Insurance and qualifications

Places, technique, kayaks, safety, the sea...
seawolf856
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 1:29 pm
Location: Chester NW England
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by seawolf856 » Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:01 pm

john.ruston wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:03 am
Seawolf 856 clearly separates 'on the surface' from a nagging doubt he has.
Alan, I think this entire thread explains why he (and surely many others) are in this bind.
All of us agree about skill, experience and planning and carrying the means to give restitution to any we damage. However the fear of "what if" is a theme running right through this debate. I think that none of us really trust insurance to play a straight bat. So often our discussions end up with a scenario of distressed relatives and their personal injury lawyers creating some unexpected claims - maybe even just trying their luck on off chance of a payout. This is a fear, doesn't even have to be rational to cause us discomfort. So there I offer a tentative explanation of Seawolf's feeling of disinclination. It might also explain why some more experienced paddlers don't want to be bothered with beginners.
I can't be the only one who regards Claims Culture as an insidious cancer undermining the spirit of adventure and willingness to take a calculated risk. etc. etc. Thank heavens for solo paddling.
Thanks John, a perfect explanation of my reservations.

Despite the feeling of disinclination raised by this thread, I still took a group out on the Conway Estuary on Sunday. It was a mixed ability group of eight paddlers in total but with no beginners and I had a trusted 'wing man' with me. I assessed the conditions and risks during the safety briefing and I decided we were suitably equipped and it was safe to launch. For those who know the Conway Estuary you will know how this paddle plays out as you pass the marina entrance and approach the bridges by Conway Castle, for those who don't know it, this stretch of the estuary is fast flowing and has many obstacles in the form of moored boats, pontoons and semi submerged buoys. When we launched, I calculated the tide would be running at about 4- 5 knots. This is NOT the fastest it can get to, but on Sunday it was flowing against a 15 knot headwind so it was instantly VERY choppy paddling down towards the bridges. I instructed everybody to stay out of the main flow and to follow my line down the slightly calmer water nearer to the shoreline. This was a conscious decision by me to give us time to warm up and so I could assess how people were handling the conditions. My support man was at the back to alert me if there was an incident. My logic for going in front was that I was the most experienced rescuer and by being at the front if we had a capsize in fast flowing water, I would already be downstream and therefore stand a better chance of being able to intercept a swimmer and/or their boat as they were being swept towards me. (I have no doubt that this will start a whole new debate but please read on before you make a judgement).
Anyway, the conditions on the water deteriorated once we passed the lee of the marina and I decided to put into an eddy to reassess how the group was feeling about the conditions. The fact that I did that already indicates I had doubts. Once in the eddy I raised my paddle so the group should know to "come to me", which they all did - proving that they were actually listening to the safety briefing! We were all just about safely in the eddy when one paddler was hit by a breaking wave and capsized. Normally he can roll but on this occasion failed to do so. He popped out and was separated from his boat. I instructed the rest of the group to get in the eddy and stay there. Quickly between us I agreed with my support man that I was best positioned to intercept the boat and he would go for the swimmer. In this stretch of water if you don't act quickly everything can go pear shaped as anything in or on the water gets swept downstream towards the moored boats!! NOT good. In short, we got both swimmer and boat into the safety of the eddy and back in his boat. A deep water rescue in the flow exposes the swimmer and the rescuer to collision with obstacles so under the circumstances we decided it was better to get boat and swimmer to safety first. At this point I could see that some of the group had been spooked by the incident and were looking uneasy. Therefore despite a very quick and successful rescue I decided to abandon the journey and return to the beach. I would just like to add that my decision was NOT based solely on the capsize and failed roll of the individual paddler. He was unlucky and it could just as easily have been me. However following the rescue, I reassessed the group and concluded that if more than one paddler had gone over, it might have turned out differently.

