Discussion:
Accident or misadventure?
(too old to reply)
Jeff Layman
2024-10-05 07:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Earlier this year two young people drowned while swimming near
Bournemouth Pier. The inquest was heard this week, and the coroner ruled
that the deaths were accidents.
<https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24631343.bournemouth-drownings-coroner-rules-beach-tragedy-accident/>.

Why was this was ruled an accident rather than misadventure? If someone
falls into the water and drowns, that is an accident. If they choose to
go swimming, is that not misadventure as the death is caused by a risk
taken voluntarily?
--
Jeff
billy bookcase
2024-10-05 08:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Earlier this year two young people drowned while swimming near Bournemouth Pier. The
inquest was heard this week, and the coroner ruled that the deaths were accidents.
<https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24631343.bournemouth-drownings-coroner-rules-beach-tragedy-accident/>.
Why was this was ruled an accident rather than misadventure? If someone falls into the
water and drowns, that is an accident. If they choose to go swimming, is that not
misadventure as the death is caused by a risk taken voluntarily?
quote:

Although there is no real distinction between accidental death and misadventure, some
coroners prefer to use misadventure to denote where someone deliberately undertakes
a task which then goes wrong, therefore causing death.

:unquote

https://www.mills-reeve.com/getmedia/879553ba-fa93-4b48-874f-9abb2af81c1f/coroners-conclusions.pdf


Whereas others apparently don't.


bb
billy bookcase
2024-10-05 08:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Earlier this year two young people drowned while swimming near Bournemouth Pier. The
inquest was heard this week, and the coroner ruled that the deaths were accidents.
<https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24631343.bournemouth-drownings-coroner-rules-beach-tragedy-accident/>.
Why was this was ruled an accident rather than misadventure? If someone falls into the
water and drowns, that is an accident. If they choose to go swimming, is that not
misadventure as the death is caused by a risk taken voluntarily?
--
Jeff
As a follow up

Coroners are advised to limit themelves to Short Form Conclusions and maybe
in addition add Narrative Conclusions

The details of Form 2 to which they should conform are given on this link

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1616/images/uksi_20131616_en_004


manual quote:

i) One of the following short form conclusions may be adopted

1. Accident or misadventure

:unquote

The example of an accident given in the guidance notes is a car being
hit being a train on a level crossing which IMO involves a high degree of
contributory negligence. But that is as much of an "accident" for the purposes
of an Inquest as being hit by a meteor


bb
jon
2024-10-05 08:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by billy bookcase
Post by Jeff Layman
Earlier this year two young people drowned while swimming near
Bournemouth Pier. The inquest was heard this week, and the coroner
ruled that the deaths were accidents.
<https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24631343.bournemouth-drownings-
coroner-rules-beach-tragedy-accident/>.
Post by billy bookcase
Post by Jeff Layman
Why was this was ruled an accident rather than misadventure? If someone
falls into the water and drowns, that is an accident. If they choose to
go swimming, is that not misadventure as the death is caused by a risk
taken voluntarily?
--
Jeff
As a follow up
Coroners are advised to limit themelves to Short Form Conclusions and
maybe in addition add Narrative Conclusions
The details of Form 2 to which they should conform are given on this link
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1616/images/uksi_20131616_en_004
i) One of the following short form conclusions may be adopted
1. Accident or misadventure
:unquote
The example of an accident given in the guidance notes is a car being
hit being a train on a level crossing which IMO involves a high degree
of contributory negligence. But that is as much of an "accident" for the
purposes of an Inquest as being hit by a meteor
bb
Meteorite.
Martin Brown
2024-10-06 10:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by billy bookcase
Earlier this year two young people drowned while swimming near Bournemouth Pier. The
inquest was heard this week, and the coroner ruled that the deaths were accidents.
<https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24631343.bournemouth-drownings-coroner-rules-beach-tragedy-accident/>.
Why was this was ruled an accident rather than misadventure? If someone falls into the
water and drowns, that is an accident. If they choose to go swimming, is that not
misadventure as the death is caused by a risk taken voluntarily?
--
Jeff
As a follow up
Coroners are advised to limit themelves to Short Form Conclusions and maybe
in addition add Narrative Conclusions
The details of Form 2 to which they should conform are given on this link
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1616/images/uksi_20131616_en_004
i) One of the following short form conclusions may be adopted
1. Accident or misadventure
:unquote
The example of an accident given in the guidance notes is a car being
hit being a train on a level crossing which IMO involves a high degree of
contributory negligence. But that is as much of an "accident" for the purposes
of an Inquest as being hit by a meteor
I'm not at all convinced by that example of an "accident". A car on a
railway crossing typically has to have ignored a lot of red flashing
lights and/or deliberately gone around lane blocking barriers. People do
it though on remote rural roads and they mostly get away with it. CCTV
cameras cover such spots and the authorities try to prosecute for it.

