Insurers running orienteering

[greywolf]

Just read the latest BOF news.

Where is this? Can someone provide a link? I can't find it on the website

the requirement for ALL event officials to have attented an event safety workshop beforehand

I'm not convinved by the "we're all experts because we've been doing this for years" arguments: AFAICS some of the experts just make the same mistakes/bad practice over and over again, so I can see the value in regular refreshers for event officials and perhaps in insisting that at least one member of the event team has an up-to-date ticket. However, saying that everyone must have one, even for basic Level D events, seems over the top.

A practical consideration: what's the minimum age for attending an event safety workshop on your own? Some of our (very popular) two-course saturday league events have been planned by 10 - 12 year old juniors (with adult mentoring, event organisation and RA sign-off) and they've done a good job - sometimes as good as the "experts". Assuming they can get a day off school to go to a workshop will they need to take a parent?

[graeme]

... cover it ourselves. Rather than the national body being responsible and just going bust, it may be that it's the individual club or members that are the ones held liable if there was an incident (and they are not limited).

That's precisely why I said "and takes responsibility". I don't especially think BO are trying to divest liability to individuals, but its something I'm sufficiently worried about to pay attention.

[Marco Polo]

Just read the latest BOF news.

Where is this? Can someone provide a link? I can't find it on the website

It's here

https://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/ ... -02-05.pdf

[roadrunner]

Hence the need for a standardised online course!!

We're making a mountain out of a molehill here - the safety stuff is 95% common sense so a quick reminder is OK from time to time, but we really don't need a half day immersive classroom session except for the most devoted. Some of us have other things to do.

As a sport we seem to have managed to avoid any major accidents for 50 years without safety courses, so I think we'll continue to manage in future.

The coaching course I did for road running (Coach in Running Fitness to give it the official title) covered health and safety including risk assessments in an online module, you can see it here. Quite a lot would be equally applicable to orienteering. I wonder whether orienteering has the same policy of recording accidents (whether or not they resulted in an insurance claim, or had any chance of doing so) and incidents ("near misses"). If so, this would give extra information to insurers on how changes to the "claims culture" would affect their liability - if there isn't an accident, there can't be a claim.

I also wonder whether BO has invited the potential insurers to observe and participate in an event - perhaps being taken round a short technical course by a proficient orienteer and trying a less technical one on their own. This would give them a better understanding of what the sport is about - picking your own route, importance of an accurate map, etc - than they could ever get from meetings and reading. In particular it might help them appreciate that, when orienteers talk about an inaccurate map, they mean things like a knoll being 50m out or surrounded by other unmapped ones rather than a busy road or 20m crag being left out - in other words, no real safety impact.

[JK]

... cover it ourselves. Rather than the national body being responsible and just going bust, it may be that it's the individual club or members that are the ones held liable if there was an incident (and they are not limited).

That's precisely why I said "and takes responsibility". I don't especially think BO are trying to divest liability to individuals, but its something I'm sufficiently worried about to pay attention.

From what I recall of the ESW I attended it is indeed the Organiser who has responsibility and liability - not the Club and not the NGB. Likewise in a training session it is the Coach who has this responsibility and liability.

Can someone confirm this? Feel free to throw in useful phrases like "in loco parentis" or "Duty of Care".

[Electrocuted]

... cover it ourselves. Rather than the national body being responsible and just going bust, it may be that it's the individual club or members that are the ones held liable if there was an incident (and they are not limited).

That's precisely why I said "and takes responsibility". I don't especially think BO are trying to divest liability to individuals, but its something I'm sufficiently worried about to pay attention.

From what I recall of the ESW I attended it is indeed the Organiser who has responsibility and liability - not the Club and not the NGB. Likewise in a training session it is the Coach who has this responsibility and liability.

Can someone confirm this? Feel free to throw in useful phrases like "in loco parentis" or "Duty of Care".

Well, for me, two kids are enough so I really don't want to be in loco parentis to anyone else thanks.

Anyone can be liable to anyone else for any act where it can be shown that that person owed the injured person a duty of care. To me this could be any individual involved in an orienteering event (including other participants), the organiser, controller or planner, the club, the governing body, the landowner (which is why they often look for an indemnity)....the list goes on.

