• Descent 298 publication date

    Our June/July issue will be published on Saturday 8 June

    Now with four extra pages as standard. If you want to receive it as part of your subscription, make sure you sign up or renew by Monday 27 May.

    Click here for more

BCA Statement on Casterton Fell Access

langcliffe

Well-known member
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.
 

Bob Mehew

Well-known member
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. 
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
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.
 
Top