If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Canberra Times)   Protip. If you prepare a training scene of simulated gore and dismembered bodies, be sure to let the bus driver transporting your troops in on the deal   (canberratimes.com.au) divider line 35
    More: Fail, Australian Defence Force, Apparent death, cadets, pathological gambling, out-of-pocket expenses, injury  
•       •       •

6431 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Dec 2013 at 11:48 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



35 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-08 09:43:24 PM
How could you? It wouldn't have been a good training exercise if the bus driver was just chilling in his driver seat...or worse, acting panicked.
 
2013-12-08 11:54:07 PM
What fun would that be, subby ?
 
2013-12-08 11:58:57 PM
High-fives to the make up crew.
 
2013-12-08 11:59:06 PM
Next time, don't get a driver for the Air Farce to transport Army
 
2013-12-09 12:00:03 AM
The operation involved confronting the cadets with a gruesome, realistic crash scene, complete with fake blood, meat cut-offs, rescue dolls, and casualty simulation kits.

I don't understand what Lady Gaga has to do with this.
 
2013-12-09 12:05:28 AM

Smeggy Smurf: Next time, don't get a driver for the Air Farce to transport Army


It's not called the Air Farce. Be real. It's called the Chair Force.
 
2013-12-09 12:07:49 AM
400k? That's a lot of bagged lunches you could eat.
 
2013-12-09 01:15:22 AM

Smeggy Smurf: Next time, don't get a driver for the Air Farce to transport Army


FTA: The scene became horrifying for the Macedonian-born driver, who had served in the Regular Yugoslav Army in the 1970s.

Kudos: The driver panicked, and began trying to help the casualties, until one of the officers pulled him back and told him it was only a training exercise.

Props:  The makeup artists.

Grow a pair:  The driver and court.  You don't deserve ~5-10 years salary for seeing a graphic scene.
 
2013-12-09 01:30:15 AM

Firethorn: Smeggy Smurf: Next time, don't get a driver for the Air Farce to transport Army

FTA: The scene became horrifying for the Macedonian-born driver, who had served in the Regular Yugoslav Army in the 1970s.

Kudos: The driver panicked, and began trying to help the casualties, until one of the officers pulled him back and told him it was only a training exercise.

Props:  The makeup artists.

Grow a pair:  The driver and court.  You don't deserve ~5-10 years salary for seeing a graphic scene.


How do you know that the incident didn't trigger PTSD in the driver?
You say graphic scene like it was watching movie, leaving out the panic, heart-wrench that this driver probably felt.
How do you know he didn't have nightmares for the next month?

Once driving on a rural road I came up to car that had obviously been in a horrific accident. I stopped and got out of my car. There was not a speck of dust on the other car (it was a dusty area/dry season), so I could tell walking up to it that this was recent.
As I paralled the open windows and looked in....


....there was no one there.

There was blood on the steering wheel, but the casualty(ies) had been taken away.

It unnerved me, and took a while for the adrenalin to wear off.

I CANNOT imagine how I would have felt if there was blood and meat bits strewn around.

This goes double if I had been exposed to previous horrors.
 
2013-12-09 01:47:49 AM

Resident Muslim: How do you know that the incident didn't trigger PTSD in the driver?
You say graphic scene like it was watching movie, leaving out the panic, heart-wrench that this driver probably felt.
How do you know he didn't have nightmares for the next month?


Yeah, I think that's what must have happened.

It also sounds like he sort-of knew what he was heading into but it was realistic enough that he didn't connect what he had been told with what he was seeing.  After all, it was supposed to shock the troops.  He probably had nothing remotely so realistic in his training.
 
2013-12-09 01:56:26 AM
Alternate scenario:

Driver suffers full-on flashback to being a member of the Regular Yugoslav army back when Tito was still running the show and he helped crush the Croatian Spring; driver grabs a rifle from one of the trainees and begins shooting up the joint thinking he's under fire from a Soviet brigade trying to invade Yugoslavia; surviving trainees sue Australian government for PTSD and related traumas.

Give the poor man his f*cking money and try to remember not to let drivers come upon graphically realistic training scenarios next time in the middle of the night.
 
