A woman fell to her death from a zip wire while on a gap year in Namibia, after an instructed failed to undertake safety checks.
Sally Whitcomb, 32, plunged 23 feet and was pronounced dead at the scene. She was on a training day organised by expedition charity Raleigh International. At the inquest in to the death, the instructor was described as having a complacent attitude towards safety.
According to the Times, minutes before the accident another woman had been using the zip wire and fallen, slipping off the wire. But she was caught by a safety rope. Mr Jeremy Clements, who had little experience with the equipment, was assisting with the activity and after the first fall he liaised with David Giles, Raleigh’s head of operations in Namibia, before deciding to carry on with activity. However, he undertook no additional checks to test the safety of the equipment and that it was still fit for purpose.
Normally, as solicitors if we were investigating a claim in these circumstances one of the first things we would look to inspect if the other side denied liability would be the faulty product. However, Raleigh chief executive Stacey Adams, stated that the company Raleigh had hired the equipment had since had it destroyed.
Ms Adams also insisted that safety inspections were carried out before the accident, even though there were no paper records indicating that any inspection was completed, stating “Risk Assessment is a mental process – it is not like putting things down on a piece of paper”.
However, one of the other volunteers present on the training with Ms Whitcomb stated that they were not told how to use the zip line by Mr Andre Ross, the certified instructor, but by Mr Clements. She also said of Mr Ross that he appeared “a bit complacent” and that he, “was not overly safety conscious”
Raleigh continues to claim that they carried out three risk assessments to ascertain the site’s safety and instructor qualifications.
It is difficult to attest what checks were carried out in inspecting the equipment and also what safety precautions were undertaken and whether they were appropriate to the circumstances due to the lack of documentation which Raleigh seem able to make available. Without evidence of the checks having been undertaken, faulty product and due to the testament of independent witnesses to the accident such as the one above, it is likely that the company Raleigh would find it difficult to defend itself were the family of the deceased to launch a personal injury claim and they would most likely be construed as liable for Ms Whitcomb’s death.
