What happens to liability if you go down a cave "illegally"? Another CROW point?

[richardg]

If my house burned down because the high powered lights that were looking after my pot plants in the cellar overheated and started a fire, my house policy would not pay out.

If I robbed my local post office and then sped away in my car whilst under hot pursuit by the police and then crashed into a lamppost, my car policy would not pay out.

I would be amazed if any insurance policy would cover someone who was effectively breaking the law.

Mark

I don't think it's that simple, the damage is not likely to be caused by the injured caver, so it's probably the rescuers insurance that is relevant.

Mark has put it very well....

Bottlebank........ Like many others I've read your postings on the subject of CROW ..... and your open intention to sway opinion..... however your statements are not backed up by concise hard facts,.... in fact your statements are discredited by the inclusion of such words as ......"probably" "presumably" "i think" and "I don't think"

This is an important issue which will have an everlasting bearing on our sport, caving, as well as those to follow us in future. as well as considering the livelihood of landowners on whose land our caves are situated

Mr Bottlebank you have set yourself up as The main speaker representing the NO CROW lobby...  If you continue to contribute....... could you please begin to substantiate your statements by actual facts.. and not assumption

Richard

 

[Peter Burgess]

It's a nonsensical way to continue a discussion if every time anyone expresses a thought, it gets shot down as unsubstantiated. Most intelligent discussions are not courts of law where every point has to be backed up by hard evidence. A good debate is an exchange of ideas, and a development of a theme. Too many good subjects on this forum get lost in a morass of pseudo legalistic nonsense. Why can we simply not say what we think, express alternatives, explore ideas and get on with each other. I am fed up with people rubbishing statements  and deliberately trying to polarise opinions, rather than have the courage to explore thoughts you may find uncomfortable, and then say what YOU think rather than tell other people how they should express their own thoughts. If people have the courage of their convictions they don't need to resort to negative comments. Their own standpoint should be strong enough to stand on its own merits, don't you think?

 

[Mark Wright]

You are right Bottlebank, its never that simple.

The problem is, the only way you'll find out what happens to liability if you go down a cave without permission and have an accident is go down a cave without permission and have an accident.

I was thinking more along the lines of the victim of the accident suing the person who dropped the boulder on him in the cave they were in without permission.

Mark

 

[Simon Wilson]

You are right Bottlebank, its never that simple.

The problem is, the only way you'll find out what happens to liability if you go down a cave without permission and have an accident is go down a cave without permission and have an accident.

I was thinking more along the lines of the victim of the accident suing the person who dropped the boulder on him in the cave they were in without permission.

Mark

I think that one caver suing another caver would be covered but you would not be insured for a claim against the owner if you were on his property without permission. But I am not able to substantiate that with quotes from the insurance documents or references to any authoritative sources so I am quite happy to be shot down. I think that most people reading this thread will be fed up of people saying 'I think' and will be happy to wait for a more informed opinion from our Insurance Officer.

 

[Simon Wilson]

It's a nonsensical way to continue a discussion if every time anyone expresses a thought, it gets shot down as unsubstantiated. Most intelligent discussions are not courts of law where every point has to be backed up by hard evidence. A good debate is an exchange of ideas, and a development of a theme. Too many good subjects on this forum get lost in a morass of pseudo legalistic nonsense. Why can we simply not say what we think, express alternatives, explore ideas and get on with each other. I am fed up with people rubbishing statements  and deliberately trying to polarise opinions, rather than have the courage to explore thoughts you may find uncomfortable, and then say what YOU think rather than tell other people how they should express their own thoughts. If people have the courage of their convictions they don't need to resort to negative comments. Their own standpoint should be strong enough to stand on its own merits, don't you think?

Chill out.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Sorry Simon. Deepest apologies for prompting such a comment.

 

[royfellows]

Trips were cancelled when this was not possible regardless of the locations being not gated or locked and generally being regarded as 'free access'.

And so? Are you advocating that we should all behave like this, regardless of what appears to be the accepted norm?

Not advocating anything, just telling it as it was and assuming that it was for a reason. I have to add that this was not new, trips way back at NAMHO 2000 were cancelled when 'proper' permission could not be obtained.

 

[Bob Mehew]

In NAMHO's case, I suspect the problem may well be that as NAMHO charge a fee for the weekend (if I recall correctly), then field trips could be construed as being 'commercial' and hence not covered by CRoW / ordinary rights of access.  Hence the desire to get 'proper' permission.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Having organised a NAMHO weekend myself, along with others, I can assure you that the "fee" covered the cost of meals, accommodation, speakers expenses, venue, and administration, and there were NO charges for trips. Although the NAMHO conference is nowadays much more a field trip fest, it does have at its core a conference, and this requires significant venue hire and all that goes with that. All trips we organised were done with the required permissions, and I think it is understood by all that organise such highly visible national events, often with a degree of local press visibility, that everything is not only above board, but seen to be above board. All delegates in our case were expected to have cover via BCA, or at least, in those days, take out the temporary cover that was available.