Insurance
john.so...@virginmobile.com
I am organising, and leading, two teams on attempts to complete the
Welsh 3000's this summer. I have no formal MLTB qualifications,
although by and large the teams are experienced walkers (some more so
than me!)and include people with experience from organising events such
as the 10 Tors.
Thanks
John
Lindsay
have a "duty of care".
If you fail to carry out your duties and someone gets injured as result
of your instructions/decisions you leave yourself open to be sued.
It is not necessary to have insurance but it protects your property if
you do have Civil Liability Insurance, which unfortunately is
expensive. Before you can obtain insurance you need to carry out a
'Risk Assessment'.
The Insurance Compnay I use is Perkins Slade in Birmingham.
Insurance Companies that are prepared to insure you for this type of
activity are few and far between.
fen...@yahoo.co.uk
result of your instructions/decisions you leave yourself open to be
sued."
Is it possible to get group members to sign a document stating they are
aware of the risks and therefore forego the right to sue?"
Bryan Hall
part of the club joining requirements for new members to accept the
associated risks and liability.
We tried every other way to sort this out, but without spending most of the
budget for the year this was the only way to handle it.
After all - we figure we never force anyone to join, and they should accept
a degree of responsibility for their involvement and actions.
Sort of like dealing with grown-ups
;-)
<fen...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1116347757.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mike Clark
"fen...@yahoo.co.uk" <fen...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Yes but it isn't worth the paper it is written on. The duty of care is
one that can't be removed and so even if someone signed such a piece of
paper they could still sue after the fact. It is written into law for
very good reason for example so as to prevent an employer from failing
to care for the safety of their employees by attempting to place them
under contract not to sue.
The only impact that such a document might have, is it might be used as
evidence to argue for a reduction in the size of compensation if the
person acknowledged some personal risk assessment. However the duty of
third party care still remains.
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
Mike Clark
"Bryan Hall" <bryan.hall...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I run a work based walking club at work - we use the same approach - it's
> part of the club joining requirements for new members to accept the
> associated risks and liability.
But it doesn't absolve you of a duty of care.
>
> We tried every other way to sort this out, but without spending most
> of the budget for the year this was the only way to handle it.
But you haven't removed the risk of litigation. On top of that, if you
are a formal club with a recognised membership, then every member may
have equal liability in law. Thus any club member could potentially loss
their personal assetts (e.g. their home) if the club is sued, even if
that member were not involved in the incident. It's one reason why you
should take out the club 3rd party liability insurance if you join a
club.
>
> After all - we figure we never force anyone to join, and they should
> accept a degree of responsibility for their involvement and actions.
That is true, but it still doesn't absolve you of all risks associated
with 3rd party liabilities or a duty of care.
Bryan Hall
If i go back with this i suspect it's reopening a huge can of worms, and
potential closure of the club
<gulp>
"Mike Clark" <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:6085916c4d....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
Dave Pickles
>> We tried every other way to sort this out, but without spending most
>> of the budget for the year this was the only way to handle it.
>
> But you haven't removed the risk of litigation. On top of that, if you
> are a formal club with a recognised membership, then every member may
> have equal liability in law. Thus any club member could potentially loss
> their personal assetts (e.g. their home) if the club is sued, even if
> that member were not involved in the incident. It's one reason why you
> should take out the club 3rd party liability insurance if you join a
> club.
Isn't that a different issue? Third-party liability comes into play if, for
example, a member of the group leaves a farm gate insecure, allowing stock
out onto the road causing an accident. Several organisations (Ramblers is
one) offer group insurance against such risks. Insurance against the group
being sued by its own members is an altogether trickier proposition.
--
Dave
Jhimmy
> "Bryan Hall" <bryan.hall...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> I run a work based walking club at work - we use the same approach - it's
>> part of the club joining requirements for new members to accept the
>> associated risks and liability.
>
> But it doesn't absolve you of a duty of care.
>
>>
>> We tried every other way to sort this out, but without spending most
>> of the budget for the year this was the only way to handle it.