There are examples in the US where railway tracks are unguarded - this
one probably the most impressive - armoured tank vs freight train:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c93p35wd00eo

Quite an even match as it turns out (train looked to me like it won).

To be a true accident it has to be something that cannot be reasonably
foreseen like being struck by a meteorite (to my knowledge this is so
rare that in all of recorded history there is just one dog that met it's
end this way). Plenty of people and homes hit by smaller annoying sized
meteorites (like the population of Paris shortly after their academy of
sciences had declared that no stones could possibly fall from the sky).

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1967IrAJ....8...69L/0000069.000.html

Drowning is an intrinsic risk of open water swimming, and in the sea so
is getting stung by a lethal jellyfish or eaten by a shark.
--
Martin Brown
billy bookcase
2024-10-06 15:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Brown
Post by billy bookcase
Earlier this year two young people drowned while swimming near Bournemouth Pier. The
inquest was heard this week, and the coroner ruled that the deaths were accidents.
<https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24631343.bournemouth-drownings-coroner-rules-beach-tragedy-accident/>.
Why was this was ruled an accident rather than misadventure? If someone falls into the
water and drowns, that is an accident. If they choose to go swimming, is that not
misadventure as the death is caused by a risk taken voluntarily?
--
Jeff
As a follow up
Coroners are advised to limit themelves to Short Form Conclusions and maybe
in addition add Narrative Conclusions
The details of Form 2 to which they should conform are given on this link
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1616/images/uksi_20131616_en_004
i) One of the following short form conclusions may be adopted
1. Accident or misadventure
:unquote
The example of an accident given in the guidance notes is a car being
hit being a train on a level crossing which IMO involves a high degree of
contributory negligence. But that is as much of an "accident" for the purposes
of an Inquest as being hit by a meteor
I'm not at all convinced by that example of an "accident".
Here is the actual wording from the guidance notes

quote:

September 7, 2021

Chief Coroner's Guidance No.17 Conclusions:
Short-Form and Narrative

Accident
44. Some authorities have approved additional words in accident
cases such as 'the deceased was killed when his car was run down
by an express train on a level crossing', or 'the deceased was
drowned when his sailing dinghy capsized in heavy seas'.[xxiv]
The phrase 'accidental death' may also be used[xxv].

unquote

https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/chief-coroners-guidance-no-17-conclusions-short-form-and-narrative/

The point being that surely they could have thought of better
examples of "accidents".

Although Road Traffic collisions are exempted being a category
of their own no. 7

