Rogers v Hoyle: the white elephant in the room
By Sarah Stewart and Scott Phillips
The family of Former Royal Marine Captain Orlando Rogers have contributed to clarifying the law in relation to the admissibility of expert opinion contained in third-party documents in civil proceedings.
On 15 May 2011, Orlando Rogers was a passenger in a vintage Tiger Moth propeller bi-plane of which the defendant, Scott Hoyle, was the pilot. In the course of the flight the aircraft crashed to the ground near Witchampton in Dorset. Rogers was killed. Hoyle was seriously injured but survived. A civil claim has been brought by the claimants, the mother and sister of the deceased as executors on behalf of his estate and as dependants, claiming damages for his death as a result of the accident, which they allege was caused by Hoyle’s negligence.
Civil proceedings were issued in May 2012 alleging that Scott Hoyle was negligent in attempting to perform a loop when (a) he had no or insufficient training in aerobatic flying or spin recovery and (b) at a dangerously low altitude such that there was insufficient airspace to recover from a spin…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Stewarts Law briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.