 Poster: A snowHead
|
| finestgreen wrote: |
Megamum,
| Quote: |
why the hell has the law enabled riding schools and indoor ski slopes to be held as the responsible parties in such cases and to be the ones that are sued?
|
I'm not a lawyer, but I think the answer is: it hasn't. |
they will have a responsibility to have safety measures in place. Tamworth was successfully sued when a sledger crashed into another sledger waiting to exit at the bottom of the slope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
gilleski, Nail on head lad, the sensible balanced approach is what is needed. If you have enough qualified people around they can see if the Non Employed individual giving instruction is competent and is not putting other slope users in harms way.
We have a volunteer run slope and a large % of members are qualified instructors, so there is always some kind of unofficial instruction going on. We have had some issues from time to tim but the biggest problem is Instructors on a power trip interfering with perfectly sensible behavior on the slope and ensuring clients never come back 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Megamum, you were talking about randomly catching an edge or accidentally skiing into somebody. Unless there was some reasonable effort the management failed to make, I don't think you'd get very far.
On the other hand "Well, your honour, when I fell I was being instructed by that man over there. It turns out he wasn't qualified, but I thought it would be okay because the slope management didn't make any efforts to stop him" might or might not be unreasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
finestgreen, but it is a fine line, isn't it? After all, you don't have to do what someone tells you to do, even if they are a qualfied instructor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I got personally sued once.
Well not just me, it was a scatter-gun lawyer’s approach (by a lawyer who simply didn’t understand the law or, the most stupid thing, who to sue).
In a previous existence I used to guide people around mountains (yes I’m qualified) and drag people off a few on stretchers when they dialled 999.
I was sitting on Ben Nevis (at Windy Corner) having a brew with my mates – we had just brought some unlucky chaps off after they got lost.
This family walked passed us and they were obviously in a bad way – mainly due to wearing gear you’d need to take a stroll around a city park and it was “really” bad weather up the hill where they had come from. So mild Hypo was setting in.
We got chatting to them and gave them some hot tea and stuff and said we’d walk down with them as far as the YHA junction. As anyone who knows the Ben will know, about 400m down the path from Windy Corner there is the upper metal bridge with a bit of lose path just above that.
Anyway one of the girls in the party (she was about 19 or 20) tripped on a stone that was sticking out of the path and she went over the edge. She didn’t die at she landed in the tops of the trees about 50m down (that where her legs were broken) she then fell through the branches and into the side of the cliff (that’s her skull was broken) and then she came to a stop just in the edge of the river having landed lengthways on a protruding rock (that was the worst bit as later in hospital, it was found that it was that jamming that required her spleen to be removed). But, as I said she didn’t die. In fact she came up the Fort about a year later to thank us. Not going to go into it but we got her out of it and into the RAF whirly bird.
Anyway, about 2 weeks after this me and 2 other of my mates, Fort William council, Brit Alcan (who owned the Ben in those days) all got letter from a lawyer chasing us for various amounts that we owed his client due to this and that – in my case it was that I had assumed responsibly for his client by acting as a “guide”, Fort William council for not up keeping the path, etc, etc. Blah Blah Blah.
In the end he got sod all as it was pointed out that a rock sticking out of a mountain was no one’s fault and she should have been looking where she was going.
Mind you..... If he had checked on who was legally responsible for up keeping the path he "may" have got somewhere. Just as the Ben is next to Fort William doesn't make them the highways authority.
I do hope you see the point. It was a mountain – just like a ski resort. The legal action may have had a different outcome if we had been walking down the slope in a big fridge. OK there may not be rocks but stuff does happen and there is always some lawyer who will try and squeeze an insurance company for whatever they can get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Wayne shoccking! They really need to do something about this sueing culture, its getting rediculas
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Wed 2-01-13 22:07; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| finestgreen wrote: |
| On the other hand "Well, your honour, when I fell I was being instructed by that man over there. It turns out he wasn't qualified, but I thought it would be okay because the slope management didn't make any efforts to stop him" might or might not be unreasonable. |
But this isn't what's happening is it? It's not "that man over there". It's spouse/friend/relative. It's someone you've travelled to the venue with. You know if he/she's qualified or just more experienced than you.
I'm sure that there aren't many cases where complete strangers come up to beginners and offer to teach them to ski, for free. (Oh, unless they're young, gorgeous and have big assets ...... )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wayne, I see the point, but isn't this no blame without a claim culture a cr @ p outcome of today's society? We were always told in St John's ambulance that, although technically we could be sued, there wasn't a judge in the land that would uphold a claim against a 'Good Samaritan' action going wrong as too many lives would then be lost as people that would have acted to save lives then wouldn't do so.
