 Poster: A snowHead
|
Good answer, thanks
| parlor wrote: |
| if you haven't tried it, you should. |
Ha Ha I think the rest of the guys and gals at the ski school where I work would think it a little strange.
I have been reading all the answers in this thread it tends to backup the reasons why the company I work for has never employed guides/hosts from a legal point of view. I am not a lawyer but it looks to me like it best not to bother in the 1st place
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Wayne, speaking as a lawyer, if you let yourself be guided too much by the dire warnings of liability etc from lawyers, you will never do anything
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
actually, it was pretty warm. end of april last year - the freeze/thaw cycle was well under way!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Arno wrote: |
| Wayne, speaking as a lawyer, if you let yourself be guided too much by the dire warnings of liability etc from lawyers, you will never do anything |
True, but the job does entail painting the blackest picture possible. Then trying to get around it, if possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Wayne wrote: |
| Ha Ha I think the rest of the guys and gals at the ski school where I work would think it a little strange. |
My condolences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Wayne, speaking as a lawyer, if you let yourself be guided too much by the dire warnings of liability etc from lawyers, you will never do anything
|
I agree 100% (although I am no way a lawyer!).
However, as I said before, I think it would be a worthwhile excerise for you to put together a little bit of H&S paperwork, just in case the worst ever did happen. I reckon a 'risk assessment' and some sort of 'emergency proceedures' document outlining what you would do if someone where to be hurt/injured on the slopes with you. It would demonstrate that you've properly considered the health & safety of your guests.
A risk assesment really is pretty straight-forward. Have a look at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg163.pdf - whilst this is meant for workplaces the same logic applies to any activity. Basically, it's table showing: what are the risks involved? Who's at risk? What actions/precautions are you going to take to reduce the risk? It's boring, but pretty straight-forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abj, thanks for the link. Just what I need for an afternoon siesta 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
I suspect you may get to a point where if your insurers are happy to cover the risk you carry on guiding - if they're not you ditch it (which would be a great shame). The potential exposure is just too vast if there was a problem and you were found liable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
parlor, it's thrilling stuff ... trust me
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
I find this depressing......................when are people going to take responsibilty for making their own call..??
Unless you are frogmarched up there and made to do it, what is the problem ..?? you either fancy it or don't. If you can't make that call then you shouldn't be up there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No no no, where would modern society be if people were responsible for their own actions? That would never do - they might become independent, free spirited and imaginative people who would then get rid of the system that is propped up by making everyone a mindless victim.
I think I need some fresh air...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| JT wrote: |
I find this depressing......................when are people going to take responsibilty for making their own call..??
Unless you are frogmarched up there and made to do it, what is the problem ..?? you either fancy it or don't. If you can't make that call then you shouldn't be up there. |
Which was rather my attitude to it, sadly it isn't the case anymore and I want to protect my skinny ass as mush possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| JT wrote: |
I find this depressing......................when are people going to take responsibilty for making their own call..??
Unless you are frogmarched up there and made to do it, what is the problem ..?? you either fancy it or don't. If you can't make that call then you shouldn't be up there. |
As a general rule, agreed.
But some people will be up there without sufficient knowledge to be able to make that call. They then rely on the professionals they are paying to loko after them to make the call for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
parlor, alex_heney,
I can see both sides...
I think my first post was on the money...which was " bummer"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
You know what, parlor, to redress the balance I'll sue you if you DON'T take me on that North Face and down the Poubelle next time I'm around (snow permitting. I'm not THAT unreasonable).
There, maybe that will help crystallise your options 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
horizon, thanks dude!
| alex_heney wrote: |
| But some people will be up there without sufficient knowledge to be able to make that call. They then rely on the professionals they are paying to look after them to make the call for them. |
Kind of my point. I am not a professional, what I do, I don't do in a proffesional capacity - although it is advertised as a free service when you stay with us.
I think I've answered my own question:
No amounts of warnings and paper signing will actually alleviate me from all / any liability.
