 Poster: A snowHead
|
The Snowbizz thread reminded me I wanted to do something to try and protect us from a similar scenario.
Firstly, in the eyes of the law, I am an agent and not a TO as we only provide one element of the 'tour'. Not sure how that helps, but there you go.
I always ski with my guests at least once per week. It may be hard to believe but I *can* be a sensible person (when I need to), so when 'ski hosting' I take it easy and always plan the route to suit the person with the lowest ability level.
Sometimes it's easy to get excited and get egged on by clients but I try to resist, if the clients are of a good standard then I'll take them out on another day and make sure they understand that it's purely a social ski, all risk must be assumed by the individual skiers and not to feel pressured in to skiing anything they're not ready for.
Which in itself is different discussion, I know that my best skiing has been when I'm with people who have pushed me and encouraged me to go bigger and faster. Anyway, not to digress...
In our booking terms and conditions and repeated on individual guest letters, we have the following:
| Ski Extra wrote: |
Ski hosting
If you ski with a Ski Extra employee it will always be on a purely social level. We cannot take responsibility for any injury howsoever caused. At all times guests ski at their own risk. Skiing conditions can adversely affected by bad weather. We cannot be held responsible for circumstances beyond our control where certain facilities or arrangements may be withdrawn or altered.
|
I don't really want to go down the line of making people sign something before we ski, and I doubt it would be 'worth the paper it's written on'. Or is it?
Is there a way for us to protect ourselves in the case of an accident and someone looking for compensation?
Perhaps I should have made Arno sign something when I took him down Poubelle:
Please note I have only ever taken one client, who begged, off piste. Arno wasn't a client. :fmcon 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
don't worry, I would have blamed haggis trap if anything had gone wrong
the fact that he wasn't there doesn't matter right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Arno, exactly...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
You skied that 
F***.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Michelle, skiing it wasn't the daft part - hiking up to the bloody thing was the stupid act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| skisimon wrote: |
| Michelle, skiing it wasn't the daft part - hiking up to the bloody thing was the stupid act. |
Lines like this are just a short walk in Verbier. This one is around 10 minutes. Although, some people don't like the view. Hey, Doug?
Have I distracted from the point of my thread? Is there any point in trying to protect ourselves from compo culture?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skisimon, oh yes... of course....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
seriously (apologies) it might be worth having an informal chat with your insurance company to make sure it's covered and for advice on reducing their liability if there is an accident
suggest you don't show them that picture 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
parlor, show off 
Swiss law is almost certainly different to the UK and I suspect that if the worst happened that's what you would be subject to. As far as disclaimers go here out uni climbing club makes new members sign something to say they understand that climbing is dangerous etc etc. however, the BMC guys that run a course every year say that it doesn't really mean anything. As a result I try and distance myself from any organised teaching and always make it very clear that I'm not teaching but merely showing "what I would do". Of course this then leads to inevitable discussions on professional qualifications and liability insurance which in our case tend to be very circular.
Anyway, how do you get out the bottom of that thing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for the Eagles stuff I lead, leaders do have liability insurance. people have to sign a disclaimer like the one Swirly mentions and we can only take members of the club on tours (otherwise we aren't covered by insurance). this is a bit more formal that what you're doing.
to be legalistic about it, the question is first whether you have a duty of care and second whether you have met that duty. you need to do all you can to reduce your duty of care - it's quite hard to "disclaim" your way out of breaching it. you can't eliminate it altogether but you can reduce it. what you are doing already helps. there may be other things to think about - eg someone who sounded like he knew what he was talking about said to me that Swiss courts use the 3x3 methodology in deciding whether guides took reasonable risks on avalanche conditions. so maybe bone up on that. also, keeping it very conservative until you really get a feel for what people are like (ability and character-wise) is good. if people clearly know the score, you can be a bit more confident that they will take responsibility for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
A similar clause is in our T&Cs and like you I try to ski with our clients on about day 3/4............that said when I do I always make sure that over breakfast we discuss the fact that I won't be guiding, leading or instructing them in any way shape or form.............when on the piste I also often try and ski at the back of the group in a "sweeper" type role and when discussing a possible route ensure that I am not the one holding the map of saying........"Let's go down here".............. I might say "I enjoy this run I think you might too, but at the end of the day it's up to you".
Often it all becomes a bit of a laugh especially as I've explained why I'm being so careful over Croissants and coffee................