>
> But you haven't removed the risk of litigation. On top of that, if you
> are a formal club with a recognised membership, then every member may
> have equal liability in law. Thus any club member could potentially loss
> their personal assetts (e.g. their home) if the club is sued, even if
> that member were not involved in the incident. It's one reason why you
> should take out the club 3rd party liability insurance if you join a
> club.
>
>>
>> After all - we figure we never force anyone to join, and they should
>> accept a degree of responsibility for their involvement and actions.
>
> That is true, but it still doesn't absolve you of all risks associated
> with 3rd party liabilities or a duty of care.
Mike, sorry to put this onto you, as you're clearly not a lawyer from your
sig, but do you know how this would affect any uk.rec.walking expedition?
For example, just by offering to organise the campsite, would this also
constitute a duty of care? Also the uk.rec.walking day out - how is this
affected?
Jhimmy.
Mike Clark
"Jhimmy" <Cobalt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
IANAL but if your not a club with membership rules then I think you
could easily argue that it is just a gathering of like minded friends.
The real problems start to arise as you make the membership more
official, with official club officers and meetings, a constitution etc.
The reason I've read up on it is because my own club is both a Caving
and a Climbing Club. We have to insure all our members for both Caving
and Climbing activities even if they only ever take part in one of the
two activities (although the BCA does offer a reduced rate for
non-caving Club members). Because Caving insurance has rocketed
recently, many of the Climbers have raised the question of whether we
should remain a joint Club or split into two clubs with a separate but
overlapping membership.
Mike
Mike Clark
Dave Pickles <da...@cyw.uklinux.net> wrote:
Both risks carry a liability on members of the Club. If somebody decides
to sue, whether they are in the club or a party outside of the club,
then most lawyers would advise suing a party which has the resources to
pay compensation in the result that the claim is successful. So if the
members of the club have assets then they are potential targets for
litigation. This affects all clubs, and is the reason that some go for
incorporation with limited liability so as to limit the risks only to
loss of club fees. But this option is not easily available to smaller
clubs and societies.
--
o/ \\ // || ,_ o Mike Clark, "An antibody engineer who also
<\__,\\ // __o || / /\, likes the mountains"
"> || _`\<,_ // \\ \> | Cambridge Climbing and Caving Club
` || (_)/ (_) // \\ \_ <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/cccc/>
fen...@yahoo.co.uk
compensation in the result that the claim is successful"
Just about sums up the "cotton-wool","sue" culture we appear to have
adopted from the other side of the pond!!
Mike Clark
"Bryan Hall" <bryan.hall...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Got any reference website suggestions for this Mike?
> If i go back with this i suspect it's reopening a huge can of worms, and
> potential closure of the club
> <gulp>
My knowledge comes from the complications my local Cambridge Caving and
Climbing Club has encountered by being active in both sports. We have
had to insure all members for member liabilities for both activities
even where the members only participate in one of them
see
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/thebmc/clubs/cins.htm
and especially
http://british-caving.org.uk/bca/insurance/04C0076_Club_insurance.pdf
Mike
--
fen...@yahoo.co.uk
What about that young girl who died following her boyfirend on Ben
Nevis over the weekend?
Can her family sue him?
Bryan Hall
"Mike Clark" <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:25499d6c4d....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
Bryan Hall
Bearing in mind we are a formally constituted club, I'll have to look at
some alternatives.
One thought ....... the idea elsewhere on this thread about affiliation to a
national club, to effectively "buy" cover for club members.
The Ramblers was mentioned - but I can't see anything about club affiliation
(or insurance for that matter)
Anyone else been here and found a way out?
"Bryan Hall" <bryan.hall...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:_Urie.7311$X86....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
Dave Pickles
> Whoo - just as I thought - the can's wide open
>
> Bearing in mind we are a formally constituted club, I'll have to look at
> some alternatives.
>
> One thought ....... the idea elsewhere on this thread about affiliation to
> a national club, to effectively "buy" cover for club members.
> The Ramblers was mentioned - but I can't see anything about club
> affiliation (or insurance for that matter)
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/organisers/leading.html#Insurance
--
Dave
Dominic Sexton
<bryan.hall...@ntlworld.com> writes
>Whoo - just as I thought - the can's wide open
>
>Bearing in mind we are a formally constituted club, I'll have to look at
>some alternatives.