My insurance better be in place to cope if the worse did happen.
Americans are the cause of all of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| parlor wrote: |
horizon, thanks dude!
| alex_heney wrote: |
| But some people will be up there without sufficient knowledge to be able to make that call. They then rely on the professionals they are paying to look after them to make the call for them. |
Kind of my point. I am not a professional, what I do, I don't do in a proffesional capacity - although it is advertised as a free service when you stay with us.
I think I've answered my own question:
No amounts of warnings and paper signing will actually alleviate me from all / any liability.
|
Unfortunately, you may well be right.
My personal opinion is that there should be a major difference between the services of somebody just taking people out causally with it made quite clear that responsibility for assessing the terrain is their own, and the services of somebody hired specifically as a professional guide, or even more so as an instructor, where part of the job is to assess the ability of the client and adjust the program accordingly.
But that is what I feel should be the case, from a personal and moral point of view. Whether it is what would be thecase, should things go wrong and then end up in court, is anybody's guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
horizon, ha ha ...me too......]
Lawyer...!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Michelle wrote: |
You skied that 
F***. |
Excellent point, superbly argued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| Michelle wrote: |
You skied that
F***. |
Excellent point, superbly argued. |
I have to concur, it raises concision to an art form
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
| edsilva wrote: |
there are lots of problems;
1. just because a guest appears reasonable doesn't mean they- or their estate won't sue. What options would the children of a dead father have if otherwise not well provided for?
|
Exactly the same options they might have if he had died of cancer or some othe illness. |
Yes- but the point I am trying to make (obviously not very clearly- sorry) is that even very reasonable people can be forced into positions where they have little option to sue- the classic being the death of a main breadwinner, leaving children. They might have little to lose and a lot to gain, regardless of the strength of their case- which can cause a lotr of problems with those faced with the claim. The claims themselves cause a changes in practice. In medicine as in skiing (dare I mention the SCGB where pending action has resulted in a change of policy)
| alex_heney wrote: |
| edsilva wrote: |
2. my understanding is that in England and Wales you need 3 elements to prove negligence; a duty of care, performance below a reasonable body of opinion of those skilled in the art and harm as a result.
|
That is what is needed to prove liability. "Negligence" is the second part of what you say, the first and third have no bearing on whether negligence was involved, merely on whether any liability arises out of that negligence. |
not sure you are right there..'Negligence suits have historically been analyzed in stages, called elements, similar to the analysis of crimes. Common law jurisdictions may differ slightly in the exact classification of the elements of negligence, but the elements that must be established in every negligence case are: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Each is defined and explained in greater detail in the paragraphs below. Negligence can be conceived of as having just three elements - conduct, causation and damages. More often, it is said to have four (duty, breach, causation and pecuniary damages) or five (duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages). Each would be correct, depending on how much specificity someone is seeking. "The broad agreement on the conceptual model," writes Professor Robertson of the University of Texas, "entails recognition that the five elements are best defined with care and kept separate. But in practice," he goes on to warn, "several varieties of confusion or conceptual mistakes have sometimes occurred." '
but as I mention below- what about in Civil Law jurisdictions? I don't know
| alex_heney wrote: |
| edsilva wrote: |
So with ski hosts / chalet staff with guests do they have a duty of care? I don't know?? Wht happens in other European areas where there are totally different laws and attitudes I don't know (and what happens with tubing at a premisis in England means squat when skiing on or off piste in France/Switzerland).
|
That is not true if (as in the case of Snowbizz), the injured party is going to sue in the UK. |
yes but only if the company exists in the UK. Perhaps all here are, perhaps not. I don't know what happens with European based organisations like UCPA or just a chalet entirely based in France or Switzerland.
