What happens to liability if you go down a cave "illegally"? Another CROW point?

David Rose

Active member
Ok, so this started out as a post on the thread about landowners. I was musing about the position of someone who needed to be rescued from a cave such as Langcliffe Pot - which, though on CROW access land, is currently closed to cavers, while the current interpretation of the law holds sway at Defra and NE. I wrote:

"If there was a rescue inside Langcliffe now, the interpretation of the law as now recognised by Defra and NE would mean that the party being rescued was there unlawfully. They might become liable for any damage to the land caused, for example, by landrover tracks etc; the fact they were down the cave "illegally" would in general make the situation quite unpleasant. There was a rescue in the late 60s in Langcliffe which led to the present ban. I've been down Langcliffe twice clandestinely, and I remember feeling quite uneasy."

So: what would be the position? Would BCA insurance cover cavers who were in a cave such as those as on Great Whernside? And for that matter, what about a party that had "pirated" a cave on Leck Fell without a permit? What if landowners wanted to sue for the damage caused by a rescue? Thoughts, anyone? Might this be another strong argument in favour of extending CROW to caving?
 

royfellows

Well-known member
BCA insurance does not cover anyone underground without permission. In case of a cave the landowner, with a mine land or mineral owner, both can authorise a third party to enter the mine.

As far as suing individuals is concerned, it?s a course that in reality is strewn with obstacles. Two challenges arise, one is winning your case, and the other is getting the money.

The recovery rate for successful civil litigations is about 25%, and a no win no fee lawyer will not commit money and resources to pursuing a claim unless there is a realistic chance of getting the money out of the defendant. The defendant would need to be worth 'powder and shot' as they say in the legal profession.

Then of course it?s who to sue and on what grounds. The landowner would need to prove loss through negligence, and an accident is an accident. I cannot see that the fact of anyone being in there without permission as being material. If the accident was caused by negligence though, I think that there would then be a case for consequential loss against the negligent party.

A point to remember is that we live in a society in which the perception of legal liability by far outweighs the reality.

This is my take on it.

A further point is that of the position of a landowner to anyone who injures themselves underground.
The injured part would not not stand a cat in hell, this is interesting reading and highly recommended:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomlinson_v_Congleton_Borough_Council
 

nickwilliams

Well-known member
There is no simple answer to this question. I'm afraid I do not have time to provide a fuller answer this evening.

Nick Williams

BCA PL Scheme Manager
 

Simon Wilson

New member
nickwilliams said:
There is no simple answer to this question. I'm afraid I do not have time to provide a fuller answer this evening.

Nick Williams

BCA PL Scheme Manager

It really wouldn't matter whether you were insured or not if the pothole you were in without permission was Langcliffe. Anybody who thinks that you would be the least bit bothered about whether or not you had insurance or permission once you had embarked on a trip down Langcliffe can not have been there.
 

bograt

Active member
OFFS Dave This is purely Theoretic, hypertheoretic, (or even hypathetic) or whatever you want to call it, the guys who would be pulling them out woulld be their fellow cavers, the folks who would be paying the bill would be the emergency services, what is your point?

How long have you been caving? rescues have been happening from before CRoW, before BCA Insurance, what happened then?

I would like to add that CRO members called out on 'Shout' by the rescue authorities are allowed to claim expenses from the Home Office, how many do that?, this was debated as a fund raiser for BCRO about 30 years ago.
 

David Rose

Active member
I have been caving for 44 years.

I put this thread up because one of the moderators suggested that would be a good idea.

I'm not quite clear why anyone who goes down Langcliffe wouldn't be bothered about liability, since supposed damage after a rescue was the reason the pot was first closed. The first bit is a little gloomy and squalid, but it becomes a very fine cave lower down. And one with enormous potential.
 

Simon Wilson

New member
David Rose said:
I have been caving for 44 years.

I put this thread up because one of the moderators suggested that would be a good idea.

I'm not quite clear why anyone who goes down Langcliffe wouldn't be bothered about liability, since supposed damage after a rescue was the reason the pot was first closed. The first bit is a little gloomy and squalid, but it becomes a very fine cave lower down. And one with enormous potential.

OK. I should have said it would be the least of your worries.

Probably the most rewarding undertaking in British caving.
 

NigR

New member
Anyone who might be even remotely concerned about liability and suchlike would be well advised not to go down Langcliffe or Mossdale in the first place. Approach either cave on the premise that rescue is impossible and you will be fine.
 

bograt

Active member
Answers received, perhaps the 'Langdale' issue should be put to rest, Mossdale incident as well,  happened before BCA Insurance and CRoW.

There to be remembered, but I don't like things like this to be thought as being used as irrellevant examples.
 

