• Replies 16 replies
  • Subscribers 9 subscribers
  • Views 2919 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Audi apprentice in Reading - comments from coroner - what are your thoughts?

Clare

Hi all, you may have seen this story, this link is for the BBC version: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-40052026

Whilst I would agree there were several contributing factors to this young man's untimely death I do find it surprising that the company was not found to be negligent in any way despite - amongst other factors - evidence from the boy's PC plus the burns witnessed by his parents.  And Audi are curiously silent, I have yet to read any comments which might help to restore their credibility as a responsible employer. 

This tragic case contrasts the case of another youngster who was bullied by his workmates, two of whom were found guilty in a court case, link for the case if you are unfamiliar: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-36522872

I would be interested to hear other views on the very sad Audi case.  It has made a very sad end to my week.

Parents

  • I think its quite a risk to substitute ones own feelings for those of a Coroner who has heard all the details and is acting within the guidelines of the law...in the words of the report

    "Mr Cheese's family asked for neglect from Audi to form part of the coroner's conclusion but Mr Bedford said the legal requirement for this had not been met."

    Clearly this was a very troubled young man who had many things going on in his life - equally the paper could have majored on another ex serviceman taking their own life

  • in reply to Keith
    I do acknowledge the comments about the legal requirement for neglect but perhaps that was an incorrect route to take? I would argue that vicarious liability was more appropriate given the context.
  • in reply to Clare
    But you haven't sat through all the details of a complex case involving a very troubled young man (it would appear) On what basis do you say the coroner misdirected himself?

    On what basis do you think that vicariously liability should have been used? The Coroner with the benefit of both legal advice and the full facts considered the family's request and was unable to satisfy himself that Audi should be cited for neglect
Reply
  • in reply to Clare
    But you haven't sat through all the details of a complex case involving a very troubled young man (it would appear) On what basis do you say the coroner misdirected himself?

    On what basis do you think that vicariously liability should have been used? The Coroner with the benefit of both legal advice and the full facts considered the family's request and was unable to satisfy himself that Audi should be cited for neglect
Children
  • in reply to Keith
    Well, I can't comment on your job history Keith but personally, I have never experienced being shut in a car boot, doused with water, subjected to 'dead legs' (particularly bad since the boy was discharged from the army after he broke both legs), sprayed with flammable liquid which is then ignited, and told to hurry up and go and kill himself, amongst other things. The victimisation was exacerbated when the boy's parents raised their concerns. Does that sound like an employer YOU have worked for?? Does it sound like an organisation where any forum contributor would be proud to work for??
    Yes, I have been bullied, yes I have been sent to Coventry and yes, I have experienced stress to the point where I was signed off. However the treatment experienced by this very troubled young man is not representative of a responsible employer. At least not in my opinion or experience.
    At the risk of repeating myself I agree that neglect did not take place here and I feel the parents were unfortunately misdirected. That doesn't mean to say the employer failed the young man.
    I simply welcomed the chance for forum users to offer feedback on a very sad story. This is after all a discussion forum, is it not?
  • in reply to Clare
    Indeed it is and you started the discussion with "I do find it surprising that the company was not found to be negligent in any way " and you went onto say "I have yet to read any comments which might help to restore their credibility as a responsible employer" and I simply asked based on what evidence.

    I am not sure what part of me responding to your debate you disagree with - unless its simply that I disagree with you based on the actual information we have available?