| alex_heney wrote: |
| edsilva wrote: |
3. I suppose clubs like th eEagle ski club and most Uni Climbing clubs would be broken if this found negligent for a serious injury.....I wonder if jugdes would see tat as a bad thing...they are often quite sensible people...... |
The judges may see that as a "bad thing", but it wouldn't affect their judgment. Ability of the defendant to pay isn't generally a factor in judgments as to liability. |
what I was trying to say was not about ability to pay but about the public interest. Would judges here like to establish that the volunteer 'leaders' of Uni climbing clubs / Eagle ski club, mutually participating in a hazardous activity had a relationship with their members similar to that of a doctor to a patient- and so be held to account if they do not conduct themselves to the standards of the reasonable (qualified ) ski guide / mountain guide. Or will judges be more reasonable and recognise the relationship as being different, and that if they did impose such high standards upon these people then there would be a terrible loss in terms of club activity.
That is a little different when the relationship involves money (I think) as in a chalet owner/ski host skis with clients- but what are they professing themselves to be? Again my imperfect, understanding of the position in say France is that all sorts of folk apart from UIAGM Mountain Guides and Ski Instructors can quite properly lead others off piste- for example those with a Moniteur Diplome (like Pat Zimmer of Top Ski or TJ Baird of Alpine Experience). Clearly when a Mountain Guide is paid explicitly to guide clients off piste there is a relationship where there could be litigation if the standard of care falls short of that of the reasonable Mountain Guide,
but what is the relationship to a chalet owner skiing with clients ? or a ski host? How ell do they have to perform their role (what ever that is)?
What is the bottom end of the relationship between skiers??? Seems that in some parts of the world the most experienced has a responsibility- but to be how good?
sorry for the typos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| edsilva wrote: |
| alex_heney wrote: |
| edsilva wrote: |
there are lots of problems;
1. just because a guest appears reasonable doesn't mean they- or their estate won't sue. What options would the children of a dead father have if otherwise not well provided for?
|
Exactly the same options they might have if he had died of cancer or some othe illness. |
Yes- but the point I am trying to make (obviously not very clearly- sorry) is that even very reasonable people can be forced into positions where they have little option to sue- the classic being the death of a main breadwinner, leaving children. They might have little to lose and a lot to gain, regardless of the strength of their case- which can cause a lotr of problems with those faced with the claim. The claims themselves cause a changes in practice. In medicine as in skiing (dare I mention the SCGB where pending action has resulted in a change of policy)
|
Unless they get a "no win no fee" solicitor, they will always have a fair amount to lose, and "no win no fee" solicitors tend not to take on cases which don't have a reasonable chance of winning.
| Quote: |
| alex_heney wrote: |
| edsilva wrote: |
2. my understanding is that in England and Wales you need 3 elements to prove negligence; a duty of care, performance below a reasonable body of opinion of those skilled in the art and harm as a result.
|
That is what is needed to prove liability. "Negligence" is the second part of what you say, the first and third have no bearing on whether negligence was involved, merely on whether any liability arises out of that negligence. |
not sure you are right there..'Negligence suits have historically been analyzed in stages, called elements, similar to the analysis of crimes.
|
Yes, of course. But a negligence suit does not just require proof of negligence, it also requires proof of the other elements. The oter elements are not part of the negligence, they are what establishes liability and allows you to win a negligence suit.
"Negligence" is just extreme carelessness in normal English usage, or "performance well below that expected of somebody in that position" in legal terms.
| Quote: |
Common law jurisdictions may differ slightly in the exact classification of the elements of negligence, but the elements that must be established in every negligence case are: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Each is defined and explained in greater detail in the paragraphs below. Negligence can be conceived of as having just three elements - conduct, causation and damages. More often, it is said to have four (duty, breach, causation and pecuniary damages) or five (duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages). Each would be correct, depending on how much specificity someone is seeking. "The broad agreement on the conceptual model," writes Professor Robertson of the University of Texas, "entails recognition that the five elements are best defined with care and kept separate. But in practice," he goes on to warn, "several varieties of confusion or conceptual mistakes have sometimes occurred." '
|
Sorry, but he is confusing the concept of a "negligence suit" with the concept of negligence itself.
