Assuming the birds didn't attack the plane in some organised form of hate crime, I wonder if these things are reasonably foreseeable. You know, regular flightpath for migrating birds that can be avoided/managed at key times.

Are you sure your lecturer meant that there is always someone to blame? I am confident that every major accident has involved a number of human actions in both their cause and the extent of their consequences. Some of these were human errors made by people working at the sharp end or involved in the initial response. Many were decisions made by management, designers, regulators. Take the bird strike example. I would suggest that the human element is that we have accepted the risk. We know that bird strikes will happen. It may be possible to build aircraft that will not crash if it occurs, but this may make them far more expensive to build or operate. Hence, a decision is made that the risk is tolerable. Of course the other human element is that we choose to fly even though the risk of bird strike exists.

The conversation arose because an employee acting a part in a drama workshop fell down (no one near her at the time and she doesn't know why she fell - e.g. I asked her if her knees gave way or she had some other ailment, she said no again. She has been checked out by her own GP who found nothing wrong with her). Since the incident (she did not suffer any injury) she has put in a claim against the employer to pay and replace her glasses which flew off her face and broke - the cost is £400. My financial manager doesn't want to pay and will not put it through the company insurers stating Force Majeur. Rich

I would say no too. "Everyone else is to blame and not myself" attitude is cropping up more and more -arrgghh.

Or the synical approach: a) she broke them outside of work and faked it b) was doing something she souldnt have been doing when she fell Thats the other Human Eliment, lying to cover what really happen.

Why not put it to the insurers and let them decide?

Suggest she directs her attention to the optician who may have failed to supply frames that are fit for purpose. I can however confidently predict the answer she will receive.

To get back to the original reason for the thread, i.e. whether or not it can be said “"behind every accident there is a human element” we should, of course, start by defining terms. Safety Smurf said “we automatically asign (sic) the label of 'accident' to anything with an undesirable outcome that wasn't deliberate” and that is close to the definition I prefer which is “An unplanned, unwanted and unexpected occurrence that has the potential to cause loss, damage or injury”. His aside in asking “Was the Big Bang an accident” invites an emphatic NO because the universe is obviously designed – but I digress. Turning to the question of there being a human element in every accident, if a human is involved then there is quite obviously a human element. I would however suggest that what is meant is whether there was a human element in the cause of the accident. I dimly remember from early studies that the predominant opinion at that time was that the underlying cause of every (workplace) accident was a management failure. The theory goes that if the event is foreseeable then it can be avoided by planning or its severity can be reduced by control measures. Using this yardstick we can easily see that if there has been a genuine accident, i.e. there has been harm as a result of a hazardous condition or practice, as opposed to a so-called Act of God or force majeure then there is always a human element. As to the question of blame or fault that is really a moral question I would agree with A Kurdziel who says “I think that you are confusing two things - fault which is a moral issue and liability which is a legal issue…” If somebody suffers injury or loss as a result of your deliberate or careless or inconsiderate act or omission then you are quire definitely at fault. Even if somebody unconsciously and without deliberation does something, or fails to do something, that causes injury then he or she is to blame I would however profoundly disagree with the assertion that “The law has little to do with morality.” I think A Kurdziel probably means that the civil law, in assessing damages, does not consider the question of moral blame but restricts itself to the question of liability which, I would suggest, includes the concepts of intent and degree but turns upon whether there was a conscious (or negligent) act or omission on the part of a person (natural or corporate) who owed a duty of care. On the wider question of the role of morality in Law however is it not obvious that unless we have a moral code that proscribes certain actions then having laws is meaningless?