This is why insurance is a necessity. In other sports where there has been a fatality, fatal accident inquiries have pulled apart the whole risk assessment, planning, instruction and organisation process. Any defects in this system may produce a finding that the fatality would not have occurred if reasonable steps had been taken to avoid these defects.

Such a finding at a fatal accident inquiry could then be founded upon in a civil case.

Showing that BOF required all organisers, planners and controllers to attend an event safety workshop is one way of showing that people are being brought up to date in safety issues. Saying a person has 'X' years experience doesn't really cut it as there's nothing tangible that can be examined.

[DaveR]

Such a finding at a fatal accident inquiry could then be founded upon in a civil case.

Showing that BOF required all organisers, planners and controllers to attend an event safety workshop is one way of showing that people are being brought up to date in safety issues. Saying a person has 'X' years experience doesn't really cut it as there's nothing tangible that can be examined.

How about BOF requiring that there is one person responsible for the overall safety (currently the organiser) and they have had to have had the training. This is equally tangible and can be examined. This would seem perfectly reasonable to me, and would be less onerous on volunteers than requiring that all three officials be trained.

There is a huge difference between something being desirable and making it a requirement. Making it a requirement by definition means that it has to happen absolutely every time.

[Electrocuted]

if it's desirable but not a requirement then it's unlikely that people will bother. Which then means something considered desirable is not being complied with.

I agree it's a nuisance with level d events where we are trying to encourage newcomers to do their bit but if you think about it, these are the events that are most likely to take place in local parks and therefore most likely to come into contact with members of the public. Members of the local public are probably more likely to make a claim than an orienteer. Also level D events don't need a controller and the organiser and planner are normally the same person so it's important that that person is aware of the risks.

For people with years and years of experience think about how society has changed in the last 30 years. What was acceptable 30 years ago is not acceptable now. Workplace accidents were commonplace then. Safety standards move on and surely asking people to attend one session is not too much.

[graeme]

lawyerly stuff

I don't doubt that if something went wrong a legal professional could find holes in whatever scheme we had. In fact, I would fear that the more requirements we put in place, the more likely it is that an organiser will overlook one and be more likely to lose a case.
But I wonder, has there actually been a case where a civil judgement went against a volunteer and they were saved significant damages by their sport's insurance?

There's a lengthy rant here, which ends up in the place where I started. Limited liability.
http://fellrunner.org.uk/articles/insurance.htm

[Electrocuted]

lawyerly stuff

But I wonder, has there actually been a case where a civil judgement went against a volunteer and they were saved significant damages by their sport's insurance?

I'm not sure about a judgement as most will have been settled out of court but yes, volunteers have been found to be part of a system that led to injury/death and therefore damages have been paid.

Cases will be raised against several parties so it's difficult to say that the volunteer would have been liable for 100% of the damages as opposed to club/governing body but I'm happy to have the benefit of insurance.

[pete.owens]

But I wonder, has there actually been a case where a civil judgement went against a volunteer and they were saved significant damages by their sport's insurance?

Extremely unlikely. (and what we are now discussing is not the "compensation culture" but the "extreme paranoia about being sued culture" that sooner or later seems to overtake any discussion on safety - and indeed any workplace safety training course)

In order to justify the huge legal expenses of making a claim in the first place you would need to be sure that the person or organisation you were claiming against had the means to settle - and any solicitor acting for you would want to be satisfied that their bill was going to be paid before taking on the case. This means that in practice no individual without insurance will ever be sued - in the same way that if you get hit by an uninsured driver it is not worth persuing them as an individual.

The reason we need insurance is not so much to protect ourselves, but to ensure that we have the means to meet our obligations should an orienteering event result in damage to property or harm to an individual. Given the low risk nature of orienteering insurance should be fairly cheap - I would be interested to know exactly how much the "claimed "significant" saving on the premium as a result of preventing untrained volunteers from acting as planners would amount to. 5p on the levy perhaps?

[pete.owens]

if it's desirable but not a requirement then it's unlikely that people will bother. Which then means something considered desirable is not being complied with.

But people are bothering. Most of our clubs regular commited organisers have been to workshops.