| Quote: |
| alex_heney wrote: |
| edsilva wrote: |
3. I suppose clubs like th eEagle ski club and most Uni Climbing clubs would be broken if this found negligent for a serious injury.....I wonder if jugdes would see tat as a bad thing...they are often quite sensible people...... |
The judges may see that as a "bad thing", but it wouldn't affect their judgment. Ability of the defendant to pay isn't generally a factor in judgments as to liability. |
what I was trying to say was not about ability to pay but about the public interest. Would judges here like to establish that the volunteer 'leaders' of Uni climbing clubs / Eagle ski club, mutually participating in a hazardous activity had a relationship with their members similar to that of a doctor to a patient- and so be held to account if they do not conduct themselves to the standards of the reasonable (qualified ) ski guide / mountain guide. Or will judges be more reasonable and recognise the relationship as being different, and that if they did impose such high standards upon these people then there would be a terrible loss in terms of club activity.
|
I don't think judges would generally allow themselves to be swayed much by that aspect.
They aren't really entitled to say, effectively "All the elements are proved, but you still can't win because if you did it would have too great an effect on voluntary bodies".
| Quote: |
That is a little different when the relationship involves money (I think) as in a chalet owner/ski host skis with clients- but what are they professing themselves to be? Again my imperfect, understanding of the position in say France is that all sorts of folk apart from UIAGM Mountain Guides and Ski Instructors can quite properly lead others off piste- for example those with a Moniteur Diplome (like Pat Zimmer of Top Ski or TJ Baird of Alpine Experience). Clearly when a Mountain Guide is paid explicitly to guide clients off piste there is a relationship where there could be litigation if the standard of care falls short of that of the reasonable Mountain Guide,
|
Yes, I would certainly say that is the case.
| Quote: |
but what is the relationship to a chalet owner skiing with clients ? or a ski host? How ell do they have to perform their role (what ever that is)?
What is the bottom end of the relationship between skiers??? Seems that in some parts of the world the most experienced has a responsibility- but to be how good?
|
That is something that can only be established on the facts of any specific case. It is rare there will be sufficient similarities IMO to effectively stablish precedent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
I don't think judges would generally allow themselves to be swayed much by that aspect.
They aren't really entitled to say, effectively "All the elements are proved, but you still can't win because if you did it would have too great an effect on voluntary bodies".
|
well actually how skilled are the 'leaders' of club activities? how skilled are they setting themselves out to be? what does that mean in terms of liability for negligence?
This is important.
If they are to be (in common law terms) as skilled as determined 'proper by a responsible body of medical men-(read ski instructors / mountain guides) skilled in that particular art' then that is a high threshold
or are they setting themselves out to be neither skilled nor professionals?
what level of care- (if any) do they have to achieve?
Because the standard of care is an element, which has to be proved- both what was delivered and that which was required, where there will be argument and an argument influenced by the impact of the decision. As I said before judges are often surprisingly reasonable- the liberal elite.
Quite unlike most PI lawyers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Long post, complex subject. Apologies in advance. Here goes.
Broadly, there are two different ways liability for personal injury might arise: (1) a breach of contract; and (2) the commission of a tort (which will generally be the tort of negligence). Scots, and some civilians, refer to "delict" instead of tort. It is possible for contractual and tortious claims to co-exist.
If you take payment for the guiding, a contract will exist which (in English law) will be a contract for the provision of services. That will include a term (implied if not express) that the guiding will be done with due skill and care. If a guest is injured that will not automatically lead to liability, as it would not necessarily follow that there had been a breach of contract on your part. If however it was shown that he guiding had not been done with skill and care, that failure (to exercise skill and care in the provision of the guiding) would constitute a breach of contract. If that had led to the guest's injury, an action for damages would succeed. You will help your position if you have systems and procedures in place for safety, reassuring yourself as to the guest's ability, etc if these are of a suitable level in terms of safety and you can show that you followed them.