The reason for my story is really just to say that all the training, practice and experience paid off. Nobody was hurt or killed (and therefore I should not get sued) BUT it does show that things can go wrong even when you have taken every precaution and believe you have made the right decisions. It is therefore very important for me to get reassurance from the club (and contributors to this forum) that my position as an unqualified but experienced 'leader' is not at risk from the 'Claims Culture' that John so rightly identifies. By the way, the group were very supportive and understood the decision to abandon the paddle, even though most of us had made a 100 mile round trip. I have since received several emails thanking me for making a safe and sensible decision.

pathbrae
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:42 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by pathbrae » Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:12 pm

So whats to prevent soneone like me with a couple of years of paddling experience from taking club members out for a gentle paddle on the sea in fair weather
I think a F4 against 5 knots of tide is probably way beyond a "gentle paddle in fair weather" as you initially suggested you would be leading on.

How much experience did your "wing-man" have? Did he not spot that it might be a bit rough out there even if it wasn't apparent from the launch site?

I'm glad this had a reasonably happy outcome - it could indeed have been much more serious, but there's a lesson to learned here too. Even if you had travelled 50 miles to paddle, even if the conditions were forecast to be OK - once you get there, even if it looks to be worse than forecast, there's a huge pressure to paddle because you have loaded up the cars, travelled for hours, been looking forward to it..... That's when you need a plan B (and sometimes C, D, etc as well) as a bad weather / changed wind direction / road's closed / there's a dingy / raft / power boat race on etc. etc. option
So much sea - so little time to see it.

RichJ
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:03 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by RichJ » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:58 am

Hi Seawolf,
Sounds like your rescue went well with a successful outcome. Great stuff! Now, you mentioned about claim culture. As I understand, should there have been an incident with some sort of tragic outcome, an individual or family member could indeed take out a Civil case against you, which would then be tested for negligence in a Court. Clearly, I am a total ignorant of legal matters but in such a case and going back to the original questions of this post, what support is available from BC in such instance? ... Or is it all assessed on a case by case basis? It seems to me that Club Leaders are often put in difficult positions with regard to decision making. Tougher than commercial trips! Clubs or individuals within should never underestimate the significance, responsibility and effort that goes into organising a safe, happy and suitably challenging trip. With regard to potential cases being taken out against a Leader and for a moment putting aside any loss, irrespective of blame I have seen the long, drawn out and psychological devastation such action can bring to a Leader where things have gone wrong.

Rich

seawolf856
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 1:29 pm
Location: Chester NW England
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by seawolf856 » Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:53 am

pathbrae wrote:
Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:12 pm
So whats to prevent soneone like me with a couple of years of paddling experience from taking club members out for a gentle paddle on the sea in fair weather
I think a F4 against 5 knots of tide is probably way beyond a "gentle paddle in fair weather" as you initially suggested you would be leading on.

How much experience did your "wing-man" have? Did he not spot that it might be a bit rough out there even if it wasn't apparent from the launch site?

I'm glad this had a reasonably happy outcome - it could indeed have been much more serious, but there's a lesson to learned here too. Even if you had travelled 50 miles to paddle, even if the conditions were forecast to be OK - once you get there, even if it looks to be worse than forecast, there's a huge pressure to paddle because you have loaded up the cars, travelled for hours, been looking forward to it..... That's when you need a plan B (and sometimes C, D, etc as well) as a bad weather / changed wind direction / road's closed / there's a dingy / raft / power boat race on etc. etc. option
The opening quote is not from me! it was on the very first post of this thread and I have never made any suggestion that I would only be leading a "gentle paddle in fair weather conditions". I definitely agree with you pathbrae that a F4 against 5 knots of tide is way beyond gentle. Myself and my wingman know this particular stretch of water VERY well and it can be paddled safely in those conditions. We paddle together often and he is experienced, competent and 100% trusted. We both assessed the conditions from the launch point from where the chop was visible to us, but we also know it is possible to stay out of the main trouble areas. I also understand the pressure to paddle especially if you have invested time and money to get to a launch point, however I am very risk averse and please believe me, I would absolutely NOT launch if conditions did not look right.
As far as a plan B goes, we debated going back to a local beach (Colwyn Bay) to have a play in the surf but it was lashing down with rain by the time we landed and the majority of the group were happy with the decision to abandon and go home. A couple did go out on the river when they got home but that was their choice and nothing to do with the organised club paddle.

pathbrae
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:42 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by pathbrae » Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:07 pm

Apologies seawolf - I thought that post had been from the OP, hence the gentle paddle in calm... quote
So much sea - so little time to see it.

sean107
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:46 pm
Has thanked: 6 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by sean107 » Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:41 pm

that was me - I have much less experience.