Its conceivable I supposed that a car "might" break down or stall
half way across an unguarded crossing just as the lights start
flashing and with multiple occupants in the car all belted up.
And panic might ensue.
Post by Martin Brown
A car on a railway crossing typically has to have ignored a lot of red flashing lights
and/or deliberately gone around lane blocking barriers. People do it though on remote
rural roads and they mostly get away with it. CCTV cameras cover such spots and the
authorities try to prosecute for it.
There are examples in the US where railway tracks are unguarded - this one probably the
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c93p35wd00eo
Quite an even match as it turns out (train looked to me like it won).
To be a true accident it has to be something that cannot be reasonably foreseen like
being struck by a meteorite (to my knowledge this is so rare that in all of recorded
history there is just one dog that met it's end this way). Plenty of people and homes
hit by smaller annoying sized meteorites (like the population of Paris shortly after
their academy of sciences had declared that no stones could possibly fall from the
sky).
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1967IrAJ....8...69L/0000069.000.html
Drowning is an intrinsic risk of open water swimming, and in the sea so is getting
stung by a lethal jellyfish or eaten by a shark.
bb
Jethro_uk
2024-10-06 16:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Brown
Post by billy bookcase
Post by Jeff Layman
Earlier this year two young people drowned while swimming near
Bournemouth Pier. The inquest was heard this week, and the coroner
ruled that the deaths were accidents.
<https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24631343.bournemouth-drownings-
coroner-rules-beach-tragedy-accident/>.
Post by Martin Brown
Post by billy bookcase
Post by Jeff Layman
Why was this was ruled an accident rather than misadventure? If
someone falls into the water and drowns, that is an accident. If they
choose to go swimming, is that not misadventure as the death is caused
by a risk taken voluntarily?
--
Jeff
As a follow up
Coroners are advised to limit themelves to Short Form Conclusions and
maybe in addition add Narrative Conclusions
The details of Form 2 to which they should conform are given on this link
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1616/images/
uksi_20131616_en_004
Post by Martin Brown
Post by billy bookcase
i) One of the following short form conclusions may be adopted
1. Accident or misadventure
:unquote
The example of an accident given in the guidance notes is a car being
hit being a train on a level crossing which IMO involves a high degree
of contributory negligence. But that is as much of an "accident" for
the purposes of an Inquest as being hit by a meteor
I'm not at all convinced by that example of an "accident". A car on a
railway crossing typically has to have ignored a lot of red flashing
lights and/or deliberately gone around lane blocking barriers. People do
it though on remote rural roads and they mostly get away with it. CCTV
cameras cover such spots and the authorities try to prosecute for it.
There are examples in the US where railway tracks are unguarded - this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c93p35wd00eo
Quite an even match as it turns out (train looked to me like it won).
To be a true accident it has to be something that cannot be reasonably
foreseen like being struck by a meteorite (to my knowledge this is so
rare that in all of recorded history there is just one dog that met it's
end this way). Plenty of people and homes hit by smaller annoying sized
meteorites (like the population of Paris shortly after their academy of
sciences had declared that no stones could possibly fall from the sky).
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1967IrAJ....8...69L/
0000069.000.html
Post by Martin Brown
Drowning is an intrinsic risk of open water swimming, and in the sea so
is getting stung by a lethal jellyfish or eaten by a shark.
If you dig deep enough, a lot of "accidents" aren't really. They are the
logical conclusion of a series of events each of which could have been
foreseen and ideally mitigated against. Certainly that is the message I
picked up from air accident investigation programmes.

Whether it is worth mitigation against *all* known risks is another
matter ....
Max Demian
2024-10-07 10:19:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
To be a true accident it has to be something that cannot be reasonably
foreseen like being struck by a meteorite (to my knowledge this is so
rare that in all of recorded history there is just one dog that met it's
end this way). Plenty of people and homes hit by smaller annoying sized
meteorites (like the population of Paris shortly after their academy of
sciences had declared that no stones could possibly fall from the sky).
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1967IrAJ....8...69L/
0000069.000.html
Post by Martin Brown
Drowning is an intrinsic risk of open water swimming, and in the sea so
is getting stung by a lethal jellyfish or eaten by a shark.
If you dig deep enough, a lot of "accidents" aren't really. They are the
logical conclusion of a series of events each of which could have been
foreseen and ideally mitigated against. Certainly that is the message I
picked up from air accident investigation programmes.
Whether it is worth mitigation against *all* known risks is another
matter ....
Just stay at home in bed. Oh no! The roof might fall in! And most people
die in bed!

