Rory O'Conor wrote:
A most unwelcome development.

This is a lose-lose-win situation:
The plantiff loses, the defendant loses and the
lawyers win at every turn.

I hope that senior members of the movement may find
some way to engage this individual in dialogue and
avert a costly legal battle which will be in no-one's
interest.

All the information suggests that the BGA, club and
instructor have a robust defence,

I disagree. If the plaintiff wasn't warned about the risks of loose
items in the cockpit, a very well known, familiar, and preventable risk,
he deserves to "win". Now in my opinion "winning" involves not having
to pay for medical expenses, and being reimbursed reasonably for lost
wages. None of this "Woe is me" punitive crap, he did accept some risk
by signing on for instruction. It's not like a drunk ran him over while
he was walking to church. If, as I said, the operation didn't warn him
of those dangers, they screwed up. They should have insurance for such
things, and their insurance should have settled long ago.
If the plaintiff was warned about loose objects in the cockpit (and
there is some proof of that-a signed waiver for example) maybe the
instructor should sue him!

One hope would be that if the plaintiff desires to fly *anything* ever,
gliders, power etc. he should settle or he'll never find a willing
instructor.

Shawn