, the injury over the eye was explored and it was found that there was much road grit and debris deep down in the muscles of the eye.  The muscle which raises the upper lid has been re-united and the lachrymal duct was explored.

Apparently, this duct had been divided in the original injury before it reached the lachrymal sac and I gather that reconstruction will therefore be – to use the words of Mr. Moore – “difficult and tricky”.

Yours faithfully,
W. H. Thompson

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Dock Road Accident 4th December 1951
« Reply #101 on: May 19, 2012, 18:30:50 »
13th June, 1953.

Dear Mr. Nash,

Chatham 2451 – Swindell – 22

I thank you for your letter of the 9th instant with enclosures as stated which I return to you as requested.

I do not think the fact that this Infant failed to obtain a scholarship materially affects the Damages in this case as the Damage is too remote.  In any event if a Medical certificate had been produced to show that the boy was medically unfit to sit for the Examination – although I only speak from recollection – I think the boy would have been given another opportunity to sit the examination.  It is probably too late to do anything about the matter now, but in any event if the fault lies anywhere at all, it is with the parents and the school authorities not letting him take the Examination.

As to the medical evidence, it appears from the Report dated October 16th 1952 that this boy will not have completely recovered for a further 12 months with the result that this boy has suffered in varying degrees for nearly two years.  Whilst I think your estimate of £250 a reasonable one it may be difficult to resist a figure of £350 on the medical evidence, quite independently of the failure to pass the examination referred.



18th June, 1953.

Dear Sir,

re Your ref:  Chatham 204/51 – 19 – Perris.

I refer to this matter.  I have now obtained instructions and as I thought likely, the father is not prepared to accept £750 by way of general damages.

As you know, some while ago a suggestion of £1,000 was made.  That figure my client, at the time it was put forward, considered to be quite adequate.  Whilst it is true the lad has made a remarkably good recovery, the injuries were undoubtedly serious and a great deal of pain and suffering has been involved.

Mr. Perris tells me that appreciating as he does the whole position, he would not be prepared to accept the figure of £1,000 earlier offered and regarded inadequate.

I shall be glad to hear from you.

Yours faithfully,
W.H. Thompson.

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Dock Road Accident 4th December 1951
« Reply #100 on: May 14, 2012, 19:24:11 »
26th May, 1953.

Dear Sir,

Griffiths v. Chatham & District Traction Co. Ltd. & others.

I refer to this matter.  I have this morning received a letter from the Secretary to Mr. F. T. Moore, informing me that this lad is being admitted to the Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead, to-day.

Apparently, the boy is to be admitted as a private patient and I am asked to sign an agreement undertaking to pay the Hospital the sum of £23.  9.  0.  per week in respect of accommodation and Hospital services and, further, such fees as may be incurred with the Specialist for operative treatment.  Before signing this agreement, I thought that I ought to have your comments.

My suggestion is that the whole of the medical fees, that is to say, the Hospital account and the Specialist's charges, should become an item of Special Damage in the Action, and that I should take from the parents an authority to deduct from such sum as may eventually be due to them the total medical charges and pay the same direct to the Hospital and Mr. Moore respectively.

I at the moment, of course, have no figures in respect of the Specialist’s fees, but I have spoken with Mr. Moore’s to-morrow.

Yours faithfully,
W. R. Thompson.

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Dock Road Accident 4th December 1951
« Reply #99 on: May 14, 2012, 09:31:08 »
30th May, 1953.

Dear Mr. Nash,

Chatham 204/51   1 – Aitken

I thank you for your letter dated the 27th instant enclosing medical reports for my perusal and I return them as requested.  On the basis that this boy will make a full recovery from the injury to the right arm and from the post concussion state and that there is unlikely to be any complication following upon the dislocation of the hip joint I agree that £1,000 seems to be a reasonable settlement.  I note however in the report dated the 15th July 1952 from All Saints Hospital Chatham that the suggestion is made that the boy may develop arthritis in the right joint in later adult life and this was to some extent confirmed by Sir Hugh Griffiths in his report dated the 9th October 1952.  If it is contended by the Plaintiff’s Solicitors that this condition of arthritis may occur in later life it may well be that the matter will be capable of settlement for the sum of £1,000.  In that event no doubt you will let me know and I will be prepared to agree an increase in the figure of £1,000.

Yours sincerely,
Arthur Frost

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Dock Road Accident 4th December 1951
« Reply #98 on: May 11, 2012, 18:21:30 »
55 Harley Street,
London W.1.

4th May, 1953.

Report on examination of Dennis Webb, 12 years – 9 Henry Street, Chatham, Kent.

I have today examined this patient at No. 55 Harley Street.  I have read the medical reports of Mr. McGregor, the Ear, Nose and Throat surgeon, dated 29th October, 1952, and of Mr. Berry, the general surgeon, dated 15th July, 1952.