2013-12-09 01:57:24 AM

Resident Muslim: How do you know that the incident didn't trigger PTSD in the driver?


Why should he get more compensation than the freaking cadets?  I don't get that if I get freaking PTSD and I'm actually deployed!

How do you know he didn't have nightmares for the next month?

Nightmares for the next month don't rate 5-10 years worth of salary.  Note that I didn't specify that he didn't deserve anything, just that he didn't deserve $400k(assuming it's approximately equal to USD).  Maybe $40k if he had a horrible reaction from it.
 
2013-12-09 03:12:42 AM

Firethorn: Resident Muslim: How do you know that the incident didn't trigger PTSD in the driver?

Why should he get more compensation than the freaking cadets?  I don't get that if I get freaking PTSD and I'm actually deployed!

How do you know he didn't have nightmares for the next month?

Nightmares for the next month don't rate 5-10 years worth of salary.  Note that I didn't specify that he didn't deserve anything, just that he didn't deserve $400k(assuming it's approximately equal to USD).  Maybe $40k if he had a horrible reaction from it.


Define horrible reaction?

For the record, I'm not one for ridiculous lawsuits.
I just can imagine a situation where the guy suffers PTSD so much it can affect his family life. Or fall into a depression that makes him non-functioning.

But I digress, maybe I'm just projecting my feelings onto this.

All I'm saying is that from my side I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say his claims should be looked into.
 
2013-12-09 03:30:08 AM
nanny state
 
2013-12-09 04:10:28 AM

Firethorn: Resident Muslim: How do you know that the incident didn't trigger PTSD in the driver?

Why should he get more compensation than the freaking cadets?  I don't get that if I get freaking PTSD and I'm actually deployed!

How do you know he didn't have nightmares for the next month?

Nightmares for the next month don't rate 5-10 years worth of salary.  Note that I didn't specify that he didn't deserve anything, just that he didn't deserve $400k(assuming it's approximately equal to USD).  Maybe $40k if he had a horrible reaction from it.


Oh, not to worry.

What they never tell you about these things is that the guy sues for $400K, a sympathetic jury awards him $300K, and it's reduced to a much more reasonable $50K and attorney's fees on appeal. Which is why I don't usually get too worked up over these megazillion dollar lawsuits anymore. The appellate court will nearly always be less emotional about it than the jury.
 
2013-12-09 04:39:55 AM

Resident Muslim: I just can imagine a situation where the guy suffers PTSD so much it can affect his family life. Or fall into a depression that makes him non-functioning.


Here's the thing:  Would he have been entitled to this if he had stumbled upon a *real* accident?  What if he encountered something worse, perhaps a full schoolbus full of kids hit by a train?  Would the school or the train company have to pay for his mental anguish?

PTSD can be funny.  Historically one of most effective methods for dealing with it is to keep your routine up.  IE if you let a traumatic effect keep you from driving after, the longer you go without driving the harder it will be.

The guy received a scare, yes.  But it really shouldn't have been worse than what the various shock shows out there do.  Or being in a real accident.
 
2013-12-09 05:56:34 AM
I guess the makeup crew did ok here, but until you make someone piss and shiat themselves (like I have), I still say ameteurs.

/it was Haloween... what?
 
2013-12-09 06:04:35 AM

Firethorn: Resident Muslim: I just can imagine a situation where the guy suffers PTSD so much it can affect his family life. Or fall into a depression that makes him non-functioning.

Here's the thing:  Would he have been entitled to this if he had stumbled upon a *real* accident?  What if he encountered something worse, perhaps a full schoolbus full of kids hit by a train?  Would the school or the train company have to pay for his mental anguish?

PTSD can be funny.  Historically one of most effective methods for dealing with it is to keep your routine up.  IE if you let a traumatic effect keep you from driving after, the longer you go without driving the harder it will be.

The guy received a scare, yes.  But it really shouldn't have been worse than what the various shock shows out there do.  Or being in a real accident.


I agree with you.
Keep in mind though that you are confusing end result and liability.