The description of negligence above as having a number of elements is a correct description of the cause of action of negligence in English law ((1) The breach of a duty of care (2) owed by the Defendant to the Claimant (3) causing damage to the Claimant). Absent any of those three elements the claim will fail. The description of negligence as being only the "breach" element is understandable as the common view of "negligent conduct" but it is not sufficient for a claim in negligence.
It is possible to "assume" a duty of care to someone, whether by words or conduct. For example, people leading University or other club groups might assume a duty of care to less experienced members even though there was no contractual nexus between them. If a duty of care was established, the test for the behavior required so as to discharge the duty of care, and whether that standard (and so the duty) had been breached, has been discussed above. It can be possible expressly to disclaim the assumption of a tortious duty - for example many job references from a former employer to a prospective employer include such a disclaimer. However, such an express disclaimer might be tested and would be subject to suggestions of "nods and winks" as to the reality of the disclaimer. Your comment that you tell your guests that the guiding is "social" could be said to amount to such a disclaimer but might be attacked, for example, by evidence that you let it be known that guests could expect you to guide them as a matter of course or that you used the sure prospect of guiding to induce strangers to stay with you.
In English law, it is not possible to exclude liability for death or personal injury by way of a contractual term.
You can do so if there is no contract but it is likely to be harder to show that there was some document containing a disclaimer but there was not a contract (it is unusual to have a disclaimer without a contract but it might apply, for example, to the University ski club scenario).
The question of where you might be sued and under what law may also turn on whether the action was in contract or tort and where and how various events took place. If you are in Switzerland, you deal with people in Switzerland and any accident takes place in Switzerland, you are likely to have an action in Switzerland, under Swiss law. However, the position can be more complicated. In one case a claimant (a British national domiciled in the United Kingdom) suffered serious injuries in Jamaica, when he struck his head swimming against a submerged sandbank. He sued a Mr Jackson, who was also domiciled in the United Kingdom, who had let the holiday villa to him, for breach of an implied term that the private beach where the accident occurred would be reasonably safe or free from hidden dangers. Regardless of what you think about the merits, the action was allowed to proceed in the English Courts (for reasons I won't go into).
If you enter into a rental agreement with a guest in England for them to occupy a chalet abroad, or if say you are in France or elsewhere in the EU, you may find that a consumer can sue you in their own home court, not your local court (consumers get a lot of protection in this kind of area). If a contract is for occupation of a chalet and skiing, it is likely to be subject to the law where the chalet/ skiing are situated. However, it i spossible to choose the law that applies to a contract - check your basic T's and C's. Consumers again get protection so if you advertise, say, into the UK, and you allow the consumer to enter into an agreement with you in England, you cannot necessarily use (say) French law to deprive a consumer of a protection afforded them under English law (but it gets more complicated if the agreement is for travel and accommodation for an inclusive price and will be different if there is no travel included, just accommodation). It might be complicated if you advertised and let a Swiss chalet through an agent in England.
Finally, if someone is injured, although an action will be brought in their name, it may well in fact be brought by their insurers, who have a right to bring "subrogated" actions where someone has caused loss (injury) to their insured to which they have had to respond (just like being sued by the other driver's insurers after a car crash). It doesn't matter how nice the person is, they won't control their insurers. This could happen, for example, if someone's insurance paid for them to be repatriated to the UK after a serious injury.
It probably comes to two short points (after a long post  ) (1) This is a horribly complex area; (2) You should make sure you are insured.
(N.B. - This post does not constitute legal advice and no duty of care is assumed by the poster to anyone reading it. If you think that this raises issues on which you need advice or to which you may need to react, you should seek your own separate legal advice. (There, just like that...))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CB1, epic.
parlor, if you do decide to do a [imo] pointless Risk Assessment give me a shout-got a sh*t load of books kicking about for it and it is, after all, my degree subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Blimey. Makes me proud to be an ex-lawyer. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
It pays enough for me to take more than one ski holiday a year ...
I love the site by the way. Sorry that my second post is a geeky lawyer post. It was that or spend all night obsessing about the Scott Crusades I just bought...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| CB1 wrote: |
It pays enough for me to take more than one ski holiday a year ...
