why rock climbers aren't a liability to landowners
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
graham
New member
From the link:
Those people, the ones who take the risks, are not really the problem, so much as their nearest and dearest who will look for someone to blame in the event of death or disability. I cannot speak for climbing, but in the case of caving, claims do go to court, as witnessed by the Jib Tunnel incident. Now, the litigants may well lose, as they did in that case, but the Farrer estate was still put to significant expense in defending itself and there is no certainty of recovering those costs.
Those people, the ones who take the risks, are not really the problem, so much as their nearest and dearest who will look for someone to blame in the event of death or disability. I cannot speak for climbing, but in the case of caving, claims do go to court, as witnessed by the Jib Tunnel incident. Now, the litigants may well lose, as they did in that case, but the Farrer estate was still put to significant expense in defending itself and there is no certainty of recovering those costs.
Cave Mapper
Member
The Jib Tunnel incident did not involve a caver. It was a child on an organised walk, who went into a cave without a torch.
Cave Mapper
Member
The BMC leaflet is an excellent document: informative, helpful, constructive and positive. And totally relevant to caving.
In the absence of an equivalent document for caving, it could be helpful in any discussions concerning caving access and occupier liability, subject of course to the caveat that climbing and caving have a slightly different status under CROW.
In the absence of an equivalent document for caving, it could be helpful in any discussions concerning caving access and occupier liability, subject of course to the caveat that climbing and caving have a slightly different status under CROW.
Bottlebank
New member
cavermark said:
Even if you get an order to cover your costs it's not worth the paper it's written on if the losing side hasn't got the money. And even if paid out it won't compensate for the stress and worry a case like that causes, over a long period of time.
It is a good leaflet, but the assumption that no one will take legal action is more wishful thinking than fact. It is perfectly possible, as with the Jib Tunnel incident, that an ambulance chasing lawyer will again persuade someone to claim whether climbing and caving related.
The point isn't that a landowner isn't likely to win such a case, it's that it still could be brought. The duty of care section alone is full of areas that could be exploited.
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
The Scout Association was found liable in that case and was instructed to pay Farrar's costs as well as the claim made by the claimant. But no doubt Farrar was out of pocket, let alone as Bottlebank says, not being compensated for the stress of being taken to court. For information, the judgement took place before CRoW became law (17th v 30th November 2000).cavermark said:
To a first approximation, yes, excepting the question of whether CRoW applies in a cave.Jon said:
Tony_B
Member
As I understand it the law as outlined in the BMC document does indeed apply to caving. Caving carries an inherent level of risk and as such all participants accept this risk when taking part. This is a essential principle of British law and is different to the law in, say, the USA.
The problem comes when landowners or bodies that control access have insurance. When presented with a letter from an ambulance-chasing lawyer, insurance companies take fright. Even if there is clearly not a case to answer, they will make offers of payment rather than run even the slightest risk of losing in court and having to pay not only damages but two lots of lawyers' fees. This is then self-perpetuating - lawyers can have a go at even the most spurious claims in the knowledge that insurers will probably pay up rather than argue.
The problem comes when landowners or bodies that control access have insurance. When presented with a letter from an ambulance-chasing lawyer, insurance companies take fright. Even if there is clearly not a case to answer, they will make offers of payment rather than run even the slightest risk of losing in court and having to pay not only damages but two lots of lawyers' fees. This is then self-perpetuating - lawyers can have a go at even the most spurious claims in the knowledge that insurers will probably pay up rather than argue.
Tony_B
Member
graham said:
Just because there have, as yet, been no such claims doesn't mean there won't be. And I know from personal experience that some landowners (and their insurers) are sufficiently spooked by the possibility of legal action that it affects their view of caving. You can reassure a landowner over and again that, in law, they are not legally liable for accidents to caver but they won't believe you, especially if their insurers are involved in the discussions.
Andy Sparrow
Active member
There is a genuine liability issue related to climbing which the BMC seem to be overlooking - the very real possibility of a dislodged rock injuring a third party.
Bottlebank
New member
graham said:
I'm not sure it does, times are changing and assuming there's some truth in this (and risking the wrath of the anti Mail lobby) as this one shows people are becoming increasingly litigious.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2606125/Parents-sue-school-3-000-seven-year-old-son-got-splinter-sat-wooden-bench.html
I suspect sadly it's only a question of time and I can understand why landowners may be concerned.
Bottlebank
New member
Andy Sparrow said:
This would apply to cavers as well - e.g. dislodging a rock onto a passing guided party for example.
Andy Sparrow
Active member
Bottlebank said:
Yes it could, but it's a very unlikely scenario with no liability implications for the landowner, which is really what this thread is all about.
Bottlebank
New member
Andy Sparrow said:
If the owner had given permission for the group to be there and failed to warn them of the risk he could be seen as failing in his duty of care.
Andy Sparrow
Active member
Bottlebank said:
Are you still talking about the caving scenario? You really think that an accident underground caused by the negligence of one caver to another can be blamed on the landowner? Seriously?
Bottlebank
New member
Andy Sparrow said:
I think blame is the wrong word, but in certain situations could be potentially held liable yes. By potentially I mean that a claim could be started - whether it would succeed is another matter.
