Two examples;
Person ?A?
Is 60+ years old and has been caving and mine exploring since he was 17 years old (43+ years experience). Well known, respected and liked. Chairman of caving club with 60+ members and gives his time to help ?new members?. Fully competent with all the usual aspects of caving including rigging, SRT, good conservation practice. Never had anything more than a minor personal accident underground etc etc. (you get the picture).
Person ?B?
First year caving/mine exploring and takes the mine explorers leader qualification course which he passes. He receives a certificate to say he is ?qualified? (which person ?A? does not have). He is respected and liked but lacks the 43+ years experience of his colleague.
Scenario
A party of 6 people exploring a mine (with 4 inexperienced people and persons ?A? and ?B? above) encounter a ?situation?. Persons ?A? and ?B? are not in agreement on how to proceed ? who do the 4 inexperienced people trust? (in other words, who do they perceive to be the more responsible person?). The actual ?encounter? is irrelevant. It?s the decision making process that the 4 inexperienced people go through that is relevant. (Not every club appoints a ?leader? on every trip either).
In a different instance, as the party of six are walking along the passage, the (false) floor gives way and they all drop 100 feet down a stope with varying degrees of injury ranging from broken bones to death.
Who do the courts recognise as being the more ?responsible? person when it comes to ?blame??
The Persons ?A? and ?B? (above) are not examples, they both exist in real life, right now. The scenarios are purely fictional and have not happened.
However, would the most ?responsible? person be the same in both the scenarios?
(Bet they wouldn?t be).
In short, I don?t think there is a definitive answer to the OP?s original question.
Ian