>
>One thought ....... the idea elsewhere on this thread about affiliation to a
>national club, to effectively "buy" cover for club members.
That is what happens with clubs affiliated to the BMC.
Their page on liability is here:
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/thebmc/clubs/guide6.htm
I don't know how much club affiliation costs but expect it is based on
the number of members. You may also find it entitles club members to
discounts with retailers.
If I were you I would give them a ring or email them to find out more
BMC
177-179 Burton Road Manchester,
M20 2BB,
UK
T: 0870 010 4878
F: 0161 445 4500
E: off...@thebmc.co.uk
--
Dominic Sexton
Derek Allison
As I may have told you I subscribe to the uk rec
walking newsgroup and have just noticed a thread
about insurance.
It now seems that clubs can be at risk for third
party liability and i thought tou needed to be
aware of this.
The form of membership document I prepared so long
ago was based on one from the British Mountaineering
Council and it may be wothwhile you looking on their
website www.bmc.co.uk to check up as I would not want
you to get stitched up just if someone decided to
get nasty or greedy.
All the best,
Derek
Lindsay
The bottom line is that it is up to the Courts to decide what your duty
of care is and in my case it is to my clients. However clients have
to accept some responsibility for their actions as hill walking is an
activity that you may become injured as a result of your own actions.
If they are injured as a result of me giving them incorrect information
or instruction I am liable to be sued, hence the need for insurance.
Your point about signing a bit of paper is also correct as a good
lawyer will argue the point.
As for Club members or a group of friends going out there has to be an
agreement that it is a joint walk with no person in charge (difficult
to show in court) and that everyone has equal responsibility.
You should bear in mind that in the worst scenario it may be the
relative of someone who has been killed that is suing you and he or she
doesn't know about all these agreements or is not interested as they
need the cash to survive without their loved one.
There are obviously a lot of loop holes in what I have said but it is
better to err on the safe side and have insurance.
I know it costs a fortune, as I have to pay a substanial fee every
year, but better that than loosing everything I have worked for.
Mike Clark
"fen...@yahoo.co.uk" <fen...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Yes but mixed in with those who are only potential gold diggers there
are genuine cases of negligence leading to an injury and the same rule
still applies, it isn't worth suing somebody that has no assets even if
you are in the right.
fen...@yahoo.co.uk
That last part of the sentence is the issue with my views on the
matter.
It's not about right or wrong, if you take part in any non-work
activity it's of your own volition. Even being 'led' by an 'expert'
risk can't be eliminated. Just because the leader advocates a
particular path, action, etc, it is surely still within the individual
to make a judgement????? We're only human after all, we all make
mistakes....or was that a line by Human League????
Mike Clark
Oh dear
>
> Bearing in mind we are a formally constituted club, I'll have to look
> at some alternatives.
Yes if you have a constitution and membership criteria its difficult not
to be identified as a club for any liabilities
>
> One thought ....... the idea elsewhere on this thread about
> affiliation to a national club, to effectively "buy" cover for club
> members. The Ramblers was mentioned - but I can't see anything about
> club affiliation (or insurance for that matter)
I think that is possibly your best option to affiliate to a larger
organisation. If you go on walks in mountain areas and also scramble,
then the BMC is an obvious candidate. At present the BMC rate for
affiliated club members is still quite reasonable (much less than for
affiliation to Caving). If the RA also offer affiliation and you only go
walking then it might also be worth looking at them
>
> Anyone else been here and found a way out?
>
--
M.R. Clark PhD
Cambridge University, Department of Pathology
Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1QP
Tel +44 (0)1223 333705
Mike Clark
"fen...@yahoo.co.uk" <fen...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "even if you are in the right."
>
> That last part of the sentence is the issue with my views on the
> matter.
>
> It's not about right or wrong, if you take part in any non-work
> activity it's of your own volition. Even being 'led' by an 'expert'
> risk can't be eliminated. Just because the leader advocates a
> particular path, action, etc, it is surely still within the individual
> to make a judgement?????
Yes but your ability to make a judgement also depends upon your skills
and experience. So a very experienced person taking a complete novice
would have a greater duty of care than two equally experienced people.
But it is quite rightly up to the courts to decide on what circumstances
prevailed at the time.
