Browns Folly Mine

[Deeply Mendippy]

Is there any one who is a real solicitor, judge or magistrate who can confirm this?

Erm, guilty as charged.  :alien:

Essentially what everyone has said is correct.

You cannot sign away your right to sue someone for negligence. Imagine for example that you signed the waiver and went pootering into the cave, whilst you are there the landowner forgets about you and decides that, since it is such a nice afternoon, he will concrete over that the entrance to the cave. Once you have spent 3 days digging yourself out by your fingernails you feel rather aggrieved and decide to sue the landowner; if he simply said 'well, you signed the waiver' then you would think it entirely unjust.

In the same way if something happens to you then your wife/husband/civil partner/dependents can still sue for the loss they have suffered as a result  - since they have not signed the waiver.

However in practice Mr Sparrow is correct that a judge would look at the fact that someone has signed a waiver as very strong evidence that you were aware of the dangers. Once someone has signed the waiver then they would have a pretty big hurdle to overcome in order establish that the landowner is liable for your injury.

A waiver makes the chances of a landowner being sued remote, but they often take the view that if they prevent all access then the risk is even more remote. The fear of litigation is more powerful than the actual risk.

For a moment then it crossed my mind to perhaps start a practice to specialise in caving law, but knowing how tight cavers are then I realise it would not keep me in the manner to which i am accustomed.  8)

 

[graham]

I don't know why you can't just sign a waiver to say it is not their fault if anything happens

This old chestnut. Graham will give the proper quote but it goes something like this.

You CANNOT sign away your common law rights; even IF you sign a waiver, it is worthless in the event of something happening to you. YOU may agree NOT to sue someone but that doesn't mean that your WIFE, CHILDREN, PARENTS etc. won't sue. Put simply a waiver is useless and will not achieve what it sets out to do.

That's near enough.

I am not sure this is entirely true.  A waiver will not protect from litigation but it can be offerred as evidence.  Assume that someone signs a waiver to acknowledge their awareness that caving is dangerous and that they are expected to take a degree of responsibility for thier own safety.  Now assume that this person attempts to sue after a very minor slip or trip.  In this situation I believe that the waiver would be presented by the defence as evidence and could be influential in the decision of a judge or jury.

But it will not, as Mr B noted, prevent their parents or children or other dependants from suing. They did not sign.

 

[graham]

The fear of litigation is more powerful than the actual risk.

Damn right

For a moment then it crossed my mind to perhaps start a practice to specialise in caving law, but knowing how tight cavers are then I realise it would not keep me in the manner to which i am accustomed.  8)

You are missing the fact that they are also argumentative b******s, won't take your advice and will continually complain as well.

 

[darkplaces]

I'm posting just to bring this one back to topic.

I suspect the real reason for gating is the relation to wansdyke.
HSE rules and recomendations dont apply to 'leasure cavers/mine explorers' so the recomendation doesnt apply to us, HSE only applys if your in a work related capacity. AWT are the biggest vandals, as usual with all 'organisations' that claim to control access the first thing is to gate for fear of litigation when no actual action would be taken in real life.

The answer is not to get all legal and offical and start making up organisations or trusts as these people simply make things worse for the actual users. No actual good has come from these people apart from restricting your personal freedom.

Anyway... I prefer difficult acess, makes it more fun, a locked gate is not hard to work around.

 

[graham]

HSE rules and recomendations dont apply to 'leasure cavers/mine explorers' so the recomendation doesnt apply to us,

Can you give an explicit link to an HSE prouncement on this point?

 

[darkplaces]

HSE rules and recomendations dont apply to 'leasure cavers/mine explorers' so the recomendation doesnt apply to us,

Can you give an explicit link to an HSE prouncement on this point?

I phoned them on this very subject and had a long discussion. Basicly if its not work related then they have no powers. If your on a trip provided as a 'service' thats differant, or if someone has asked you to do a job of work that comes under HSE, but individuals engadged in personal leasure activities  are not under any control of the HSE. Phone them yourself if you like, as soon as I heard a while ago about mine inspectors going into browns and the HSE involvment I contacted them.

