• Descent 305 - Pre-order is open!!

    Our August/September issue has a publication date of 2 August, and it is a special summer bumper issue full of stories of exploration and wonder from the underground world.

    Click here for details of this edition

BCA Statement on Casterton Fell Access

Fulk said:
So ? if you go on a "pirate" trip and come to grief, you've no right to sue the landowner, but if you go with a permit and come to grief, you do have a "right" to sue (that's if you're stupid/bloody-minded enough to do so)?

The BMC view is that the Volenti non fit injuria principle applies for climbers if they are injured whilst climbing - i.e. owners are not liable when the individual has willingly and knowingly placed himself into a hazardous situation.

I have actually seen mention of a couple of cases where this principle has been successfully invoked (although not for climbers), but I cannot trace them at the moment.

I assume that the same defence would be used by a landowner against any attempt by a caver to sue for injuries incurred whilst caving.
 
langcliffe said:
The BMC view is that the Volenti non fit injuria principle applies for climbers if they are injured whilst climbing - i.e. owners are not liable when the individual has willingly and knowingly placed himself into a hazardous situation.

You are correct in that one would expect this to be the main line of defence but who knows what ambulance chasing lawyer will come up with as a way around it.  But I suspect land owners concerns are not so much about being successfully sued but more about the hassle of being sued even if they get their expenses back on winning.  Or worse, when an ambulance chasing lawyer sends a formal letter which takes time and legal advice to rebut but for which one gets no compensation. 
 
Bob Mehew said:
You are correct in that one would expect this to be the main line of defence but who knows what ambulance chasing lawyer will come up with as a way around it.  But I suspect land owners concerns are not so much about being successfully sued but more about the hassle of being sued even if they get their expenses back on winning.  Or worse, when an ambulance chasing lawyer sends a formal letter which takes time and legal advice to rebut but for which one gets no compensation.

Agreed - but I was responding to Fulk's point.
 
Back
Top