The patient states that he still has slight discharge from the left ear and slight deafness in the left ear, otherwise he says he has no residual disability.

On examination his nose and throat are normal.  His right ear is normal to inspection and hearing tests.  In the left ear there is a marked narrowing of the deep bony meatus caused by a partial web obscuring the upper and anterior part of the eardrum.  There are some granulations in this web and they are discharging slightly.  The part of the eardrum that could be seen is normal, moves with a pneumatic speculum and there is no escape of air from the middle ear when the patient inflates his ear.  He has a conduction deafness with normal bone conduction in the left ear and about 30 decibel loss over the speech frequencies.  This reduces his hearing of the whispered voice from about 20 ft. (normal) to 4 ft.

Opinion:   There is no doubt from the history that he suffered from a fracture of the base of the skull involving the ear.  The physical signs as presented now suggest that the fracture passed through the attic of the middle ear into the external auditory meatus and did not rupture the tympanic membrane.  If the tympanic membrane was ruptured it has healed.  The present discharge might be due to failure of healing of the skin over the fracture line, or might be due to an infection of the attic of the middle ear which occurred as the result of the accident.  Only the final healing of the ear or the onset of more permanent symptoms, so that an operation has to be performed will finally decide this point.  There is no prospect of his ever obtaining normal hearing in the left ear, though it is possible that the discharge will cease and that he will finally achieve a trouble free ear.  A moderate degree of deafness in one ear such as he has is a very slight disability in civilian life, but it does prevent him from following certain occupations.  It is likely to prevent his acceptance by the Royal Marines, and would certainly prevent his acceptance for air crew duties in any of the Services.  While the discharge from his ear persists he would not be acceptable to any of the Services.

I agree entirely with the conclusions reached by Mr. McGregor, the consultant Ear, Nose and Throat Surgeon at the hospital where he has been treated.

Mt hearing test is substantially the same as the test recorded by Mr. McGregor on the 28th October, 1952.

There is no doubt that the present ear condition is the direct result of his accident on the 4th December, 1951.

G. H. Bateman
M.A., B.M., B.Ch., F.R.C.S.

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Dock Road Accident 4th December 1951
« Reply #97 on: May 10, 2012, 10:34:27 »
19th May, 1953.

Dear Mr. Nash,

Chatham 204/51-25-Wilson

I thank you for your letter dated the 15th instant enclosing a copy of the report of Sir Hugh Griffith for my retention.

I agree with your view that £500 would represent a fair and reasonable settlement in the basis of the Report, but it may well be in view of the period between the date of the accident and the date of ultimate recovery some eighteen months after the accident, it may be necessary to make an adequate allowance on the sum of £500.  If you find it necessary to do so for the purpose of an amicable settlement I should not dissent from a settlement up to £600.

Yours sincerely,
Arthur Frost.

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Dock Road Accident 4th December 1951
« Reply #96 on: May 10, 2012, 09:15:26 »
SIR HUGH GRIFFITHS
90 Harley Street
5th May, 1955

Michael Wilson Age 15
Marine Cadet.

I have today examined this boy in the presence of his father.  He states that on December 4th 1951 he was involved in a bus accident of which he remembers nothing.  He was taken to the Royal Naval Hospital, Chatham, where he was found to have a fracture of the left femur and to have lost five front teeth.  He also had a cut on the chin and a cut over the left eye.  He was kept in the hospital for seven months and his left leg was treated suspended in splints.  During this time he also had some dental treatment and was fitted with five artificial teeth for the upper jaw.  After he came out of the hospital he went to a convalescent home for six weeks and a week later he returned to school.  He says that he can manage the studying part all right but he could not play much football because he cannot run and can only kick with his right leg.  When he kicks with his left leg he gets jarring in the left thigh.

His father states that after exercise his left leg appears to be very painful and he has a job to lift it.  He wants to join the other boys when they are playing but has to stop and rest after about an hour.

On examination of the left thigh I find there is a scar on the outer side of the thigh in the middle third, two inches in diameter, the result of a healed lacerated wound.  There has been a fracture of the shaft of the femur which has united in good position with ½” of lengthening.  Movements of the hip and knee are full and free without creaking.  Dorsiflexion of the ankle occurs to the right angle and is slightly reduced by comparison with the right side.  There is no measurable wasting of the muscles of the thigh or calf.  He is able to tiptoe, squat and recovery.  He is able to bend and touch his toes with normal movement of the spine.

There are no tremors of the fingers, tongue or eyelids.  There is no Rombergism.  The knee jerks are normal.

On examination of the mouth I find this boy is wearing a plate carrying five upper front teeth.

This is a case of –

1)   Loss of five teeth which have been replaced with satisfactory dentures;
2)   Fracture of the left femur which has united in satisfactory alignment but with ½” of lengthening.