FWIW I once took a literal trip off of a path in the Peak District that could have had a very similar outcome to your tale had I not hit an earlier rock. I got away with a bloodied arm and severe bruising, but it wouldn't have occured to me to claim against the owners of the hill, it was my own bloody fault for not being more careful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
maggi, +1, if I went to an indoor slope with friends or family that I knew were more experienced than I it would almost be second nature for me to say to them 'that last run was dreadful - did you see what I did wrong and what I need to fix next time'. As you say it is unlikely to be a complete stranger that you ask is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Megamum, I know plenty of qualified first aiders who do now have second thoughts about helping someone in case they are sued for unintentionally making the situation worse. It's awful but there have been court cases like this where first aiders have been successfully sued. The world has gone mad (& greedy for any chance of a payout) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Although there are similarities between the mountains and a fridge there are still some important differences. Not least the fact that it is a confined space in a fridge and this makes it difficult to teach beginners and early intermediates safely. When it is busy, a fridge reminds me of a busy 'home run' and you wouldn't want to teach a beginner on a busy 'home run'. So clearly there is a need for more controls in such a confined space. It is the responsible thing to do.
[But, TBH if you are giving a mate, who can already ski to 'slope standard', some advice and you are considerate of other slope uses then IMV that's fair enough. However, if you are teaching them how to put their skis on for the first time and their first snowplough then IMO that not appropriate for the facility (please find somewhere quiet to teach them on the mountain or take some lessons at the fridge). Of course you cannot say for certain exactly what 'slope standard' is.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
court cases like this where first aiders have been successfully sued
|
snowpony, could you reference one? Because I think you're wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
court cases like this where first aiders have been successfully sued
snowpony, could you reference one? Because I think you're wrong.
|
Yeah I thought in the UK this was not the case?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| snowpony wrote: |
| Megamum, I know plenty of qualified first aiders who do now have second thoughts about helping someone in case they are sued for unintentionally making the situation worse. It's awful but there have been court cases like this where first aiders have been successfully sued. The world has gone mad (& greedy for any chance of a payout) |
This question was brought up at the BASP first aid course I did in November. They stated, categorically, that NO first aider in the UK has ever been successfully sued for helping. It's a scare-mongering urban legend that may, or may not have elements of truth from other countries, but not in the UK.
Indeed, in France and some other countries, it's a criminal offence NOT to help if you can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Elmer,
'PIZAA, PIZZA!' loosely translated 'We are trying to turn you into piste pizza' ......
What I didn't get was that the kid could obviously steer as he was tracking the slope. So that means he can turn but not stop ....odd. He the parent could not get in behind and stop him baffles me as well - I've done that for runaway Atomic Bomber kids a lot of times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Megamum wrote: |
Wayne, I see the point, but isn't this no blame without a claim culture a cr @ p outcome of today's society? We were always told in St John's ambulance that, although technically we could be sued, there wasn't a judge in the land that would uphold a claim against a 'Good Samaritan' action going wrong as too many lives would then be lost as people that would have acted to save lives then wouldn't do so.
FWIW I once took a literal trip off of a path in the Peak District that could have had a very similar outcome to your tale had I not hit an earlier rock. I got away with a bloodied arm and severe bruising, but it wouldn't have occured to me to claim against the owners of the hill, it was my own bloody fault for not being more careful. |
Yep as you say an outcome of todays society and the no win no fee lawyers, there are plenty of people who think (and have been encouraged to think by all those TV adverts) everything is someone else's fault and they probably wouldn't have to much difficulty in finding an ambulance chaser to help them try sue the landowner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| RattytheSnowRat wrote: |
| What I didn't get was that the kid could obviously steer as he was tracking the slope. |
Not really. He didn't have a functional snowplough, so had widened his stance and locked both skis on to their (inside) edges for most of the time. This meant he couldn't really steer and was sort of carving his way down the piste (which is why his 'responsible' adult could barely keep up with him). The only change of direction that the kid was managing was involuntary, and I think more about switching his balance more from one leg to the other.
Right at the start of the clip one of the adults had the kid between his legs, held in place by ski poles across the kid's chest. Presumably they had skied this way to what they thought was a gentle enough piste in order that the kid could practise his pizza shape. Fail, on both accounts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| feef wrote: |
| snowpony wrote: |
| Megamum, I know plenty of qualified first aiders who do now have second thoughts about helping someone in case they are sued for unintentionally making the situation worse. It's awful but there have been court cases like this where first aiders have been successfully sued. The world has gone mad (& greedy for any chance of a payout) |
This question was brought up at the BASP first aid course I did in November. They stated, categorically, that NO first aider in the UK has ever been successfully sued for helping. It's a scare-mongering urban legend that may, or may not have elements of truth from other countries, but not in the UK.