The guy might have come across the schoolbus hit by the train. Let us assume the accident was due to negligence of Amtrack because of a malfunctioning barrier. The guy can sue the company for mental anguish.

Another example to showcase liability would be somebody driving and skidding on ice and killing a pedestrian. Compare that to a guy who was drag racing and killed a pedestrian.

The difference (looking at the story's driver here) would be between "sucks to be you, man" compared to "they should not have done that to him".

Just talking about causal (and therefore legal) responsibility.

If you are really looking for lawsuits that don't make sense look up lawsuits of criminals who break into a home, then sue the home owner because they got injured during the break in.
 
2013-12-09 06:06:55 AM

Resident Muslim: If you are really looking for lawsuits that don't make sense look up lawsuits of criminals who break into a home, then sue the home owner because they got injured during the break in.


must be talking about Florida. The police down here tell you to make sure they are inside when you shoot them, and make sure they are dead, then call 911... or you will get sued, and they will win.
 
2013-12-09 06:22:18 AM

their tongue lolling out of their mouth


a.abcnews.com

 
2013-12-09 07:17:29 AM

Smeggy Smurf: Next time, don't get a driver for the Air Farce to transport Army


He was a civilian contractor.
 
2013-12-09 08:40:05 AM

Resident Muslim: How do you know that the incident didn't trigger PTSD in the driver?
You say graphic scene like it was watching movie, leaving out the panic, heart-wrench that this driver probably felt.
How do you know he didn't have nightmares for the next month?


Boohoo. The guy had former military experience, which means he had training. If he saw active combat, even moreso. Tons of veterans have PTSD but you don't see them suing because they locked down into a fetal position. I've been a Paramedic for 20 years, seen all manner of people shot/stabbed/run over/dismembered/eviscerated and I'm still on the street. I got over it.
 
2013-12-09 09:17:02 AM

trucktrash: Resident Muslim: How do you know that the incident didn't trigger PTSD in the driver?
You say graphic scene like it was watching movie, leaving out the panic, heart-wrench that this driver probably felt.
How do you know he didn't have nightmares for the next month?

Boohoo. The guy had former military experience, which means he had training. If he saw active combat, even moreso. Tons of veterans have PTSD but you don't see them suing because they locked down into a fetal position. I've been a Paramedic for 20 years, seen all manner of people shot/stabbed/run over/dismembered/eviscerated and I'm still on the street. I got over it.


Well, obviously not everyone is as tough as you.
 
2013-12-09 09:19:39 AM

trucktrash: Resident Muslim: How do you know that the incident didn't trigger PTSD in the driver?
You say graphic scene like it was watching movie, leaving out the panic, heart-wrench that this driver probably felt.
How do you know he didn't have nightmares for the next month?

Boohoo. The guy had former military experience, which means he had training. If he saw active combat, even moreso. Tons of veterans have PTSD but you don't see them suing because they locked down into a fetal position. I've been a Paramedic for 20 years, seen all manner of people shot/stabbed/run over/dismembered/eviscerated and I'm still on the street. I got over it.


No offense to you dude, but you also became used to it, and built up a psychological coping mechanism to reconcile and deal with what you saw with the larger philosophical and religious issues in your world view.

As a Paramedic, you should also have a little empathy to understand that the average person seeing that wouldn't do very well, just as they wouldn't do very well if it was their loved one blown in half in front of them.
 
2013-12-09 09:29:21 AM
You can put me in the "doesn't believe he deserves a huge payout" camp. Millions of people have seen things that were traumatizing without getting a big payout from the government. I realize he was on the job at the time, so I wouldn't have a problem with providing him with some counseling, but $400k is a bit much.
 
2013-12-09 10:12:03 AM

Firethorn: Smeggy Smurf: Next time, don't get a driver for the Air Farce to transport Army

FTA: The scene became horrifying for the Macedonian-born driver, who had served in the Regular Yugoslav Army in the 1970s.

Kudos: The driver panicked, and began trying to help the casualties, until one of the officers pulled him back and told him it was only a training exercise.

Props:  The makeup artists.