I've decided that I'll try and join some experienced groups, and probably do some peer paddling with the more experienced paddlers in my current club.

Owen
Posts: 2148
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:42 pm
Location: Nr Stirling
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by Owen » Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:53 am

I think nearly all of this anguish comes down to the ridged formal leader and followers approach pushed as the only way to proceed by the BCU. You don't get groups of walkers, cyclists or climbers getting their knickers is a twist about liability yet their doing activities with a similar or even greater risk. If you're a group of consenting adults partaking in an joint activity why do you feel the need for such a formal structure? If your group is so large that you need a Sargent-Major barking out orders and whipperiners constantly chasing in stragglers, maybe you should be asking whether your groups are to big. Less than three should never be is the maxim but how big a group is to many? If your so worried about being sued by the very people you're paddling with surely you have to ask why are you paddling with them in the first place.

User avatar
Robert Craig
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:55 pm
Location: Glasgow
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by Robert Craig » Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:46 pm

Owen wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:53 am
I think nearly all of this anguish comes down to the ridged formal leader and followers approach pushed as the only way to proceed by the BCU. You don't get groups of walkers, cyclists or climbers getting their knickers is a twist about liability yet their doing activities with a similar or even greater risk. If you're a group of consenting adults partaking in an joint activity why do you feel the need for such a formal structure? If your group is so large that you need a Sargent-Major barking out orders and whipperiners constantly chasing in stragglers, maybe you should be asking whether your groups are to big. Less than three should never be is the maxim but how big a group is to many? If your so worried about being sued by the very people you're paddling with surely you have to ask why are you paddling with them in the first place.
Agreed.

I'm not worried about being sued by the people I paddle with, though I'd be upset if they drowned. But my wife and children might worry about my being sued by the grieving widow and destitute family of the deceased. My family could lose their home, without even being aware that they were at risk.

Doesn't stop me paddling, though.

AS to group size, less than 1 isn't fun. More than six and you're never sure where everybody is.

Owen
Posts: 2148
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:42 pm
Location: Nr Stirling
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by Owen » Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:40 pm

Robert Craig wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:46 pm

I'm not worried about being sued by the people I paddle with, though I'd be upset if they drowned. But my wife and children might worry about my being sued by the grieving widow and destitute family of the deceased. My family could lose their home, without even being aware that they were at risk.

But, why should you be sued by his destitute family just because you were there when he/she died?

User avatar
Robert Craig
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:55 pm
Location: Glasgow
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by Robert Craig » Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:34 pm

Not because I was there, but because I was negligent.

Chris Bolton
Posts: 2885
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:33 pm
Location: NW England
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by Chris Bolton » Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:11 pm

But, why should you be sued by his destitute family just because you were there when he/she died?
A good question. A glib answer might be that there doesn't have to be a reason, but it happens. I think there's an inference that the person sued has a duty of care. Without getting deeply into law, which I'm not qualified to do, duty of care is legally the tort of negligence and requires that the harm was reasonable foreseeable, that there was 'proximity' (a connection between the people concerned) and it being reasonable. On a peer paddle with identically skilled and experienced adults, it would be hard to prove breach of duty of care without reckless disregard for other's safety, eg, paddling away, without good reason, from drowning paddler who could have been rescued safely. With a professional instructor, there are cases like this one where large damages have been awarded (the injured party in that case was a solicitor). The volunteer leader is some where between, I think; very unlikely to be sued if there's a serious incident, but can't rule it out. There is a greater expectation on a club leader to look after other club members than on the most experience paddler in of a group of friends, but in a club situation any liability may tend to be on the club rather than the individual. I believe there's a trend in UK legal cases for judges to push back against the 'liability culture' but I don't have any cases to quote. If you've considered the risks and taken reasonable precautions (and 'reasonable' depends on all the circumstances) you can defend the case, but (getting back the OP question!) you might still need insurance to pay the legal fees.

