Sea crash victim takes jet-ski and boat drivers to court

Tuesday 05 October 2021

A legal dispute pitting a Jersey lawyer against the drivers of a speedboat and jet-ski involved in a collision in which he suffered a “traumatic and disfiguring" leg injury opened in the Royal Court yesterday.

Giles Corbin has brought a civil case against Michael Dorynek, the driver of the speedboat which ‘T-boned’ the jet ski he was on, and the jet ski driver, Tyson Flath following a collision on 19 June 2017.

Only the speedboat driver has faced criminal proceedings over the collision, being fined £5,000 for driving his speedboat without due care and attention in 2019 - but Mr Corbin says both drivers showed “negligence or breach of duty” which he says not only caused the crash, but also the damage to his leg that could have resulted in amputation. 

As the trial opened yesterday, Advocate David Benest, who is representing Mr Corbin with Advocate Jeremy Heywood, began his address saying the “tragic accident” could have had a “catastrophic outcome”, which had been avoided thanks to the immediate action of people on the scene.

He said the case aimed to establish who was at fault in the collision and the liability mechanisms that follow. He noted that both Mr Dorynek and Mr Flath claimed the other was at fault, with the latter saying he had no liability at all.  

Pictured: Advocate David Benest is representing Mr Corbin.

The precise paths of each vessel are not known, but Advocate Benest said Mr Dorynek’s destination was towards Corbiere, while Mr Flath was going back towards St. Helier Marina where Mr Corbin had left his car.

He said experts who analysed the collision had come up with a broad range of speeds and angles the vessels could have been travelling at.

Advocate Benest said Mr Corbin’s case relied on the principle that Mr Flath should have complied with all rules of navigation, whether statutory or common sense.

He said Mr Flath had “shut his mind” to the risk of collision happening from behind and that it was a “remarkable feature” of the collision that he had not been aware of Mr Dorynek’s speedboat until right before the crash. 

He suggested that the majority (80%) of the blame lay with Mr Dorynek, who he said was not an experienced seaman at the time of the incident, while the remainder (20%) fell on Mr Flath.

Pictured: Mr Corbin receiving treatment for his injuries following the crash in June 2017.

Advocate Christina Hall, who is defending Mr Dorynek, argued that good seamanship was required from both her client and Mr Flath at all times to maintain a proper lookout.

She said Mr Flath’s failure not to see the speedboat until the last minute couldn’t be defended. 

She said that Mr Dorynek had first seen the jet-ski whilst it was closer to the beach but as he was initiating his turn to the right, he couldn't see it. As he kept looking to both sides, she said it was on his third check that he spotted the jet-ski “only a few seconds before the collision”.

She argued that according to seamanship rules, the jet-ski was overtaking. 

Advocate Simon Franckel, representing Mr Flath, said his client didn’t accept the suggestion that is failure to see the speedboat meant he hadn’t been taking proper care.

He suggested Mr Dorynek was on course and going at speed when he approached Mr Flath’s jet-ski from behind, noting that Mr Corbin and Mr Dorynek’s criticism of failing to keep a lookout behind him meant they recognised it was the only “likely solution”. 

Advocate Franckel also argued Mr Dorynek had seen the jet-ski for a sufficient period of time to allow him to take action to avoid the collision, but that he instead kept his own course believing “wrongly” that, because his speedboat was bigger than the jet-ski, he had right of way. 

Pictured: The civil case is being heard in the Royal Court.

Advocate Franckel said the “substantial damage” done to the jet-ski and the injuries suffered by Mr Corbin were “consistent with a high-speed impact” and with the speedboat having approached the jet-ski from behind before a “hard starboard turn”.

He said that by the time Mr Flath had become aware of the speedboat, it was “too late for him to take avoiding action” and that, while he may have made mistakes, he hadn’t been negligent and therefore couldn’t hold liability.

He suggested Mr Dorynek had been a “danger to users” from the moment he set off, as the speedboat was unsafe with its kill cord disabled, and that his incompetence had led both Mr Corbin and Mr Flath to suffer injuries.

Several experts will be giving evidence as part of the trial, including experts in naval architecturem, who will discuss the with speed and angle of the vessels at the time of collision, as well as experts in seamanship who will cover the regulation and guide the Court on “best practice at sea”.

The case is being heard by Royal Court Commissioner Sir Michael Birt, sitting with Jurats Jane Ronge and Dr Gareth Hughes.