> We're only human after all, we all make mistakes....or was that a line
> by Human League????
>
Yes but the law recognises that there is a continuum from wilful and
deliberate actions that endanger life, then there is negligence, and
onwards to unpredictable or unavoidable risk. What the law does is leave
it to be proved in a civil court (or I guess for wilful and deliberate
actions, e.g murder and manslaughter a criminal court) which of those
situations is most likely to have prevailed. It would be totally wrong
to make it impossible to sue in such situations.
For example if you took your car to a mechanic and asked for the brakes
to be repaired and later on you had an accident and discovered that the
person had not fixed them properly or used damaged or worn parts, you'd
want to be able to seek compensation.
So if you went climbing with a partner and they rigged up a belay which
failed and you were injured, and it turned out that they had knowingly
used a badly damaged piece of equipment for the belay wouldn't you also
want the right to seek compensation?
Just because you accept some of the risks of the activity doesn't mean
your happy for your colleague to show gross negligence for your safety.
Dominic Sexton
"fen...@yahoo.co.uk" <fen...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>We're only human after all, we all make
>mistakes....or was that a line by Human League????
"I'm only human, born to make mistakes" IIRC
--
Dominic Sexton
Bryan Hall
We have about 40 on average so that's definitely something to think hard on
"Mike Clark" <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:4e0cf16c4d....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
Bryan Hall
automatically receive third-party insurance cover, provided the leaders are
Ramblers members, through the Association?s national policy"
I suspect ad hoc walks may be a problem, and the Ramblers doesn't seem to
offer club affiliation
Thanks anyway
"Dave Pickles" <da...@cyw.uklinux.net> wrote in message
news:428a52e4$0$2604$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Bryan Hall
;-)
Dave Pickles
> Unfortunately this is "Walks organised by Ramblers Areas and Groups
> automatically receive third-party insurance cover, provided the leaders
> are Ramblers members, through the Association?s national policy"
The same paragraph continues "Similar cover, at advantageous rates, is
available to clubs and other organisations affiliated to the Ramblers."
However those "advantageous rates" don't seem to be spelled out online.
--
Dave
Mike Clark
"Bryan Hall" <bryan.hall...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> BMC is £175 for 20 members + £8 each additional member
> We have about 40 on average so that's definitely something to think
> hard on
>
We have about 40 members in the CCCC. Another thing to bear in mind that
might make the BMC more palatable to some of your members is that if any
of them are currently individual members, then if you affiliate they can
upgrade the standard club membership you would give them to a full
individual membership at a discount. In other words for them it won't be
an additional cost. Also if you are a member of multiple affiliated
clubs e.g. I am an AC as well as a CCCC member, you get a discount for
being multiple charged for part of the insurance cover.
Bryan Hall
I've passed the info on, to very glum looks - we thought we had nailed this
one
Time for some research & comparison but BMC looks the most relevant at
present
"Mike Clark" <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e305166d4d....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
Bryan Hall
Back to the site I go
Thanks
Bryan Hall
"Swimmers accept the responsibility of using the municipal pool if
accidents, occur as they are assumed to understand swimming can be a risk"
Seems to contradict some of the other precedents - could be tears before
bedtime?
<millt> wrote in message news:9bbn81l2a3d5mhr6m...@4ax.com...
> On 17 May 2005 12:33:16 -0700, "fen...@yahoo.co.uk"
> Damn right it does.
> Take part in any activity such as this, & be prepared to take the
> risk.
> I totally agree with you Fen.
> "cotton-wool","sue" sums it up very well indeed.
> makes you wonder what kind of world your living in these days !
>
>
Mike Clark
"Bryan Hall" <bryan.hall...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Interesting court summary in today's Time;s newspaper
>
> "Swimmers accept the responsibility of using the municipal pool if
> accidents, occur as they are assumed to understand swimming can be a risk"
>
> Seems to contradict some of the other precedents - could be tears before
> bedtime?
>
Yes I think some people go somewhat overboard ;-) in their thinking and
understanding on the subject of risk and liability.