 

[cap n chris]

The situation at BFM is not entirely and solely linked to HSE workplace concerns; since AWT are the custodians of the site where entrances to BFM are located they have a duty of care to ensure that known hazards are mitigated. They also have a duty to protect the resident bat populace within the mine. AWT would LIKE to be able to monitor the bats in situ with their own members but anyone who is a member of staff would then be subject to HSE procedures.

So, to cite HSE regs as a reason why BFM is presently secured against walk-in access isn't actually untrue; however there are further elements to the story. By ensuring no-one can presently gain access to the site AWT is maintaining its duty of care to children etc. who may wander into the mine and become harmed; secondly they are protecting the bats by obstructing access to people who may engage in activities which (unwittingly) may harm them and finally they are restricting their own members of staff (and other bat-related workers) from direct access.

In order to re-open access to non-working interested parties, AWT have been informed they should engage the services of a site manager to oversee the development of any potential hazards within BFM in a pro-active way; this would involve resources which AWT does not have - if someone qualified could provide a mine management role in a free capacity this might be acceptable and restore access. Presently AWT is drafting a written statement on BFM and I await a copy.

Obviously the situation is far from perfect but it's not surprising that AWT is actively engaged in minimising their potential exposure to claims of breach of duty of care - after all, any wise organisation or person would do similarly.

 

[darkplaces]

I'm sorry Cap.. but thats utter rubbish coming from AWT. The midlands and the north seam to manage without all this legal rubbish, and before anyone says its isnt rubbish, IT IS. It all amounts to WHAT IF's which dont happen.

Visits to BFM will continue as they have done for the past 20 years that I know of. All AWT are trying to do is justify thare existance, if they had not vandalized the site with that black fence then maybe they would have had the money.

Your welcome to pass my personal views onto AWT, might give them a kick up the rear to know just how hated and pointless they are.

 

[graham]

HSE rules and recomendations dont apply to 'leasure cavers/mine explorers' so the recomendation doesnt apply to us,

Can you give an explicit link to an HSE prouncement on this point?

I phoned them on this very subject and had a long discussion. Basicly if its not work related then they have no powers. If your on a trip provided as a 'service' thats differant, or if someone has asked you to do a job of work that comes under HSE, but individuals engadged in personal leasure activities  are not under any control of the HSE. Phone them yourself if you like, as soon as I heard a while ago about mine inspectors going into browns and the HSE involvment I contacted them.

I know the general principle but it is possible that mines are a special case, just as non-workers' safety in other work places is under the aegis of the HSE. Try going down a working mine & see what happens.

 

[Hughie]

The situation at BFM is not entirely and solely linked to HSE workplace concerns; since AWT are the custodians of the site where entrances to BFM are located they have a duty of care to ensure that known hazards are mitigated.....

Surely AWT are just kicking themselves in the arse - they seem to have become custodians of something they can't themselves resource or manage. Typical of a bureautic organisation that has too much power to wield. This results in the knee-jerk reaction as seen at BFM. By their definitions all custodians/landowners of such places should lock their mine/cave entrances as a measure of "duty of care".

Why the f*$k do bats take precedence over everything? I'm sure there's plenty of room for both explorers and bats in BFM (and elsewhere)

Simple answer is to lock with freely available keys to bona fide visitors.

I'm with DP on this one.

 

[cap n chris]

Many years ago BFM was fitted with the standard CSCC padlock but these were vandalised; it was also complicated by there being a bat curfew season (i.e. no winter visits) when other non-CSCC padlocks were fitted to limit caver visits. AWT purchased a lot of padlocks from CSCC. One of the problems with padlocks on sites where passerbys are in large number is that they quickly become the focus of attention and get removed/broken or otherwise tampered with. Put simply, the site was soon open again.

Concern was expressed about the state of some of BFM's entrances and passages which looked in a parlous state and liable to spontaneous collapse; this led to the contraction of an independent mines inspector to report on the solidity of the mine - the report (IIRC) took over a year to conclude and the result was that instability was notified. AWT has responded to concerns about this (some may call it paranoia, others may call it sound responsible reaction) and have now secured the gates against entry from any and all potential visitors, pending documentation being released stating AWT's official position on the present situation; when the documentary back-up to the present situation is known, it should then be possible to determine what course(s) of action is available to make representation for limited bona fide access. AWT are interested to reinstate access since they wish to monitor the resident bat population.

