The guide offers the assurance that owners and occupiers of land should not fear being the subject of litigation by those whom they allow on their land to rock climb.
cavermark said:Did the Farrer estate recover its costs?
cavermark said:Did the Farrer estate recover its costs?
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:Did the Farrer estate recover its costs?
To a first approximation, yes, excepting the question of whether CRoW applies in a cave.Jon said:Would this not be the same for cavers?
Tony_B said: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.
graham said:Tony_B said: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.
And yet there have been no such claims under the BCA insurance, which rather punctures a hole in this particular argument.
graham said:Tony_B said: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.
And yet there have been no such claims under the BCA insurance, which rather punctures a hole in this particular argument.
Andy Sparrow said: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 said:Andy Sparrow said: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.
This would apply to cavers as well - e.g. dislodging a rock onto a passing guided party for example.
Andy Sparrow said:Bottlebank said:Andy Sparrow said: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.
This would apply to cavers as well - e.g. dislodging a rock onto a passing guided party for example.
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.
Andy Sparrow said: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 said:Andy Sparrow said:Bottlebank said:Andy Sparrow said: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.
This would apply to cavers as well - e.g. dislodging a rock onto a passing guided party for example.
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.
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 said:Bottlebank said:Andy Sparrow said:Bottlebank said:Andy Sparrow said: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.
This would apply to cavers as well - e.g. dislodging a rock onto a passing guided party for example.
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.
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.
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?