Indeed, in France and some other countries, it's a criminal offence NOT to help if you can. |
^ this. Ditto for my course, a year earlier, with citing of first-hand, in-the-room, experience of a conflab of senior judges and lawyers discussing such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Megamum, um, h8 to be the one to break it to you but it's fundamental principle of English tort law that you can be held accountable. The legal default situation is that unless you are professionally trained to do so (ambulance, fireman, etc.), you can be held accountable for your actions AND you can be held accountable as a professional if negligent (c.f. hospitals getting sued left, right and centre). There is no legal requirement for any non-porfessional to act to assist another (the 'pee-on-you-if-you-were-on-fire - not' principle as I abbreviate it) The basis of the law is that one should not be compelled to risk their own life to save another should they choose not to do so. As indicated to you, it will be a fairly unusal judge that will actually find that your actions are not 'reasonable' in the circumstances (unless, of course, they were not) BUT the law does not bias that way as a starting point.
Look at it another way - do you want vigilantes roaming around on a Friday night 'assisting' by beating someone to a pulp then claiming they prevented a 'rape' by doing so and thus claiming as a defence they were obliged to act?
In respect of the Fridge I think it would be hard to get legal culpability for teaching unless you had some physical interaction that resulted in injury of the 'pupil' - the obvious defences are (1) it's a dangerous sport and anyone strapping on boots assumes the risk combined with (2) they didn't do what I was saying - if they had, they would not have got injured. Obviously this works better if you are a professional  . p.s. this only applies to teaching, you mow someone down and you are on your own 
feef, it's not quite as simple as that - you are not obliged to risk your life to assist in France and it's an easy 'out' where blood is spilt in the AID's environment we live in - you have no obligation to go near it. You are alos not obliged to run into a burning building, dive into a raging torrent, etc, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| RattytheSnowRat wrote: |
| feef, it's not quite as simple as that - you are not obliged to risk your life to assist in France and it's an easy 'out' where blood is spilt in the AID's environment we live in - you have no obligation to go near it. You are alos not obliged to run into a burning building, dive into a raging torrent, etc, etc. |
That's not what feef was saying. The words were "help if you can". That leaves personal judgement with the potential helper to assess any risk to themselves in taking action exactly as you go on to describe. I think we're on the same page.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Wayne, your story might have a different slant. It's likley the lawyer was not acting with the knowledge of your 'victim'/grateful young lady. Her family may well have claimed on insurance and one of the standard criteria that an insurance company always require in the small print is the right to subrogate any claim their claimant might have i.e. it was the insurance company suing to try and recover some of the money they paid out to the family, not the family. There is a sort of process that the insurance company will go through to assess the cost/reward of taking any action and it sounds to me as though they may have pitched this matter to one of their low cost level panel law firms with little expectation of a result and the lawyer 'shotgunned' claims hoping to get a hit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wayne wrote: |
Anyway, about 2 weeks after this me and 2 other of my mates, Fort William council, Brit Alcan (who owned the Ben in those days) all got letter from a lawyer chasing us for various amounts that we owed his client due to this and that – in my case it was that I had assumed responsibly for his client by acting as a “guide”, Fort William council for not up keeping the path, etc, etc. Blah Blah Blah.
In the end he got sod all as it was pointed out that a rock sticking out of a mountain was no one’s fault and she should have been looking where she was going. |
I wonder what (other than a cash motivation) made that family consider that engaging an ambulance chaser was at all appropriate ? But yep, thankfully, Scottish Courts like to take a much more sensible approach to natural dangers as I remember from reading about this case when somebody skiing at Nevis Range fell through a cornice ...
http://www.simpmar.com/news-knowledge/smib/2006/june-2006/skiing-dangers-arising-from-physical-ground-features
"Lord Turnbull quoted from Lord Hoffman's already famous speech in Tomlinson v Cogleton Borough Council & Another [2004] and earlier Scottish authorities to hold that there was no duty upon an occupier to provide protection against obvious and natural features of the landscape. By the same logic, there was no duty to provide warning signs or notices drawing attention to the danger of such features."
Whether it's related to the Court's shorter attitude to ambulance chasers or not, there are very few of us using the mountains recreationally in Scotland who will have any special insurance for our activities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve nothing against lawyers, in fact I sleep with one most nights – not when I’m over here BTW Had to put that disclaimer in, just in case Mrs_W is reading this 
My point was (well two points really) the first being that not all lawyers are actually very good at their job. A case in point would be when someone has an accident due to an allegedly poorly maintained public right of way; and lawyer scatter-guns out letters to everyone involved, except the body actually (legally) responsible for up keeping the path.
The other point was that those big fridges in the UK “will” get sued if something happens, sooner or later. I don’t think the litigant would win, but there are enough ambulance chasing lawyers who are willing to give it a go, just in case there is a payout, eventually. So you can see why they ask people not to put them (and their insurance premiums) at risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
have just thought (doesnt happen often trust me).
If i decide to go through some drills, does that constitute instructions? If so can i be chucked off for instructing when not qualified, allowed or insured to do so?
 (tongue firmly in cheek)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ansta1, that's one perspective I was looking at it from. If you've read about a drill or had a previous lesson and the instructor has said practise X the next time you get an opportunity are you under instruction?
| Quote: |
(tongue firmly in cheek)
|
But only just......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