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Swirly wrote: |
| ......Swiss law is almost certainly different to the UK and I suspect that if the worst happened that's what you would be subject to. ...... |
Swiss law has rather tied up the SCGB.
I do sympathise with parlor - I think he's offering a great service - but I think the advice to sound out his insurance company is good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
parlor, I skied once with a ski-host in St Anton who with his resort managers approval split the guests into two groups, fast and very fast. I'm sure most of his guests thought he was joking but within 3 days he'd whittled his group down from about 12 to 4, which was the number he wanted. It was a lot of fun but I'm not sure how the guests who were abandoned or injured felt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| skisimon wrote: |
| Michelle, skiing it wasn't the daft part - hiking up to the bloody thing was the stupid act. |
Like a lot of stuff in Verbier, there is a lift up the other side of that hill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
FWIW Our last insurance inspection (in the UK) picked up that we only had a car park dis-claimer sign at the entrance, the inspector suggested 3 more and their locations, I made the point that dis-claimers aren't worth the paper (or sign) they are written on, he agreed but added their presence may a) put people off claiming and b) may result in a judge awarding lower damages if anything came to court.
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Tue 18-11-08 15:46; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
First of all sort out the English in your 'disclaimer'.
Secondly, it's a minefield.
If you're not prepared to get somebody out of the poo-poo and take responsibility for the situation, then I would suggest don't put yourself in that position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
parlor, do you have terms and conditions of booking? If so, you could stick something in there confirming you are just showing them round, not guiding or teaching. To really cover it you could use a disclaimer form.
But if I were you, I would never take them off piste in your capacity as host/guide.
Just showing mates round is different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| First of all sort out the English in your 'disclaimer'. |
I'll tell the missus, my English sucks.
As mentioned before this 'disclaimer' is in both the booking terms and conditions and each guest receives a written copy in a welcome letter (expressed slightly differently). I talk about it with clients before we go out and whilst we're skiing.
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| If you're not prepared to get somebody out of the poo-poo and take responsibility for the situation, then I would suggest don't put yourself in that position. |
Who said that? I'm talking about someone having an accident, and then deciding to try a compensation claim.
| Mosha Marc wrote: |
| Just showing mates round is different. |
Thought it might be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
...double post...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Swirly wrote: |
| Anyway, how do you get out the bottom of that thing? |
The exit is hidden by a rock in front of the camera. It opens on to a small face, which accumulates the most amount of snow I have ever skied. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Was that suppoised to be a finger 'tash? What's your TGR nick Parlor?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Running my own small company (nothing ski related) I can understand parlor's concerns.
If it's any comfort, if big TOs like Neilson and Mark Warner run ski-hosting services (which they both do), I presume they taken legal advice and take the view that they are on safe (legal) ground. Also, FWIW, I have used Neilson's ski hosting and they didn't ask me to read/sign anything.
As a matter of interest, have you done a risk-assessment / method statement to cover the your ski-hosting? I know it sounds like a pain in the a$$ (in fact it IS a pain in the a$$) - but in the case of any 'action' it would demonstrate that you have assessed and tried to mitigate potential risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
parlor, I would imagine that you are suggesting that hosting is part of the package and I think that would then imply an enforceable duty of care. I would imagine that you are then on very dodgy ground if something happens, particularly off piste. I wouldn't even offer it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
The deciding factor, from my experience in motorsport, is charging money or offering advice after having said you are an expert.
If you are doing neither of these and you make it clear to your clients that they are joining you to ski with you, at their own risk, on your day off - then it would be hard to see a case.
Making sure that clients are adequately insured would be a big priority, probably before taking any booking at all.
I always hoped it would never come to me asking such a question but we have found ourselves there... How do such situations get dealt with in the US?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
parlor, you can show me the poubelle any day!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| bar shaker wrote: |
I always hoped it would never come to me asking such a question but we have found ourselves there... How do such situations get dealt with in the US? |
Anyone can get sued for anything & its leaked over to Canada too. Notable cases I've heard of include a kid (about 17) paralyzing himself in the park at Whistler when he was a beginner and went in the experts only park ignoring all the signs and warnings (& there are lots of them saying experts only, risk of death etc) because his mates were going in.
