why rock climbers aren't a liability to landowners

[Antwan]

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.

its not overlooked, you get third party liabilty for such an event with BMC membership  :ras: its how they scare so many member into signing up

 

[Bottlebank]

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.

its not overlooked, you get third party liabilty for such an event with BMC membership  :ras: its how they scare so many member into signing up

And if no one admits to dislodging the rock = landowners get sued?

 

[Andy Sparrow]

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.

its not overlooked, you get third party liabilty for such an event with BMC membership  :ras: its how they scare so many member into signing up

It is overlooked in their online article.  The problem is this - climber observing all normal protocols dislodges rock which injures third party.  Third party sues and BMC insurer responds with "not our clients fault - he did nothing wrong so no negligence on his part - we're not paying - see you in court!"  So claimant turns attention onto next logical target - landowner.  I'm pretty sure that in Cheddar Gorge (for example) this would be a likely sequence of events.

 

[Bottlebank]

I must admit I think there's another key point, laws tend to be made by cases, and as there hasn't been one we don't really know too much about the likely outcome. Knowing what the law says and what the result will be are not the same thing.

The Jib Tunnel incident does at least give cavers something to go on.

The less case law about the greater the opportunity for greedy lawyers unfortunately.

 

[bograt]

The biggest landowners insurer is the NFU, they do not appear to have a definitive policy on this and seem to leave interpretation to their local secretaries to advise their clients, as you can imagine there are a lot of inconsistencies in advice. This causes a lot of problems for caving access officers, maybe a job for the BCA (and maybe the BMC) to clarify on a national basis with the NFU, and the other large landowner insurers, the CLA (sorry, now called CLBA)?

 

[Tony_B]

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.

its not overlooked, you get third party liabilty for such an event with BMC membership  :ras: its how they scare so many member into signing up

And if no one admits to dislodging the rock = landowners get sued?

It doesn't matter whether anyone admits to it/can be found or whatever, as has already been mentioned there's no point in pursuing legal action against someone that has no assets. The lawyers will chase the money, and this will almost always be the landowner rather than the individual caver/climber. 

 

[Bob Mehew]

The Jib Tunnel incident does at least give cavers something to go on.

I hesitate to summarise over 50 pages of judgement but very simply put, the Scouts Association was held to not have provided sufficient care towards both the kid and his father and control over over the kid.  However, as the case was not appealed, it has little persuasive force.

 

[martinm]

The Jib Tunnel incident does at least give cavers something to go on.

I hesitate to summarise over 50 pages of judgement but very simply put, the Scouts Association was held to not have provided sufficient care towards both the kid and his father and control over over the kid.  However, as the case was not appealed, it has little persuasive force.

When did the  Jib Tunnel incident happen?

 

[traff]

When did the  Jib Tunnel incident happen?

1995

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/politics/8048916.print/

 

[cap n chris]

Thanks for the link: some things have changed, some have not. Interesting quotes leap off the page.

"He said the scouts had gone ... with no proper equipment, supervision had been "woefully inadequate" and the scout leaders had shown "woeful ignorance"".

"Both leaders admitted to the court they were unaware of Scouting Association rules that expeditions should not be in groups of more than seven".

Is "Be prepared" still their motto? - if so you'd at least have expected the leaders of an outing to know what their organisation's own rules are, wouldn't you?

 

[Badlad]

Also linked from the same page as the OP was an interesting overview of a conference in which speakers from all points of the insurance spectrum took part.  I found the quote below interesting.


https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmcs-risk-liability--outdoor-adventure-conference-an-overview

"Rupert Davies, Personal Injury Lawyer ? Rupert outlined the process you would follow in order to take a case to court.  With cases concerning risk and risk taking, the law is generally on the side of the landowner / occupier. Rupert explained however, that the chance of a claim succeeding in court (for outdoor recreation) is low. He went on to explain that under the Compensations Act 2006, courts have a responsibility to consider whether a claim would prevent a legitimate activity from continuing (but that they are ?courts of evidence, not courts of truth?).

Rupert explained how funding / compensation is a real driver for litigation; the ?no win, no fee? culture (also known as the conditional fee agreement). However, claims will only be taken forward if there is more than a 50% chance of a case succeeding."