Bottlebank
New member
Aubrey said:Peter Burgess said:Stepping back from the detail, is not liability simply related to something a person has done or built, which differentiates "natural" from "not natural". So any alteration to anything that would otherwise be considered "undisturbed" involves a degree of liability.
Yes, exactly so - the landowner would be liable for any cave opened by digging and not covered by the CROW legislation.
I think there are several separate issues here clouding this.
Does the landowner have liability in the following situations:
1. Caves that are already open - yes at the moment and probably not under CRoW
Will all caves that have been dug open prior to CRoW applying be treated as a natural feature, if not then:
2. Caves that have been previously dug open - does the landowner still have liability for the dug section under CRoW - I think yes but needs checking
3. Caves that have been previously dug open - does the landowner still have liability for the cave beyond the dug section under CRoW - needs checking - as Bob says the dig may be considered an entrance - but then again it may not
Then we have:
4. Digs started pre CRoW and not concluded prior to CRoW - yes
5. Digs started post CRoW - yes
And...
6. Caves that are dug open post CRoW - again does the landowner have liability for the cave beyond the dug section - possibly but needs checking - as 3.
7. Does all of this depend on the nature of the dig - i.e. if a few boulders were simply moved aside is this different to a blasted and shored shaft?
Should the BCA be getting legal advice on this sort of thing - in my view probably yes, and it should be published prior to the referendum.
Tony
Bob Mehew said:Re CRoW applying to dug entrances, I claim dug entrances are a means of access, see http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=17137.msg225933#msg225933 but I fear only the courts will resolve this question which will depend upon the specific case.
Bob,
Would it be fair to rephrase that as you saying you suspect in certain circumstances the courts will not consider dug entrances to be simply a means of access? If so I think I'd agree.
All that said the main concern I have is that post CRoW landowners are more likely to refuse to accept liability for digs, more likely to consult their legal and insurance advisers (legal advice is free of charge to members of the CLA) and no solicitor worth his salt is going to advise his client to accept liability when there is no real benefit to him, and no need to do so. Diggers and professional cavers will almost certainly find it more difficult to get permissions.
At the same time it seems possible we'll have a drawn out Angler/Canoeist scenario which will make things even worse.
All of this to get easier access to a few areas and access to a handful of caves currently closed.
Tony