I love the site by the way. Sorry that my second post is a geeky lawyer post. It was that or spend all night obsessing about the Scott Crusades I just bought... |
Hey CB1 welcome to  - it's great a post, relevant and on-topic
I think that subrogated actions bit will drive a lot of all/any similar claims that might arise this season - I thought that was the case but could never express it like a seasoned pro...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
CB1,
| Quote: |
It pays enough for me to take more than one ski holiday a year
|
Indeed. I didn't mean to be rude. Your post just brought back certain memories of those 17 fun-packed years (well, 20 actually, if you count the degree and the professional training) - which also paid me enough to continue to take expensive holidays, even after all this time.
Welcome to snowHeads!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
parlor, it might be worth your picking up a copy of the Zivilgesetzbuch/Obligationenrecht (sorry no time to check the French titles), the code of obligations in particular, costs about CHF 40 in paperback as they are effectively the Bible of Swiss law and all courts follow it AIUI. With an English head on, there are holes in it you could drive a bus through legally, but Swiss law also has the concept of "good faith" against which all actions are tested - if you have acted in good faith, chances are you are deemed to have fulfilled your obligation/duty. It may well be a jolly good thing to specify that all your contracts are subject to Swiss law. I am not a lawyer, of course, so UCA.
You could also ask on English Forum: www.englishforum.ch as there are some peeps on there who, for various reasons, have come to have a very good understanding of Swiss law
ETA: (1) you should be able to find the Obligationenrecht online for free anyway, the federal admin site should have the full text in all national languages,
(2) looks like any contractual agreement to rule out liability for intent to act illegally or gross negligence is null and void
(3) a couple of hundred francs for an hour of a Swiss lawyer's time could be money well spent
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Thanks for the posts people! I shall take some time out of my day to read them
eng_ch, great tip, I shall investigate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I guess the big ski companies just assume the duty of care, and are insured?
Skiing with friends is allowed. Howsabout friends who are also clients? Of course it will be grey under our current legal system. But is there a way of making a ski with friends who are also clients just a ski with friends, or do you simply have to trust them? For instance I'd imagine that parlor is going to ensure he's insured now. But if his insurance co. said no, and he stopped skiing with clients, is there anything he could do to ensure that skiing with friends who were also clients remained just skiing with friends? eg having a local friend or two along on the trip or pointedly excluding other clients, obviously making no recordable commitment to or promise of any trip to normal clients
CB1, good effort and excellent post on a predictably rather complex subject in which you obviously have some significant knowledge/experience, thank you 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
parlor, have a gander at this:
Clickety click
Rough translation of the OR by a dual qualified Swiss and American lawyer. In particular bottom of p45 - looks like the Federal Act on Package Holidays 1993 applies to you (which you can then google)
Edited for excessively long link
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Thu 20-11-08 12:14; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| arv wrote: |
| parlor a [imo] pointless Risk Assessment |
Oops ... have I made a massive faux pas suggesting doing some H&S work?
Just to clarify, I would agree that things like risk-assessments and method statements are, in themselves, boring and probably pointless. Trust me, everytime I have to sit down and do one, I wonder why the hell I'm bothering with it all.
However, they do demonstrate that you have given some thought/attention to the health and safety of those around you and your clients.
I'm not saying that they are the answer to all potential legal problems - however, it is one of many (simple) ways, to help cover your own ar$e. And when you're at the sharp end, it really is worth covering your own ar$e!
[edited for spelling]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with skiing (once again linking it to climbing) and risk assessments is there are no standards.
E.g. in chemistry you may say "I'm going to use this hydrochloric acid, it's corrosive, I should take precautions not to get it on my skin."
But: A mountain side is a continuously changing environment*, what may be safe one day at a certain time with a certain client may not be if one of those things change wrt skiing the 3x3 method Arno mentioned before covers a lot of this ground especially when considering avalanche risk but this is only a part of what Parlor would be having to watch out for.