People who say there aren't any accidents just want to force people to
conform to their idea of what is the right way to behave. It's called
"safetyism". (Though people who climb mountains or play dangerous sports
only have themselves to blame. Or any sports, really.)
--
Max Demian
Jethro_uk
2024-10-07 11:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Demian
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
Just stay at home in bed. Oh no! The roof might fall in! And most people
die in bed!
Luckily I headed off such a call to reductio ad absurdum in my pp :)
Adam Funk
2024-10-07 08:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Brown
Post by billy bookcase
Earlier this year two young people drowned while swimming near Bournemouth Pier. The
inquest was heard this week, and the coroner ruled that the deaths were accidents.
<https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24631343.bournemouth-drownings-coroner-rules-beach-tragedy-accident/>.
Why was this was ruled an accident rather than misadventure? If someone falls into the
water and drowns, that is an accident. If they choose to go swimming, is that not
misadventure as the death is caused by a risk taken voluntarily?
--
Jeff
As a follow up
Coroners are advised to limit themelves to Short Form Conclusions and maybe
in addition add Narrative Conclusions
The details of Form 2 to which they should conform are given on this link
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1616/images/uksi_20131616_en_004
i) One of the following short form conclusions may be adopted
1. Accident or misadventure
:unquote
The example of an accident given in the guidance notes is a car being
hit being a train on a level crossing which IMO involves a high degree of
contributory negligence. But that is as much of an "accident" for the purposes
of an Inquest as being hit by a meteor
I'm not at all convinced by that example of an "accident". A car on a
railway crossing typically has to have ignored a lot of red flashing
lights and/or deliberately gone around lane blocking barriers. People do
it though on remote rural roads and they mostly get away with it. CCTV
cameras cover such spots and the authorities try to prosecute for it.
There are examples in the US where railway tracks are unguarded - this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c93p35wd00eo
Quite an even match as it turns out (train looked to me like it won).
It doesn't seem to have derailed, so I agree.
Jeff Layman
2024-10-07 12:11:38 UTC
Permalink
I'm not at all convinced by that example of an "accident". A car on a
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Martin Brown
railway crossing typically has to have ignored a lot of red flashing
lights and/or deliberately gone around lane blocking barriers. People do
it though on remote rural roads and they mostly get away with it. CCTV
cameras cover such spots and the authorities try to prosecute for it.
There are examples in the US where railway tracks are unguarded - this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c93p35wd00eo
Quite an even match as it turns out (train looked to me like it won).
It doesn't seem to have derailed, so I agree.
It's the tractor unit of the artic which takes the force of the train.
The M109 howitzer (not tank) is actually hardly involved, as the
low-loader trailer it's on just spins round. The gun barrel might have
been hit, but that's all.
--
Jeff
Adam Funk
2024-10-07 13:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Brown
I'm not at all convinced by that example of an "accident". A car on a
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Martin Brown
railway crossing typically has to have ignored a lot of red flashing
lights and/or deliberately gone around lane blocking barriers. People do
it though on remote rural roads and they mostly get away with it. CCTV
cameras cover such spots and the authorities try to prosecute for it.
There are examples in the US where railway tracks are unguarded - this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c93p35wd00eo
Quite an even match as it turns out (train looked to me like it won).
It doesn't seem to have derailed, so I agree.
It's the tractor unit of the artic which takes the force of the train.
The M109 howitzer (not tank) is actually hardly involved, as the
low-loader trailer it's on just spins round. The gun barrel might have
been hit, but that's all.
Yes, I forgot to put it in full-screen the first time I watched it ---
much clearer now.

billy bookcase
2024-10-05 09:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Why was this was ruled an accident rather than misadventure? If someone falls into the
water and drowns, that is an accident. If they choose to go swimming, is that not
misadventure as the death is caused by a risk taken voluntarily?
But isn't walking near to water sufficiently deep that a person might drown
should they fall in, not also a risk taken voluntarily ?

It would appear that as far as Inquests are concerned at least, the fact
that a person was a mountaineer and fell 2000 feet to their death
from an icy ledge is no more nor less an accident than if they were
playing bowls and somehow managed to trip up. and somehow fatally
bang their head.

Nor would the possibility as to whether or not the mountaineer was
in fact a member of a mountain rescue team, make any difference

And most people die in bed anyway. And so you can't really win in the
long run.