I agree it's a nuisance with level d events where we are trying to encourage newcomers to do their bit

It is more than a nuisance - it will be a complete barrier to recruiting new officials.

but if you think about it, these are the events that are most likely to take place in local parks and therefore most likely to come into contact with members of the public. Members of the local public are probably more likely to make a claim than an orienteer.

A claim for what exactly?

Also level D events don't need a controller and the organiser and planner are normally the same person so it's important that that person is aware of the risks.

All events need the risk assesment to be reviewd by someone who has been to a workshop. The quality control for the courses is optional at these events, but oversight of the safety aspects of the event is mandatory.

For people with years and years of experience think about how society has changed in the last 30 years. What was acceptable 30 years ago is not acceptable now. Workplace accidents were commonplace then. Safety standards move on and surely asking people to attend one session is not too much.

But we are volunteers not employees.
My emploter requires me to undergo repeat training on use of visual display equipment every 3 years (that is fine they are paying for my time) - We are not going to do that for the results team, nor are we going to provide them with fully adjustable chairs, footrests, adjustable screens, protect them from the glare of the sun and so on. They will be sitting in a cold tent on camping chairs operating laptops.

[Electrocuted]

Claims from the public could come for anything:- damage to property, personal injury etc. If they are injured by an orienteer, or as a result of the way a course has been set up etc then they could have a claim.

Yes it's normally only people who have insurance who are sued, but there's nothing to stop people without insurance being sued. Do you like owning a house?

The reason people without car insurance are rarely sued is because the Motor Insurance Bureau exists. They settle claims for uninsured drivers.

As for being volunteers rather than employees, these distinctions are becoming blurred. The standards required of either are high. Look at the CPD requirements for coaches.

[maprun]

It takes a matter of minutes to estimate the net worth of a home owner. Many legal claims are taken on a no fees basis, with the legal firm, if successful, taking an increased multiplier of their normal fees for their risk of losing the claim.

I'm no expert, but I assume reasonable care is based on what other reasonable people do. If it is becoming normal to undertake training and publish risks in advance, then hopefully those and other steps would be taken into account when assessing if reasonable care has been taken. Accidents will happen, but ignoring what is currently becoming more normal practice might unfortunately be viewed as less than reasonable.

[roadrunner]

lawyerly stuff

I don't doubt that if something went wrong a legal professional could find holes in whatever scheme we had. In fact, I would fear that the more requirements we put in place, the more likely it is that an organiser will overlook one and be more likely to lose a case.
But I wonder, has there actually been a case where a civil judgement went against a volunteer and they were saved significant damages by their sport's insurance?

There's a lengthy rant here, which ends up in the place where I started. Limited liability.
http://fellrunner.org.uk/articles/insurance.htm

Interesting item in that article:

It was interesting to see the letter written by the walker who was manhandled during the Borrowdale race, in the last Fellrunner. Assume for a moment that as a result of the push, he had fallen and been injured. The liability for this would have been on the organiser and the walker could very easily have sued. However, this does pose more questions.

As the injury would have been as a result of a deliberate action, the push from the runner, would the race insurance cover have still held. Or could the situation have been that the insurance company would refuse to pay out and the race organiser would have to personally pay any resulting damages.

If the individual runner could be traced could he have been sued by the injured party. Here, a reminder that the individual competitor is not covered by event insurance. Any resulting claims against the runner would have to be met by the runner's own insurance. If the insurance doesn't cover it, well …….. back to what I was saying about the organiser above.

Also if injury did result because of a deliberate action, could the runner then be criminally prosecuted for assault.

Definitely seems a misinterpretation to me (not that I'm an expert). Competitors are covered by both BO's and UKA's policies (restriction of 3 events for non-members in the case of BO). If one of them deliberately pushed someone and that person sued the competitor, then certainly the insurance wouldn't pay out because it excludes deliberate acts - and I don't think any insurance could protect anyone against a criminal prosecution for their actions. But I can't see how you could ever consider a deliberate act by a competitor to be a deliberate act by the organiser (unless he specifically told competitors to behave in that way), nor something that any reasonable risk assessment would address. So I would have thought that any claim against the event, club or organiser would certainly be covered.

The other point that I thought strange was that he apparently believed that the landowners could restrict their liability by means of a legal agreement with the organiser (even though any claims would be from the public or competitors), whereas the organiser couldn't gain similar protection by disclaimers on the entry form.