Owen
Posts: 2148
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:42 pm
Location: Nr Stirling
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by Owen » Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:04 pm

A good question. A glib answer might be that there doesn't have to be a reason,
Actually yes there does, you can't just sue someone willy-nilly there has to be a reason.
The volunteer leader is some where between, I think; very unlikely to be sued if there's a serious incident, but can't rule it out.
That's my point, by having this formal structure with a "Leader" you are actually inviting trouble, by copying the role of professional guide you are setting yourself up to be treated as such. Maybe it's because more people are starting out by going on courses run by professionals that they get the idea that there has to be a leader and everyone else must blindly follow. This is not the only way to run a paddle and for peer groups not necessary the best way, if there's so many paddlers that you need a leader there's to many IMHO.

Everyone in a peer group should have a duty of care to everyone else in the group to act in a reasonable and responsible manner, but beyond that all this hypothetical hand-wringing over liability is just wasted energy. Go paddle, enjoy, and look after each other.

ian johnston
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:36 pm
Location: Aberdeenshire
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by ian johnston » Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:49 pm

Owen wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:04 pm


Everyone in a peer group should have a duty of care to everyone else in the group to act in a reasonable and responsible manner, but beyond that all this hypothetical hand-wringing over liability is just wasted energy. Go paddle, enjoy, and look after each other.
Where's the "like" button?!

Ian

CharlieS
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:55 am
Location: London
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by CharlieS » Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:09 pm

Chris Bolton wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:11 pm
With a professional instructor, there are cases like this one where large damages have been awarded (the injured party in that case was a solicitor). The volunteer leader is some where between, I think; very unlikely to be sued if there's a serious incident, but can't rule it out.
Many thanks for the link to this court case. I'd recommend reading the full court judgement which can be found here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/2798.html It's long but not particularly technical to read (I had to google Volenti.)

Even though it's about mountain biking, and a paid coach not a volunteer, there is lots that's useful to think about. Including - the appearance in the court judgement of an internet forum discussion about the site of the accident (do we realise how important our comments might be here?), the importance of taking notes immediately after any incident, the role of the national body (BCU) guidelines in establishing whether you acted reasonably on the day, and the amount of time the court considered appropriate for assessing someone's experience or for teaching a skill needed to handle a more challenging section.

I've found this thread very interesting; I've been keeping quiet largely due to ignorance and I've appreciated being made to think more about this.

Thank you,

Charlie

Sean_soup
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:17 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by Sean_soup » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:31 pm

Chris Bolton wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:11 pm
But, why should you be sued by his destitute family just because you were there when he/she died?
A good question. A glib answer might be that there doesn't have to be a reason, but it happens.
It doesn't happen though, does it?
Owen wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:04 pm
That's my point, by having this formal structure with a "Leader" you are actually inviting trouble, by copying the role of professional guide you are setting yourself up to be treated as such.
I posted a link further up the thread about "volenti non fit injuria", it's worth a read.

Your point is well made, but even in the case of a formal, professional guide one of the things that *won't* happen is getting sued willy nilly by people who have had 'normal' accidents arising out of the risks that come with the territory.

There are examples like the one quoted above, of beginners successfully suing instructors on the grounds that they did not understand the risk they were taking on. I don't think it'll be so easy to find an example of anyone with any experience of the activity suing a guide, instructor or leader unless there's clear negligence. For example perhaps something like a mountain bike instructor providing a defective bike for someone to ride, or a climbing guide using a defective rope.

This is because falling off a bike/horse/rock/mountain or out of a boat is a normal risk associated with the activity, and there is a strong legal presumption that anyone who knows anything at all about the activity they're taking part in has knowingly chosen to voluntarily accept this risk.

I'm not a lawyer though. Prove me wrong somebody? A fiver to RNLI (or the charity of your choice) for the first link to a case like the one above but where the person who fell off their bike, out of their boat, off a rock climb or mountain or skied into a tree was not a beginner. :-)

jeremyduncombe14
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:32 pm

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by jeremyduncombe14 » Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:35 pm

You are correct in that the UK courts will not find in favour of an injured person unless they can prove there was negligence. The problem for competent leaders and instructors is that any person who has suffered an injury may be tempted to take legal action on the off chance of getting some compensation. This is encouraged by the growth of unscrupulous legal firms offering “no win, no fee” deals. The innocent leader / instructor may incur massive legal fees even if the court subsequently decides in their favour. Tbh I don’t think this is a big problem for a well run club, but it is a real issue for guides and instructors in any adventure sport.

