The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part II

[phiwum]

You wrote:

"There's a bit of poison ivy in my backyard. It contains, I'm sure, enough Urishiol to produce rashes in me and my neighbors for blocks around. I am nonetheless not putting my neighbors at risk just by "owning" that much Urishiol."

Did you not? So you did indeed liken Novochik* a highly toxic and dangerous nerve agent with 'a bit of poison ivy in my backyard', so who is 'dishonest and has poor reading comprehension'?


* wiki

I believe it's just plainly clear who has the problem with reading comprehension here, but as I said, this digression is off-topic and not really worth pursuing. Thanks for reposting what I said, so that it is easy to see what I meant (for most folk, anyway).

 

[Vixen]

Who is “you” in the question, "what if Person A was your own government"?

Er, the relatives of the loved ones / victims injured by such a sabotage...?

If Sweden was using a pubic passenger vehicle for dangerous armament shipment smuggling and the vehicle was sabotaged for this reason would it or would it not have some vicarious liability for the incident happening at all?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Er, the relatives of the loved ones / victims injured by such a sabotage...?

If Sweden was using a pubic passenger vehicle for dangerous armament shipment smuggling and the vehicle was sabotaged for this reason would it or would it not have some vicarious liability for the incident happening at all?

What does "dangerous" actually mean to you in this context? Is it just a tautological reminder that weapons are intended to do damage? Is it a reference to a specific hazard posed to people nearby by parts of the cargo, in which case what hazard is it? Is it a claim that anyone within range of the cargo is at risk of being killed as collateral damage in a Russian overreaction?

Among the things I am not is a lawyer. But I imagine if you intended to show the Swedish government had liability then among the things you'd have to demonstrate would be that the deliberate sinking of the ship a) happened and b) was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of whatever you could show the Swedes did.

 

[Mojo]

Er, the relatives of the loved ones / victims injured by such a sabotage...?

Why would they want to grab the driver?

If Sweden was using a pubic passenger vehicle for dangerous armament shipment smuggling and the vehicle was sabotaged for this reason would it or would it not have some vicarious liability for the incident happening at all?

A party only has vicarious liability for actions carried out by its own agents, at least under English law. This required the intervention of a third party, so I think the causation would be too remote for liability.

Even if it could be established that the smuggling had taken place.

NB: I am not a lawyer.

 

[Vixen]

"You" appears to be a Swedish person who might sue their government for damages over the loss of a relative on the Estonia, based on the Swedish government having received smuggled stolen ex-Soviet military equipment but failing to realise that the Russians would eventually decide to destroy one consignment killing 1000 bystanders and make it look like an accident to send the unmistakable message "accidents happen".

That no Swede has so far sued is proof that something something.

The survivors and relatives have tried suing several times to no avail as the official (legal) reason that 'It was just an accident' (force majeure).

They tried to sue the shipbuilders, since the verdict was 'poor design of the bow visor' and also Bureau Veritas for signing the vessel off as 'seaworthy'.

All to no avail.

Yet the crew got handsome payouts due to being covered by their employers' workplace indemnity.

 

[Vixen]

Why would they want to “grab the driver”?

Ask Captain_Swoop. I presume they deal with reprobates up north by duffing them up.

 

[Vixen]

We don't know who they or the driver are yet.

If the Russians had grabbed the smugglers that would have made a kind of sense. That didn't happen.

Why would they? This is state versus state. The CIA/KSI/MI6 versus the GRU (which is just the old KGB in new wine bottles). Not Johan Bjornsson versus Ivor Kalashnikov, neighbours disputing overhanging branches.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The survivors and relatives have tried suing several times to no avail as the official (legal) reason that 'It was just an accident' (force majeure).

They tried to sue the shipbuilders, since the verdict was 'poor design of the bow visor' and also Bureau Veritas for signing the vessel off as 'seaworthy'.

All to no avail.

Yet the crew got handsome payouts due to being covered by their employers' workplace indemnity.

Bureau Veritas re-certified the load line tonnage and capacity when the ship was reflagged.
That had nothing to do with the sinking of the ship.

Why would they have any liability?

 

[Vixen]

The bottom line is that the Swedish government ought to have known that the Russians would overreact and kill a thousand bystanders, because that's what they always do. Every time an accident kills a thousand or so people, it's the Russians overreacting again and sending another clear message to somebody or other by making it look like an accident.

Obviously everyone knows this so all those Swedes who aren't suing their government have solid grounds. As solid as yoghurty moraine clay bed rock.

Would you expect any civilised government, for example, the UK, to allow military materiel to be carried on public transport?* Imagine the UK in the 1970's - it would have made the public targets of the IRA and not just the 'military'.

*A simple yes or no will do.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The survivors and relatives have tried suing several times to no avail as the official (legal) reason that 'It was just an accident'

Have they tried to sue the Swedish government? More specifically have they tried to sue the Swedish government for putting their relatives in danger by smuggling stolen Russian military stuff on that civilian ferry?