Bats are protected by stringent laws. While there is probably no problem with bats and cavers etc. co-existing in BFM, it is understood that BFM attracts the attention of less responsbible elements who are likely to engage in activities which are highly detrimental to the wellbeing of the bat populace, most likely during winter (i.e. lighting fires) when they are most vulnerable.

 

[AndyF]

Is there any one who is a real solicitor, judge or magistrate who can confirm this?

Erm, guilty as charged.  :alien:

Essentially what everyone has said is correct.

You cannot sign away your right to sue someone for negligence. Imagine for example that you signed the waiver and went pootering into the cave, whilst you are there the landowner forgets about you and decides that, since it is such a nice afternoon, he will concrete over that the entrance to the cave. Once you have spent 3 days digging yourself out by your fingernails you feel rather aggrieved and decide to sue the landowner; if he simply said 'well, you signed the waiver' then you would think it entirely unjust.

In the same way if something happens to you then your wife/husband/civil partner/dependents can still sue for the loss they have suffered as a result  - since they have not signed the waiver.

....

I understand the point about the waiver, but can't you sign an Indemnity instead.... (I'm out of my depth here BTW).....which I think is where you undertake the liabailities for any accident etc. arising from the trip. I.e. everyone who sues, sues you instead of landowner. That is distinct from a waiver. i'm sure I've signed these in the past for some trips.

....or am I talking b****x...??

 

[graham]

Is there any one who is a real solicitor, judge or magistrate who can confirm this?

Erm, guilty as charged.  :alien:

Essentially what everyone has said is correct.

You cannot sign away your right to sue someone for negligence. Imagine for example that you signed the waiver and went pootering into the cave, whilst you are there the landowner forgets about you and decides that, since it is such a nice afternoon, he will concrete over that the entrance to the cave. Once you have spent 3 days digging yourself out by your fingernails you feel rather aggrieved and decide to sue the landowner; if he simply said 'well, you signed the waiver' then you would think it entirely unjust.

In the same way if something happens to you then your wife/husband/civil partner/dependents can still sue for the loss they have suffered as a result  - since they have not signed the waiver.

....

I understand the point about the waiver, but can't you sign an Indemnity instead.... (I'm out of my depth here BTW).....which I think is where you undertake the liabailities for any accident etc. arising from the trip. I.e. everyone who sues, sues you instead of landowner. That is distinct from a waiver. i'm sure I've signed these in the past for some trips.

....or am I talking b****x...??

Sorry, but the latter applies. To put in simple terms if the landowner is negligent why the hell should anyone else who suffers from that negligence and who didn't themselves sign any waiver or indemnity sue impecunious you instead of them?

Edit: If you are negligent then yeah, you'll get sued as well.

 

[Peter Burgess]

[Quietly whispers:]

I feel a long, protracted discussion about insurance in the air.....

 

[cap n chris]

OHMIGOD, NOT INSURANCE AGAIN!!!.... SAVE US!...

 

[AndyF]

... sue impecunious you instead of them?

LOL .....what the feek does "impecunious " mean.........  

 

[jasonbirder]

I suppose the question is, that if AWT feel Browns Folly Mine is so dangerous as to warrant prohibiting all access at this point; given the fact that Browns Folly Mine is just about as safe and tame an underground trip as there is anywhere...what happens if other organisations start applying a similar logic to Underground Sites on their property...

 

[Peter Burgess]

Chris:

Please don't do that. They can read your post from the other side of the office.

 

[graham]

In relation to Chris's post (not the loud one, the one before that) it is an open secret that not every vandalised padlock at BFM can be blamed, let us say, on people who don't know where the Hunter's is.

That being the case, perhaps one of the groups (not formal groups, I'm not pointing fingers) who can be blamed for the current situation is arrogant irresponsible cavers.

 

[cap n chris]

the fact... Browns Folly Mine is just about as safe and tame an underground trip as there is anywhere

1) it's a mine*
2) it's disused**
3) I didn't know you were a qualified mines inspector

* Therefore it's "dangerous"
** Therefore it's "even more dangerous"


Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that what you meant to say was "BFM is a very SIMPLE trip therefore it's tame (and, by inference, presumably safe".