I am looking for recent cases where an injured party sued an instructor or guide for negligence in this country, but lost the case. I am sure there have been some.

User avatar
MikeB
Posts: 8057
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 9:44 pm
Location: Scotland
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by MikeB » Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:44 pm

Sean_soup wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:31 pm


I posted a link further up the thread about "volenti non fit injuria", it's worth a read.

(Snip)

This is because falling off a bike/horse/rock/mountain or out of a boat is a normal risk associated with the activity, and there is a strong legal presumption that anyone who knows anything at all about the activity they're taking part in has knowingly chosen to voluntarily accept this risk.

I'm not a lawyer though. Prove me wrong somebody? A fiver to RNLI (or the charity of your choice) for the first link to a case like the one above but where the person who fell off their bike, out of their boat, off a rock climb or mountain or skied into a tree was not a beginner. :-)
Volenti, as a defence, should not be relied upon. Have a look at http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Volenti-non-fit-injuria.php for more detail. I'm not a lawyer either, but the law modules in my business degree were very interesting.

As to professional instructors being successfully sued, it's few and far between, thankfully. In the UK at least. However, as noted earlier, there is the well known case of the injured mountain biker. https://www.thorntons-law.co.uk/knowled ... -solicitor

But in that case it was clearly shown that the professional instructor had not done all that he should have done. This said, even then, he wasn't found to be 100% at fault.

I am not aware of any successful civil cases against anyone in the sea kayaking community, where there was death or injury and where the trip leader / organiser / club coach / club organiser / peer paddler(s) involved was found to be negligent.

The "professional" coaching community are vocal in their call for someone to be "the leader" on a trip. And in some senses this is a strong argument. A small group of pals, all of whom know each other well, going paddling may be very different from 8 folk from a club or informal paddling group going out on a trip organised by someone. That "someone" quite possibly being merely someone who knows the area.

We may call it a "peer paddle" - but the fact remains that at some point, for some reason, perhaps under stress, someone is going to have to be the one making a decision as to what has to happen, or what the group is going to do. If it's a trip I've organised, that person will quite possibly be me. Does that make me "the-leader-who-will-be-sued-when/if-it- goes-wrong"? Of course not. And suggesting that the person with the "most quals" will be held liable is nonsense.

Mike.

Sean_soup
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:17 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by Sean_soup » Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:27 pm

MikeB wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:44 pm
But in that case it was clearly shown that the professional instructor had not done all that he should have done. This said, even then, he wasn't found to be 100% at fault.
Or, to look at it another way..
It was shown that the injured mountain biker was a novice. But not so much of a novice that he couldn't be expected to have some idea of the risks. (So 'the Volenti principle' applied a little bit - 20%, the judge decided.)

Quoting from the full judgement in that case posted by CharlieS above:
"I appreciate that, in so far as mountain bike skills were concerned, the claimant was a novice. However, I do not consider that this would entirely preclude the claimant's appreciation of his ability to ride down the slope in safety, nor do I consider that it entitled him to abdicate complete responsibility for his own safety."
jeremyduncombe14 wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:35 pm
I am looking for recent cases where an injured party sued an instructor or guide for negligence in this country, but lost the case. I am sure there have been some.
I couldn't find it with a quick google, but I remember a case a few years back where someone fell awkwardly at an indoor bouldering wall, broke his spine and sustained similar injuries to the mountain biker in that case. Poor chap ended up quadraplegic. He sued and was either unsuccessful or did win his case initially but it was subsequently overturned on appeal, I'm not sure which.

Chris Bolton
Posts: 2885
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:33 pm
Location: NW England
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by Chris Bolton » Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:35 pm

Sean_soup wrote:A fiver to RNLI (or the charity of your choice) for the first link to a case like the one above but where the person who fell off their bike, out of their boat, off a rock climb or mountain or skied into a tree was not a beginner.
That's a fair challenge. First I should admit to an error in writing "A glib answer might be…" because at least two people thought what followed was my answer, which it wasn't - that was in the next sentence. I would also like to be clear that I'm not trying to push any particular point of view in this thread, just contribute to the discussion, and will probably change my mind as new facts emerge.