Grow a pair:  The driver and court.  You don't deserve ~5-10 years salary for seeing a graphic scene.


Is that your quality Fark Psychiatric Assessment based on a couple sentences from an article, Dr. Phil?

The court exists pretty much to determine the validity of his claim, and how much he deserves... if this farked with his head and triggered some PTSD and now he's scared shiatless to drive a bus, all because the government's action... then ya, compensate him rightly... the court is there to determine whether or not that's what happened.

Everyone's brain works differently, there's no uniformity to it at all... some people recover quickly from traumatic events... others well, others sit in dark rooms talking to themselves for a few years. Purposely exposing this guy to that, when he wasn't part of the training exercise (and not mitigating it by telling him beforehand)... that's pretty messed up
 
2013-12-09 10:17:18 AM

Firethorn: Resident Muslim: How do you know that the incident didn't trigger PTSD in the driver?

Why should he get more compensation than the freaking cadets?  I don't get that if I get freaking PTSD and I'm actually deployed!

How do you know he didn't have nightmares for the next month?

Nightmares for the next month don't rate 5-10 years worth of salary.  Note that I didn't specify that he didn't deserve anything, just that he didn't deserve $400k(assuming it's approximately equal to USD).  Maybe $40k if he had a horrible reaction from it.


In all fairness, 40k doesn't even cover a years worth of psych visits if the guy sees him/her two hours a week... in the US anyways (idk how aussie medical prices are). Aside from that economic losses (if the guy is scared to drive again or whatever), there should be some punitive actions... this wasn't just happenstance... the government contractor purposely put this old guy (who was a civi bus driver) into this situation with no appropriate warning... their actions were quite reckless, and given it was a private contractor managing it, the only way to discourage them from doing it again in the future is monetary. That's pretty much the whole core of civil suits... he got his economic damages (medical/job loss), and they got assessed some more punitive damages because of just how dumb it was of them to do that to him in the first place.
 
2013-12-09 10:47:37 AM

firefly212: In all fairness, 40k doesn't even cover a years worth of psych visits if the guy sees him/her two hours a week... in the US anyways (idk how aussie medical prices are). Aside from that economic losses (if the guy is scared to drive again or whatever), there should be some punitive actions... this wasn't just happenstance... the government contractor purposely put this old guy (who was a civi bus driver) into this situation with no appropriate warning... their actions were quite reckless, and given it was a private contractor managing it, the only way to discourage them from doing it again in the future is monetary. That's pretty much the whole core of civil suits... he got his economic damages (medical/job loss), and they got assessed some more punitive damages because of just how dumb it was of them to do that to him in the first place.


1.  Universal Healthcare, like most of the rest of the developed world
2.  There was testimony(collaberated) that they told the dude what they were doing, he even helped transfer supplies to be used in the simulation earlier that day
3.  What about the freaking cadets?  Are they entitled to compensation?  They haven't even really spent time in the Army yet.  Don't know about the comparison between service in the Yugoslavian Army vs Australian, but the US system doesn't do much before tossing you into this.
4.  I didn't really see a punitive line in the compensation.
 
2013-12-09 11:19:04 AM

Firethorn: firefly212: In all fairness, 40k doesn't even cover a years worth of psych visits if the guy sees him/her two hours a week... in the US anyways (idk how aussie medical prices are). Aside from that economic losses (if the guy is scared to drive again or whatever), there should be some punitive actions... this wasn't just happenstance... the government contractor purposely put this old guy (who was a civi bus driver) into this situation with no appropriate warning... their actions were quite reckless, and given it was a private contractor managing it, the only way to discourage them from doing it again in the future is monetary. That's pretty much the whole core of civil suits... he got his economic damages (medical/job loss), and they got assessed some more punitive damages because of just how dumb it was of them to do that to him in the first place.

1.  Universal Healthcare, like most of the rest of the developed world
2.  There was testimony(collaberated) that they told the dude what they were doing, he even helped transfer supplies to be used in the simulation earlier that day
3.  What about the freaking cadets?  Are they entitled to compensation?  They haven't even really spent time in the Army yet.  Don't know about the comparison between service in the Yugoslavian Army vs Australian, but the US system doesn't do much before tossing you into this.
4.  I didn't really see a punitive line in the compensation.