Yet the crew got handsome payouts due to being covered by their employers' workplace indemnity.

Do you think that they should not have?

How much is "handsome" in this context anyway? Not any more than they were entitled to, I imagine.

 

[Vixen]

What does "dangerous" actually mean to you in this context? Is it just a tautological reminder that weapons are intended to do damage? Is it a reference to a specific hazard posed to people nearby by parts of the cargo, in which case what hazard is it? Is it a claim that anyone within range of the cargo is at risk of being killed as collateral damage in a Russian overreaction?

Among the things I am not is a lawyer. But I imagine if you intended to show the Swedish government had liability then among the things you'd have to demonstrate would be that the deliberate sinking of the ship a) happened and b) was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of whatever you could show the Swedes did.

I would argue that carrying super sensitive stolen state secrets from a hostile foreign power on public transport would definitely be a breach of public health and safety standards.

If your local supermarket stacks up a pile of stock that falls on top of you as you walk past, then that shop potentially is vicariously liable for any personal injury you sustain. The key concept is 'forseeability'.

As allegedly -according to Stephen Davis' MI6 contacts - Russia had warned Sweden and the UK twice to stop it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Would you expect any civilised government, for example, the UK, to allow military materiel to be carried on public transport?* Imagine the UK in the 1970's - it would have made the public targets of the IRA and not just the 'military'.

*A simple yes or no will do.

Yes, 'military material' uses 'public transport'

North Sea and cross channel ferries routinely carry military vehicles and personnel.

Do you think they charter a ro-ro ferry every time they want to move a few trucks?

 

[junkshop]

Vixen, in case you missed them, could you answer these questions:

Do you accept that your claim that "To even get to temperatures above 700°C artificially you need to be in a laboratory." was wrong?

Do you accept that your claim that "To even get to temperatures above 700°C artificially you need to be in a laboratory." is a quotation from Braidwood's report for the GEG was untrue?

Thank you.

 

[Vixen]

Why would they want to grab the driver?




A party only has vicarious liability for actions carried out by its own agents, at least under English law. This required the intervention of a third party, so I think the causation would be too remote for liability.

Even if it could be established that the smuggling had taken place.

NB: I am not a lawyer.

The smuggling of stuff that doesn't belong to it was Sweden. Sweden's own agents (cf Carl Bildt on behalf of the USA) were its own agents.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Would you expect any civilised government, for example, the UK, to allow military materiel to be carried on public transport?* Imagine the UK in the 1970's - it would have made the public targets of the IRA and not just the 'military'.

*A simple yes or no will do.

That simple yes or no would depend on precisely what you mean by "military materiel". Are you talking about hazardous materials like explosives or are you talking about inert objects like electronics or metal parts?

Do you actually know what it was you tell us Sweden admitted to smuggling?

 

[Vixen]

Bureau Veritas re-certified the load line tonnage and capacity when the ship was reflagged.
That had nothing to do with the sinking of the ship.

Why would they have any liability?

Presumably for failing to spot the worn out car ramp and poor alignment of the bow visor.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The smuggling of stuff that doesn't belong to it was Sweden. Sweden's own agents (cf Carl Bildt on behalf of the USA) were its own agents.

So Carl Bildt went to Estonia, stole a load of Russian stuff and gave it a military escort to the docks where he loaded it onto the Estonia?

Or was it some other Swede who did all that?

Or was Sweden just the customer?

Do you know or are you guessing?

 

[Vixen]

Have they tried to sue the Swedish government? More specifically have they tried to sue the Swedish government for putting their relatives in danger by smuggling stolen Russian military stuff on that civilian ferry?


Do you think that they should not have?

How much is "handsome" in this context anyway? Not any more than they were entitled to, I imagine.

The government are the law makers. The Swedish government made it law that no-one was to blame. How do you sue your own government when they have made it a law that you cannot sue them?

IIRC the crew survivors/next of kin received €44m to share between them. The Swedish government gave the members of its public affected €18,000, which is laughable as most survivors suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorders for years after, inhibiting their ability to work.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I would argue that carrying super sensitive stolen state secrets from a hostile foreign power on public transport would definitely be a breach of public health and safety standards.

If your local supermarket stacks up a pile of stock that falls on top of you as you walk past, then that shop potentially is vicariously liable for any personal injury you sustain. The key concept is 'forseeability'.

As allegedly -according to Stephen Davis' MI6 contacts - Russia had warned Sweden and the UK twice to stop it.

"Super sensitive stolen state secrets" could be a piece of paper. Which public health and safety standards apply?

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, in case you missed them, could you answer these questions:



Thank you.

I don't accept that using a welding kit in your living room would be able to heat steel up to 700°.