I have found a few cases of people successfully claiming damages but only one, Richards v. Wanstall, which relates to injury to an experienced participant (does that match the challenge?). I found that reference in House of Commons Written Evidence. There's a bit of additional comment here (The Promotion of Volunteering Bill was not passed). It's interesting to see that the HoC Written Evidence also includes a case in which BCU insurance paid out. What I find most concerning in that link is the number of times people were found liable for failing to physically stop adults doing daft things, after they had advised them not to (I accept that you may need to assume that children can't be trusted not to be daft).

Edit - I've just looked further into the first case in the HoC evidence, Hedley v Cuthbertson, which also involved an experienced person, although in this case he was being led by a professional guide. What worries me about that case is that it was decided by a judge who appears to me to have no understanding of the risk, and the way risk is managed, in alpine climbing (I've climbed the route where the accident was).

Sean_soup
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:17 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by Sean_soup » Mon Sep 03, 2018 3:21 pm

Chris Bolton wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:35 pm
I found that reference in House of Commons Written Evidence.
Wow. What a dismal collection of examples of the law being an ass! (And an arse.) :-(

In the Hedly v Cuthbertson case, I intially assumed that was a typo in the link above.
(Where it says the guide overestimated the risk of rockfall - I assumed they must have meant underestimated, but no.)
Shocking judgement, absolutely shocking.

Well bugger, that's disappointing. (In ways much more important than the loss of a fiver.)

Richards v Wanstall clearly qualifies though. RNLI, or will you nominate another charity?

Chris Bolton
Posts: 2885
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:33 pm
Location: NW England
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by Chris Bolton » Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:14 pm

What a dismal collection of examples of the law being an ass!
Indeed - and those are the examples our MPs had when they decided it wasn't worth doing anything about it.
Where it says the guide overestimated the risk of rockfall
Yes, not well explained in the link, but the more rockfall you're expecting, the more other risk you accept in order to move fast. I don't know what evidence there can be for a risk being overestimated. If no rock fell, how do you know the chance of it not falling was 80% or 90%?

RNLI is fine by me.

Sean_soup
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:17 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by Sean_soup » Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:40 pm

Cool, done. :-)

User avatar
scottdog007
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:34 pm
Location: Hertfordshire.
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by scottdog007 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:59 pm

You can have 3 situations.

a) Leader/Coach Qualified plus British Canoeing membership & insurance

b) Leader/Coach out of remit plus British Canoeing membership & Insurance

c) Leader/Coach not having British Canoeing membership & insurance. Insurance then comes from clubs affiliation insurance to BC I think. But if insurance company feel not obliged to cover this for some reason, then THE COMMITTEE IS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION AND LEGAL COSTS. Woo not nice.

I know of 2 clubs where incidences occurred and they were sued. In one club the leader did not have any coaching or leader awards so out of remit. BCU (as it was at the time) passed this to their legal team and I believe paid out £15,000. The club got heavily reprimanded and had to stop coaching and leading until they got qualified members in place and followed their rules, code of conduct etc.

The second club was within their remit and fully covered. The rumour was that the person who sued them made a habit of suing but normally towards companies. Anyway BC paid out, the man got his money probably via a 'no win no fee' solicitor.

https://www.britishcanoeing.org.uk/memb ... -towergate

User avatar
Adrian Cooper
Posts: 9711
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 2:26 pm
Location: Buckinghamshire
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by Adrian Cooper » Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:52 am

scottdog007 wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:59 pm

c) Leader/Coach not having British Canoeing membership & insurance. Insurance then comes from clubs affiliation insurance to BC I think. But if insurance company feel not obliged to cover this for some reason, then THE COMMITTEE IS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION AND LEGAL COSTS.
Only if the claimant can demonstrate that the committee owed a duty of care, were negligent in the performance of that duty and that loss was suffered as a result.

User avatar
TechnoEngineer
Posts: 3351
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 7:47 pm
Location: Berks, Hants, Essex
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Insurance and qualifications

Post by TechnoEngineer » Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:47 pm

This is the only case I can think of that occurred recently:
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/ ... River_Tees_/
XL-Burn-3 / Monstar / Kodiak / My Videos

Post Reply