This boy is now progressing to a good recovery and should make a full functional recovery by the end of the summer except for the loss of his teeth, which of course is permanent.

Hugh Griffiths
M.S., F.R.C.S.

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Dock Road Accident 4th December 1951
« Reply #95 on: May 09, 2012, 10:24:38 »
THE B.E.T. FEDERATION, LIMITED
The central organisation providing services for the group of road passenger transport,
And other companies associated with the British Electric Traction Co. Ltd.

Insurance Department
18th February, 1953

Dear Mr. Frost,

Chatham 204/51.

I confirm the conversation I had with you over the telephone when I informed you that I had settled the twenty-four fatal claims, and I enclose a list thereof showing the amounts paid.

Again in agreement with you I agreed W. H. Thompson’s costs at 12 guas. in respect of each fatal claim, plus 10 guas. for his high costs of attending the Inquest, the total, therefore, being £312.18  0. for which I have sent him a cheque.

I am at present negotiating in another thirteen claims, all of which I hope to settle for less than £300 a piece.

Yours faithfully,
W. J. Nash
Chief Insurance Officer



Royal Marine Volunteer Boys Corps

I regret the delay in replying to your minute dated the 2nd February 1953.  As I regard this matter as one of considerable importance to the future of the Boys Corps, I thought it right to discuss it with Treasury Counsel who has previously advised on a settlement of the Claims arising out of the Chatham accident.  I have not been able to see Treasury Counsel until this week.

2.   Treasury Counsel has expressed the opinion that the issue of the proposed memoranda and Admiralty Fleet Order accompanying your minute will be effective in enabling the Admiralty to disclaim liability in the future for the Torts of Royal Marine Officers acting as Commanding Officers of Boys Corps or in serving the Corps In some other capacity.  In fairness to the Marine Officers concerned, Counsel thinks that the draft Admiralty Fleet Order should be amended by adding at the end of paragraph 2 a statement making it clear that the admiralty will not accept any liability for anything that may occur when these Officers are carrying out their voluntary services.  I suggest a suitable form of words would be as follows:-

“Any liability incurred by them in the course of carrying out these voluntary services would fall to be discharged by them and the Admiralty would not accept any liability.”

The proposed Order will only be effective so long as the Officers are not requested to accept appointments with the Boys Corps.  You may remember in discussing a settlement of the Chatham case it emerged that the evidence of one of the Marine Officers would have been to the effect that he felt some compulsion in undertaking the appointment.  It was this factor which prompted Counsel amongst other things, to advise that the Admiralty might not escape a finding that the Officers were the servants or agent of the Crown.  If in the future, it transpired that the Marine Officers were requested or compelled to undertake duties with the corps notwithstanding the terms of the proposed A.F.O. then it might be open to a Court to find that the relationship of servant or agent existed between the admiralty and the Officers.

3.   I assume from the terms of the draft A.F.O. that it is intended to continue assistance to the Corps by way of a capitation grant and the loan of equipment.  With regard to the loan of equipment, in certain circumstances, the admiralty might incur a liability independently of questions of Marine Officers being the servants or agents of the Admiralty but I do not think I need pursue this aspect of the matter apart from pointing it out.

4.   Assuming it is not desired to disturb the traditional relationship between the Royal Marines and the Boys Corps, it occurs to me that a practical way of dealing with the problem may be for the Corps to take out a Policy of Insurance which would cover Marine Officers against all risks while doing their voluntary work.  I do not know how the premium would be found but if the admiralty paid it I do not think it would necessarily embarrass an argument that the Officers were not on duty at the time when they were doing this work; on the contrary it would strengthen it since if it was accepted that they were on duty there would be no necessity to insure.

Arthur Frost
For the Treasury Solicitor
14th May, 1953.

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Dock Road Accident 4th December 1951
« Reply #94 on: May 08, 2012, 19:18:49 »
Dear Sirs,

Chatham R.M. Cadets
Griffiths –v- Chatham & District Bus Company
And Carpenter and Carter

I confirm my conversation with you on the telephone when I advised you that Mr. Ashworth Treasury Counsel has been able to reach an agreement with Mr. Armstrong’ Jones Counsel instructed for the Chatham and District Bus Company in the following terms:-

“Record to be withdrawn on terms endorsed on Counsels Briefs namely on payment of £x to the Infant Plaintiff and £Y to the adult Plaintiff and costs to be taxed.  Such payments being made without any admission of liability the Bus Company paying a proportion and the admiralty also agreeing to pay a proportion of the damages and costs.”

I understand that on behalf of your Clients that you approve the form of words set out above and agree that the matter may be mentioned to the Court in these terms if that be necessary.  It may be however that a settlement of the action can be concluded in Chambers before a Master.

Yours faithfully,
Arthur Frost
For the Trasury Solicitor.

 

BloQcs design by Bloc
SMF 2.0.11 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines