Backdoor Box Mine
- Thread starter reforma
- Start date
cap n chris
Well-known member
boomtown1 said:
Correct. All of this type of caving access to Box is unauthorised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomlinson_v_Congleton_BC
royfellows
Well-known member
Captain, your legal assessment is spot on!
Of course, all it now requires the identity of the wannabe claimant to be plastered all over the Internet so that mine owners and ACBs can make the appropriate denial of access for anywhere to that person, any clubs or associations to which the person belongs can reconsider their association with him or her, and any underground explorers who encounter access issues due to that person can thank him or her in person.
Of course, all it now requires the identity of the wannabe claimant to be plastered all over the Internet so that mine owners and ACBs can make the appropriate denial of access for anywhere to that person, any clubs or associations to which the person belongs can reconsider their association with him or her, and any underground explorers who encounter access issues due to that person can thank him or her in person.
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
Cap'n Chris said:
Even if it was authorized, it's still a sporting activity with an element of risk willingly entered into, so (barring obvious and outrageous negligence like filling the mine with mantraps) there is still no liability.
cap n chris
Well-known member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volenti_non_fit_injuria
royfellows
Well-known member
andrewmcleod said:
Yes it has been commented that some of arguments used to reach the decision in the Tomlinson case which related to an action under the 1984 Act (liability to trespassers) could equally apply to an action under the 1957 Act (permitted entry) where an 'adventurous' activity was involved. There is exception within the 1957 Act where the person involved is aware of the risks and accepts them. A person equipped to go underground is a potholer, and a court could well feel that 'potholer' knows more about the risks of potholing than the person who owns the land with the pothole.
Of course we are cavers and mine explorers, however we would and are generally regarded as 'potholers', we soon find this out when we talk to people outside of our sport.
well you've lost me then, if we're on about the red door in the mod area they knocked on and they didn't come out of there as far as I'm aware that only leaves the red submarine door which as far as I know is rusted shut and a good distance awayMarkie87 said:
Mmmm I'm curious !
cap n chris
Well-known member
Indeed, but you won't know whether you have a vexatious litigant in your midst, or related to someone in your midst, until after the event.
royfellows
Well-known member
ttxela said:
That's an interesting point Alex.
There are some other factors though to consider.
Neither an insurance company or a 'no win, no fee' lawyer are going to go the the time and expense of pursuing a claim unless there is a realistic chance of getting money at the end of it.
There are two separate and distinct hurdles to overcome, the first is winning a case, the second is actually getting money out of the defendant.
The 'no win no fee' crowd have scored in the past because because claims were mainly pursued against large organisations such as local authorities who found it more cost effective to settle out of court than defend the claim. They changed policy on this while ago so these type of claims are actually decreasing quite dramatically.
The other is the fact that out of all the money that is awarded through the courts only a miserable 25% actually gets paid, a sobering thought.
Moving on a bit, the term "Vexatious Litigant" has been used.
Anyone who pursues civil actions that are frivolous, malicious, vindictive etc constitute a misuse of the civil justice system for which a person can be declared a Vexatious Litigant.
This can be applied for on line to the Lord Chancellors Office website and once a person, or a company, is declared thus they will be unable to commence any civil proceedings in the future without authority of a high court.
Of the thread but there are companies that have used the civil justice system in the past to intimidate people into paying them money which the law says they do not have pay, and they have had their claws clipped.
All interesting stuff.
cap n chris
Well-known member
popeass1 said:
Would be interested to hear of the breach of duty of care, by whom, and how so?
Makes you wish that someone like that would take the owners or whoever to court, and come up against a robust magistrate or what have you who would throw the case out ? but award punitive damages against the poor dear who sprained their ankle for wasting police / CPS time; something like that happen?
ttxela
New member
Cap'n Chris said:
Whilst I agree that would be an interesting discussion point it's largely irrelevant. The Quarryman's has it seems stopped lending out keys due to threat of litigation. Probably just a case of hassle no-one needs for providing a service that doesn't bring large benefits to their business.
Markie87
New member
actually i got it totally wrong, the police came out of the same door my mates banged on. it was the the cdi fan door. they walked away after they banged on it with something heavy and looked at some of the other doors for about 15 minutes and then the dog came up to them followed by the police
popeass1
New member
There's been an increased police presence around Box since Christmas, I went on a trip on new years eve, and a police car drove past and scoped us when we were getting changed. Another person said he'd had his details taken after a post Christmas trip to Box.
To try and answer the captain, I'll just quote it exactly as I was told "okay the story is that the lady/chav who injured her ankle in Box has engaged legal council to sue for damages on a no win no fee basis. English law entitles the claimant to sue anyone in the responsibility chain. This is supposed to be happening. So the mine owners Hanson, the entrance landowner (love lane), the pub because they provided the key, and potential leaders of the trip are being sued for damages. The only evidence for this is that the pub have withdrawn lending of Box keys. But if this rumour is true it will have consequences for all access not just within Box. No one has ever sued for damages like this before in the UK." apparently this has been confirmed by the landlord of the quarrymans.
To try and answer the captain, I'll just quote it exactly as I was told "okay the story is that the lady/chav who injured her ankle in Box has engaged legal council to sue for damages on a no win no fee basis. English law entitles the claimant to sue anyone in the responsibility chain. This is supposed to be happening. So the mine owners Hanson, the entrance landowner (love lane), the pub because they provided the key, and potential leaders of the trip are being sued for damages. The only evidence for this is that the pub have withdrawn lending of Box keys. But if this rumour is true it will have consequences for all access not just within Box. No one has ever sued for damages like this before in the UK." apparently this has been confirmed by the landlord of the quarrymans.