Most resorts run inbounds ski guiding programmes for free although I heard that there was a bit of a barney one year at RCR resorts when they tried to make the guides, who are unpaid and do it largely for pleasure, pay for their own indemnity insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| Anyone can get sued for anything... |
and this is surely the point. If the worst should happen and "the guest" is lying there in hospital all broken up, they are 99% certain to be persuaded to sue someone's ar$e for lots of money (even if it is their own fault) and if you're seen as the only potentially responsible person then that ar$e belongs to YOU. Being qualified/insured is a small comfort but will not take away the colossal pain of being sued. I used to take people off piste as an instructor in the 80s. Back then, the concept of ambulance chasing and indemnity insurance wasn't discussed. I definitely got away with it. I wouldn't do it now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the risk of boring everyone rigid with legal cases from the law reports (see Snowbizz thread) have a read of this.......which happened in the UK so it was English law applying. If nothing else it shows the benefit of a risk assessment.
C claimed damages for personal injuries sustained whilst undertaking sporting activities at the premises of S. C had suffered a soft tissue injury to her neck while participating in the
activity of "tubing", which involved descending a section of D's artificial ski slope whilst sitting on an inflatable inner tube. At the end of the slope, there was a counter slope and foam filled buffers were positioned there as a means of slowing and stopping the tube and its passenger. C had worn a safety helmet and had received safety advice. C had also signed a document which confirmed the activity was of an extreme nature and that she participated at her own risk. C submitted that the piste should have been monitored more closely to reduce speed, in particular S should have raked the piste, warned C specifically of potential injury to her neck, and advised her to brace just before the point of impact with the buffers.
Held, giving judgment for S, that a finding that S had failed to take reasonable care for C's safety was not permissible on the evidence. S was not in breach of the duty of care owed to C as its lawful visitor under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 s.2 . S had given a clear warning for the potential for personal harm from the activity and it was not relevant to the issue of negligence whether or not C was specifically warned of a risk of injury to her neck. Participants were provided with protective equipment and were given verbal safety instructions before the activity began. There were designated lanes for the descent and a series of foam filled buffers on a counter slope at the bottom of the slope were designed to stop the tubes. S had undertaken a risk assessment which had identified the potential risk involved to tubers as they were brought to a stop at the end of the slope. S had tested three alternative stopping methods and adopted the one offering the best protection. The success of the chosen method was borne out by the very few instances of accidents recorded in the accident book. There was no conclusion as to whether C should have been advised to brace before impact, save that there was no evidence to suggest what the outcome of that would have been.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
parlor,
Bummer... 
but you can show me that run as well... Mosha will be up for it when we hook up, I expect
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
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?
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. 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).
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......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
parlor, We all love a good flushing occasionally 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| edsilva wrote: |
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?
|
Just wondering here (this is not directed against edsilva as he's raising a real point). If there were no ski hosting service these people may very well die on their own (in fact the risk is higher). Why is it that, as soon as someone tries to do something good, it's stopped by the very people who would have enjoyed it? why shouldn't a waiver stand up in court?
I for one would be perfectly happy to sign a watertight waiver to my instructor / ski host / guide etc. I'm pussy enough so that if they lead me to something which I honestly feel I can't ski, I'll pass up. And I will make sure that I have life insurance which should cover others if the worst happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| 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.
| Quote: |
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.
| Quote: |
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.
| Quote: |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
alex_heney, edsilva's knowledge of the law of negligence is not perfect but neither is yours
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arno, no one's is, I suppose. But alex_heney's points seem logical and well argued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Couple of questions. Sorry but really don't know the answer so hope someone does.
Do clients really book a holiday because it includes some form of guiding / hosting?
Is that a factor in them deciding to book that specific holiday?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Arno wrote: |
| alex_heney, edsilva's knowledge of the law of negligence is not perfect but neither is yours |
I never suggested it was.
Nor am I suggesting he is wrong, just clarifying a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wayne wrote: |
Couple of questions. Sorry but really don't know the answer so hope someone does.
Do clients really book a holiday because it includes some form of guiding / hosting?
Is that a factor in them deciding to book that specific holiday? |
Maybe not solely on that factor. When I worked for another chalet company I hated having to 'host' the guests staying at other chalets. I loved hosting my own guests because it ALWAYS meant a better tip, guests love it, if you haven't tried it, you should. This of course depends on the quality of the host.
Now running my own company I include it because guests love it. IME it is often one of the lasting memories of a ski trip.
And yes, MANY ask if I run some sort of hosting service, I think I would have missed a couple of bookings if I had said no...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Marc just PM'd me to beg me NEVER to take him there. 