bb
Jeff Layman
2024-10-06 10:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by billy bookcase
Why was this was ruled an accident rather than misadventure? If someone falls into the
water and drowns, that is an accident. If they choose to go swimming, is that not
misadventure as the death is caused by a risk taken voluntarily?
But isn't walking near to water sufficiently deep that a person might drown
should they fall in, not also a risk taken voluntarily ?
Are you perhaps referring to the coroner's ruling in the Nicola Bulley case?
Post by billy bookcase
It would appear that as far as Inquests are concerned at least, the fact
that a person was a mountaineer and fell 2000 feet to their death
from an icy ledge is no more nor less an accident than if they were
playing bowls and somehow managed to trip up. and somehow fatally
bang their head.
Nor would the possibility as to whether or not the mountaineer was
in fact a member of a mountain rescue team, make any difference
And most people die in bed anyway. And so you can't really win in the
long run.
Different solicitors seem to have different views on whether or not
"accident" and "misadventure" are the same thing. If they are the same
thing, why did whoever wrote the legislation include both terms? It
seems to me that an accident is just that, with no contributory factors.
If someone drops something near the edge of some water, bends down to
pick it up and falls in and drowns, then how can that be anything other
than an accident? If however, they continually walk along the edge and
fall in, then their actions would be contributory, and in my opinion the
ruling should be misadventure. Probably a better example would be those
who don't follow safe cliff paths, and walk too close to the edge. If
the cliff collapsed and they fell to their death while they were on the
"safe" path, that would be an accident. If they fell while too close to
the edge - whether or not the cliff fall included the "safe" path - that
would be misadventure.
--
Jeff
billy bookcase
2024-10-06 15:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by billy bookcase
Why was this was ruled an accident rather than misadventure? If someone falls into the
water and drowns, that is an accident. If they choose to go swimming, is that not
misadventure as the death is caused by a risk taken voluntarily?
But isn't walking near to water sufficiently deep that a person might drown
should they fall in, not also a risk taken voluntarily ?
Are you perhaps referring to the coroner's ruling in the Nicola Bulley case?
Er no. That example simply followed on from your own example.
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by billy bookcase
It would appear that as far as Inquests are concerned at least, the fact
that a person was a mountaineer and fell 2000 feet to their death
from an icy ledge is no more nor less an accident than if they were
playing bowls and somehow managed to trip up. and somehow fatally
bang their head.
Nor would the possibility as to whether or not the mountaineer was
in fact a member of a mountain rescue team, make any difference
And most people die in bed anyway. And so you can't really win in the
long run.
Different solicitors seem to have different views on whether or not "accident" and
the legislation include both terms? It seems to me that an accident is just that, with
no contributory factors. If someone drops something near the edge of some water, bends
down to pick it up and falls in and drowns, then how can that be anything other than an
accident? If however, they continually walk along the edge and fall in, then their
actions would be contributory, and in my opinion the ruling should be misadventure.
Probably a better example would be those who don't follow safe cliff paths, and walk
too close to the edge. If the cliff collapsed and they fell to their death while they
were on the "safe" path, that would be an accident. If they fell while too close to the
edge - whether or not the cliff fall included the "safe" path - that would be
misadventure.
The point is that Coroners record facts. Not opinions.

Thus it is a fact that

(a) Just under one half of the population are of below average
intelligence.

And so while it might be tempting to add an additional cause of
death to the list -

10. Stupidity

given than Coroners when recording verdicts have to accept people
for what they are, or rather what they were in this instance, a verdict
of stupidity would seem to fly in the face of (a).

A major cause of death in the UK is heart disease, And if we are to believe
medical experts, lifestyle and diet can in some cases have a major impact
on heart disease.

But nevertheless, whether a person weighed 30 stone, lived on Big Macs smoked 60
cigarettes a day, and never got up from the sofa or weighed 12 stone and was a
non smoking vegetarians and died while running a marathon, if they both died of
heart attacks, then both would simply be recorded as 5. Natural Causes

(Although if the 30 stone person was also putting away 30 pints a day
to wash down the Big Macs, then that might be recorded as 2. Alcohol
and drug related )


bb
Jethro_uk
2024-10-05 09:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Layman
Earlier this year two young people drowned while swimming near
Bournemouth Pier. The inquest was heard this week, and the coroner ruled
that the deaths were accidents.
<https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24631343.bournemouth-drownings-
coroner-rules-beach-tragedy-accident/>.
Post by Jeff Layman
Why was this was ruled an accident rather than misadventure? If someone
falls into the water and drowns, that is an accident. If they choose to
go swimming, is that not misadventure as the death is caused by a risk
taken voluntarily?
Is it a difference that has any practical effect ? Like insurance
payments or something ?
Jeff Layman
2024-10-06 10:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Jeff Layman
Earlier this year two young people drowned while swimming near
Bournemouth Pier. The inquest was heard this week, and the coroner ruled
that the deaths were accidents.
<https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24631343.bournemouth-drownings-
coroner-rules-beach-tragedy-accident/>.
Post by Jeff Layman
Why was this was ruled an accident rather than misadventure? If someone
falls into the water and drowns, that is an accident. If they choose to
go swimming, is that not misadventure as the death is caused by a risk
taken voluntarily?
Is it a difference that has any practical effect ? Like insurance
payments or something ?
Perhaps. is there any record of insurance companies reducing how much
they pay to beneficiaries if a ruling of "death by misadventure" has
been given rather than "accidental death"?
--
Jeff
Loading...