We (as a climbing club) were told by the BMC legal bod to do the best we could to avoid writing a risk assessment and if we absolutely had to write one to leave out as much as possible and keep away from any specifics in case they put you down an avenue you can't escape from. As an aside the people in charge of the clubs like you to tell them exactly where you are going on a trip fine if you are going to play football but not much use when you go into the mountains and find the crag you were going to climb on is soaking wet or covered in slime.
There was a case involving a uni climbing club a few years back now where some members died on a club trip, I don't want to discuss the details as its a while since I heard about it, some of the committee where taken to court by the parents of the deceased. This is the sort of situation parlor really wants to avoid but IMO the sad fact of the matter is that quite often someone will try and take action if they think they can get something, I always think it's unlikely that club members would sue but their relatives are an unknown quantity.
Parlor you say you have permission for one day a weeks guiding who gives you this? Might it be worth speaking to them and seeing if they can provide or suggest who can provide cover? Alternatively find out who arranges professional cover for other people doing similar: tour operator provided hosts must be covered by someone they might be a better similarity unless you've got some relevant qualifications in which case speak to the providers.
* Most important point in these cases you need to continuously evaluate risk in your head. A piece of paper filled in in the warmth of a house while drinking a glass of wine is at best useless at at worst positively dangerous in these circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Maybe I should have made clear, that I'm working on the legal advice that I have taken/been given with regards to my own business .... and, whilst it's all a bit of a pain, in many instances we are obliged to provide H&S documentation to our clients (it's certainly not optional).
Whilst I would assume that similar requirements would apply to parlor's situation, I'm happy be proved wrong. Afterall, I'm sure Parlor has better things to do than risk-assessments ... like skiing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have been folowing this thread with much interest as like parlor, a free ski hosting service is something that we offer to our guests. I really think that is a great way to get to know your guests and they also get a lot out of it - no having to read piste maps, no spending half your holiday eating at a rubbish canteen restaurant when there is a lovely traditional place just a couple of runs away etc... I think the important thing ito distiguish between this sort of service and the Snowbizz case is that although a duty of care can be assumed when skiing with a host, there should be no expectation that the person 'hosting' has any form of qualification as an instuctor of professional mountain guide nor should they profess to do so. I think it is a very different senario putting your trust in someone to help teach you how to ski than it is to put your trust into someone who is going to show you the best way to ski back to your chalet or how to avoid lift queues. Under no circumstances will our guides ever take anyone off piste and they will always tailor the days skiing so that it is at the pace of the slowest person, but I think when you are skiing with someone in a 'non-professional' capacity ie you are under no illusions that they have any sort of qualification, they your duty of care to yourself should really be no different to if you are skiing with a group of friends. The host themselves can absoutlely make 'sensible' desicions about which runs to go down and their knowledge of condtions in the resort should also be an advantage to the group, but when skiing in a patrolled area you also have to take into account that there should not be any runs open that are in a 'dangerous' condition. I have ski guided/hosted a lot myself in the past both for big companies and for our company now and you do need to be aware of the level of the group but it is also very rare that there isn't an opt out run that someone can take if they don't fancy skiing something that is a bit harder. I have found that keeping people informed - telling them where you are heading and what it can be like and giving them the option of accommpanying you or not is part of the reason that they are with you, but are also the type of things that show that you are considering the needs of the group without being responisble for an individuals actions. Over the years we have people who have had accidents when skiing with our hosts (some very very nasty ones) and they have all occured on green/blue runs in good snow conditions and could have happened to anyone at any time regardless of whether or not they were skiing with a host. What is important is that the host is aware of what to do if there is an accident and how to act sensibly and quickly and that comes from good training, which I like to think our hosts have.
The other very important thing of course is that you are properly insured to have a hosting service (which we are). I think it would be a real shame if it was the sort of thing that dies out because people are to worried about being sued as I think it can be a really valued and rewarding part of a ski holiday and I believe a lot of our guests would be really disapointed if we stopped offering it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