Using the example of swimming above, it is reasonable I think to assume
that an adult who goes swimming can reasonably be expected to
understand that there is a risk of injury and drowning and thus to
accept the risk. However were the municiple authority to one day reduce
the depth of the water and not warn regular swimmers that they had done
so, then they might be held to be liable for an injury to a swimmer who
dived in and hit their head on the bottom. In such an example the
municiple authority is showing negligence in its duty of care.
Its not accidents that are the problem, it is accidents caused by acts
of negligence that are the problem.
RichardC
their constitutions and disbanding, only to meet up as "informal
gatherings" i.e. caving will be driven underground.
(Get it?)
Bob Mannix
> In message <Vq3je.9029$WQ3....@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>
> "Bryan Hall" <bryan.hall...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > Interesting court summary in today's Time;s newspaper
> >
> > "Swimmers accept the responsibility of using the municipal pool if
> > accidents, occur as they are assumed to understand swimming can be a
risk"
> >
> > Seems to contradict some of the other precedents - could be tears before
> > bedtime?
> >
>
> Yes I think some people go somewhat overboard ;-) in their thinking and
> understanding on the subject of risk and liability.
>
> Using the example of swimming above, it is reasonable I think to assume
> that an adult who goes swimming can reasonably be expected to
> understand that there is a risk of injury and drowning and thus to
> accept the risk. However were the municiple authority to one day reduce
> the depth of the water and not warn regular swimmers that they had done
> so, then they might be held to be liable for an injury to a swimmer who
> dived in and hit their head on the bottom. In such an example the
> municiple authority is showing negligence in its duty of care.
That's very clear cut though - as is a swimmer just getting into deep water
and drowning when it's clearly signed (their fault). It is (as always) the
grey areas that get you (and get lawyers their fees). If the edging tiles on
the pool were more slippery than one would normally expect and a swimmer
slipped and banged their head, is this a normal risk of going to a swimming
pool or not? We can all quote extreme and easily worked out examples until
the cows come home (I suspect) :o)
--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)
Bryan Hall
;-)
Simon Caldwell
>Do I need insurance, and if so what sort (and where from)?
>
>I am organising, and leading, two teams on attempts to complete the
>Welsh 3000's this summer. I have no formal MLTB qualifications,
>although by and large the teams are experienced walkers (some more so
>than me!)and include people with experience from organising events such
>as the 10 Tors.
>
A lot of good advice from others. Mine would be to contact the BMC
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/ as they have lots of experience and knowledge
about this sort of thing and will be able to give you a definitive
answer.
S.
--
Stop ID cards and the Database State
http://www.no2id.net/
hyweldavies
though often quoted - even by Caving's National body ! Just a moment's
thought would show this to be far-fetched- if you join the "Blur Fan
Club", which somehow becomes liable for this or that, are you
suggesting that the plaintiff could go round suing people who had
absolutely nothing to do with the "incident" ? Although Club law
(Unincorporated associations) is not always very clear, it certainly
isn't that ! You will not find it in a sersious law book on Tort - and
I've read a few.
There is rather a good paper on club law from IIRC the Northern Ireland
office. It's on the web somewhere.
Cheers
Hywel
Nick Mason
hywel...@yahoo.co.uk says...
whatever the damages is then split between the members, 100 members,
£1000 pound award everyone is liable for a tenner.
I suppose it's a bit like corporate manslaughter, the person at the top
had no direct involvement with any incident but they can still be liable
for a prison term.
--
Regards
Nick
hyweldavies
all, though lots of people assert the same thing - so you're in good
company. No-one so far has been able to find a proper authority for
this view. Not trying to start a flame or anything, but why do you
think this is the case ?
Lord Justice somebody even opined that perhaps you couldn't sue a club
for tort (ie injury) at all ! Lord Justice someone-else opined that the
"committee men" might be held acountable. Not the members generally at
any rate. (I've lent my big book, so can't check the names right now)
There is however the mechanism of suing a club whereby you sue a
representative set of members - to get access to the club money, not
the members' money - but this isn't quite the same thing. Individuals
or committee members are of course still liable for their own actions,
or inactions - as are we all; members of clubs or not
I can't find the Northern Ireland paper now, but it's quite good on
this. (NI law, isn't that far of English law in this instance).
Cheers
Hywel