Duncan Price

Active member
bograt said:
There to be remembered, but I don't like things like this to be thought as being used as irrellevant examples.

A more relevant example is a cave* in South Wales that is very popular with cavers/cave divers, outdoor groups etc. etc.  The landowners are a mineral water company and have erected a sign on their property stating that there is no permitted access for caving (presumably to absolve themsleves from liability).  If there was a rescue from this cave which damaged the landowner's business then they may well be minded to come looking for compensation.

I can think of other places to which there is no official access but are widely used (many of them mines) to varying degrees of a blind eye being turned by the landowner.

*It might well be on access land, I don't know.
 

royfellows

Well-known member
Duncan Price said:
bograt said:
There to be remembered, but I don't like things like this to be thought as being used as irrellevant examples.

I can think of other places to which there is no official access but are widely used (many of them mines) to varying degrees of a blind eye being turned by the landowner.

*It might well be on access land, I don't know.

Like I said in my previous postings, stiring the pot - will work against us
 
In answer to Duncan, the cave to which he refers is not on CRoW land.

Neither is Porth yr Ogof, another cave popular with cavers/cave divers, outdoor groups etc. etc.

However, both have long histories of unfettered recreational use, with visits to PYO from documented from at least 1800, and LL from 1840.
 

Grizzlybear

New member
some of you may be loosing the plot a bit over rescues in lancliffe. rescues in the entrance series are normal bread and butter stuff. obviously down at the bottom they would of course be rather protracted
 

richardg

Active member
An excellent question posted here by Dave Rose.

David Rose said:
Ok, so this started out as a post on the thread about landowners. I was musing about the position of someone who needed to be rescued from a cave such as Langcliffe Pot - which, though on CROW access land, is currently closed to cavers, while the current interpretation of the law holds sway at Defra and NE. I wrote:

"If there was a rescue inside Langcliffe now, the interpretation of the law as now recognised by Defra and NE would mean that the party being rescued was there unlawfully. They might become liable for any damage to the land caused, for example, by landrover tracks etc; the fact they were down the cave "illegally" would in general make the situation quite unpleasant. There was a rescue in the late 60s in Langcliffe which led to the present ban. I've been down Langcliffe twice clandestinely, and I remember feeling quite uneasy."

So: what would be the position? Would BCA insurance cover cavers who were in a cave such as those as on Great Whernside? And for that matter, what about a party that had "pirated" a cave on Leck Fell without a permit? What if landowners wanted to sue for the damage caused by a rescue? Thoughts, anyone? Might this be another strong argument in favour of extending CROW to caving?
 

Bottlebank

New member
Cap'n Chris said:
royfellows said:
BCA insurance does not cover anyone underground without permission.

Surely this is not true.

I'm not sure any of this is relevant to CRoW.

Any damage caused to landowners property, land, walls etc in the event of a rescue is presumably covered by the Police, as rescue is their responsibility?

I don't think permission comes into it.
 

Mark Wright

Active member
If my house burned down because the high powered lights that were looking after my pot plants in the cellar overheated and started a fire, my house policy would not pay out.

If I robbed my local post office and then sped away in my car whilst under hot pursuit by the police and then crashed into a lamppost, my car policy would not pay out.

I would be amazed if any insurance policy would cover someone who was effectively breaking the law.

Mark
 

Bottlebank

New member
Mark Wright said:
If my house burned down because the high powered lights that were looking after my pot plants in the cellar overheated and started a fire, my house policy would not pay out.

If I robbed my local post office and then sped away in my car whilst under hot pursuit by the police and then crashed into a lamppost, my car policy would not pay out.

I would be amazed if any insurance policy would cover someone who was effectively breaking the law.

Mark

I don't think it's that simple, the damage is not likely to be caused by the injured caver, so it's probably the rescuers insurance that is relevant.
 

royfellows

Well-known member
Cap'n Chris said:
royfellows said:
BCA insurance does not cover anyone underground without permission.

Surely this is not true.

I was underground co ordinator of last years NAMHO field meet and have helped with previous ones. Permission from land or mineral owners was required for all underground field trips. Trips were cancelled when this was not possible regardless of the locations being not gated or locked and generally being regarded as 'free access'.

The policy is a standard commercial third part liability insurance policy and the policy document is available for download from the BCA website.
I dont feet that it is appropriate for me to make any further comment and prefer to leave this to the BCA official who has already posted and no doubt will come back on this.
 

Fulk

Well-known member
Trips were cancelled when this was not possible regardless of the locations being not gated or locked and generally being regarded as 'free access'.

And so? Are you advocating that we should all behave like this, regardless of what appears to be the accepted norm?
 
Top