1. Universal isn't free, I still don't know how much a psychiatrist costs for him.
2. The court apparently didn't believe that testimony, not sure where your facts are coming from anyways though, as you didn't cite them and they don't appear in the article.
3. The cadets have already signed their life over, they were the targeted part of the training... the guy was just a civilian contractor bus driver, not a member of the military engaging in a training mission.
4. I'm aware you don't understand why a company should be punished so it does not repeat the incident.
 
2013-12-09 11:23:29 AM

firefly212: 1. Universal isn't free, I still don't know how much a psychiatrist costs for him.
2. The court apparently didn't believe that testimony, not sure where your facts are coming from anyways though, as you didn't cite them and they don't appear in the article.
3. The cadets have already signed their life over, they were the targeted part of the training... the guy was just a civilian contractor bus driver, not a member of the military engaging in a training mission.
4. I'm aware you don't understand why a company should be punished so it does not re ...


1.  Then the USA has universal healthcare?
2.  FTA:
But the ADF defended its actions, saying it had fully briefed him and other drivers on what they were about to see.
A sergeant gave evidence that the driver had even asked whether they were having a barbeque, after they purchased two full boxes of offal and six litre bottles of tomato sauce.
The sergeant claimed he told Mr Petrovski that the meat and sauce was going to be used to simulate the crash scene.
The officer said the plaintiff had helped unload the casualty simulation kits, tomato sauce and boxes of offal, and said all of the drivers were told to be careful of the soldiers lying on the ground.

3.  Doesn't mean they can't end up with PTSD.  Apparently he's special, despite having served himself?
4.  I honestly don't see why the 'incident' was such a big deal.
 
2013-12-09 11:27:48 AM
Oh yeah, and FTA:
He was awarded damages of $35,000 for non-economic loss, $193,912 for past economic loss, $170,187 for future economic loss, and $57,123 for out-of-pocket expenses.

Basically $38k per year since the incident with the $194k for 'past economic loss', the $57k for out of pocket expenses might be court/lawyer costs.  Though I'll fully admit to not knowing how the Aussies split things up.  Not seeing a line item for medical care though(which psychiatric treatment would come under).

I'm also not seeing accounts in the article stating stuff like what, if any, effects the shock had on him that he couldn't work as a bus driver anymore, why he couldn't get a different job, etc...
 
2013-12-09 11:57:33 AM

Firethorn: Oh yeah, and FTA:
He was awarded damages of $35,000 for non-economic loss, $193,912 for past economic loss, $170,187 for future economic loss, and $57,123 for out-of-pocket expenses.

Basically $38k per year since the incident with the $194k for 'past economic loss', the $57k for out of pocket expenses might be court/lawyer costs.  Though I'll fully admit to not knowing how the Aussies split things up.  Not seeing a line item for medical care though(which psychiatric treatment would come under).

I'm also not seeing accounts in the article stating stuff like what, if any, effects the shock had on him that he couldn't work as a bus driver anymore, why he couldn't get a different job, etc...



So this guy had out of pocket losses of 57k, and you said you thought 40k was fair... even aside from his other losses... that still seems like you're low-balling pretty hard.

To clear up the universal issue... universally insured does not mean free... insurance does not make stuff free, there are still deductibles, copays, and other fees that may apply. Insurance is consumption smoothing, not free stuff.
 
2013-12-09 01:11:59 PM
Wow, that illustration really added to the story.
images.canberratimes.com.au
 
2013-12-09 01:27:25 PM

firefly212: So this guy had out of pocket losses of 57k, and you said you thought 40k was fair... even aside from his other losses... that still seems like you're low-balling pretty hard.


Out of pocket expenses probably include the ~5 years of lawyering involved in this case.  I usually forget about that part even though it normally exceeds all other expenses - a problem in and of itself.
 
2013-12-09 02:35:48 PM

abhorrent1: their tongue lolling out of their mouth
[a.abcnews.com image 421x237]


ts4.mm.bing.net
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report