"At Your Own Risk....."

[johnloguk]

The Warwick thread has started down this line so I thought it warranted a separate thread. Regarding the discussion about crossing busy roads in City Races, I worry that it is only a matter of time before someone is hit by a car. Hopefully the person won't be badly hurt, and hopefully it will be dealt with appropriately, but does anyone else share my concerns that maybe the latter won't happen?

I'm the sort of person who always blames myself if I run into a tree, or trips up, sprains an ankle etc. I know that most orienteers are the same. If we tripped over a raised paving slab in town we would first worry if anyone saw us, and then berate ourselves for not looking where we were going. But not everyone takes such a philosophical view, and their first port of call is a solicitor with the promise of compensation. How far off is that in orienteering, especially in a city race?

We hope to attract new people, who won't be used to the "run at your own risk" mentality in the forests. I know many solicitors who think that running at your own risk is a legal non starter anyway, and who feel that compensation is there waiting for someone greedy enough to try for it. I hate the compensation culture and the type of people it encourages, and I don't want to sound all negative. But anyone who thinks I am worrying over nothing, should remember that people have recieved huge amounts because they weren't sufficiently warned that a hot apple pie would be hot, and that a packet of peanuts might have contained traces of nuts! I can just imagine a Daily Mail headline; "child killed while crossing a busy road reading a map, how was this allowed to happen?"

There will be more city races in the future, and more people will take part in them. An accident will happen, just as they do in the forests. I know that all clubs will take appropriate steps to make the races safe, but you can't legislate for the competitor that thinks he/she can make it between those 2 cars and save a few seconds. Or the runner that didn't see the motor bike through the sweat in their eyes, or the one that trips on the edge of the kerb while glancing at their map and falls into the road etc. God forbid that all road crossings have to be marshalled/timed, or that juniors courses become restrictive and boring, but we might be forced into those corners by the powers that be.

I can't offer simple solutions. Races must continue to be planned and organised as safely as possible, but the main responsibility is with us, the competitors. We must stick to the concept of "at our own risk" and make sure that newcomers fully understand it and the reasons for it. Those of us that are parents must instil basic safety into our children, and God forbid, if one of them gets hurt we must resist the urge to look for someone else to blame. Am I being too pessimistic?

[Mrs H]

Interesting line of thought John - and i wonder if I might slightly hijack the thread (or broaden it) to include some thoughts on the new BOF insurance requirements. We must all now collect information on whether people are members of BOF at ALL events incluiding C5s as well as city races and training events etc. anyone who is not has to have a 50p day insurance fee paid. As I understand it - BOF are paying the 50p (correct me if i'm wrong on that) but I'm still not clear on the ramifications of this. For instance. when a family go round a MADO course I only charge one fee (if they are only using one map and one di**er)no matter how many people there are - do i now have to know how many people are in the group and will they be insured separately. All of a sudden there is a lot more information to be caputered by my hard pressed registration team.

Have any nopers got the full story on the insurance situation?

[greywolf]

There's a couple of useful documents on insurance on the BOF website: insurance summary and insurance faqs

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/d ... ntinfo.php

main point (as I understand it) is that the insurance exists to protect BOF and its members (plus non-members if they are recorded) from being sued by other people

it says contact Laura Young on 01629 734042 re questions on the BOF policy

I agree entirely with John's endorsement of "at your own risk" - the whole business of insurance / liability / risk assessment /compensation has gone completely insane, and unfortunately it's not about safety, it's all about fear of being sued - classic examples being those secondary schools where no external activities can be undertaken without pages and pages of risk assessments, disclosures, etc, etc, yet for 60 minutes every lunchtime the kids are turned out to roam the town and the school abdicates responsibility completely.

One day a judge will turn on a claimant and say "OK, I will accept that you did not realise that pack of peanuts might contain nuts, and will grant you damages of £100. However, you are clearly a complete moron and I hereby disqualify you from voting / raising a family, etc, etc" - but as they're mostly senile muppets themselves we may have some time to wait

sorry rant over. think i need to log off and go for a run in a forest

[johnloguk]

sorry rant over. think i need to log off and go for a run in a forest

Ha ha, that might not work. I went for a run at lunchtime and it was that that formulated my original post. Towards the end of the run I went through a nature reserve and an old quarry, a beautiful way to end a run actually. But I was reminded of what happened when our club approached the authorities about mapping the area for orienteering, it's small but beautifully formed

We were told "no", unless we stuck to a rule that no one would ever go within 40m of the old rock faces. The logic was that these cliffs were unstable and that you could be hit by falling rocks up to 40 m away. The fact that local kids/dogwalkers/runners go all over this area, including scrambling up the crags, counted for nothing. Part of my run went up a well worn diagonal path up through the crags, and it is perfectly safe. As Greywolf says, it is all about avoiding being sued. Ironically, the quarry owners, The Church Commission, have plans to build 1500 houses in the quarry, and I bet they'll be closer than 40m from the cliffs!! Priorities eh

[RJ]

johnloguk you raise an interesting line of thought.

Quite a few years ago our night series of Thursday evening events used to include a fair number of street events. We stopped using street venues for a few reasons but one of them was on safety grounds. Granted, running at night is a little more dangerous and accident prone.... but you do have a light on your head. However, one person ran into a car door that had just been opened as they ran along the sidewalk(!!).... OK, pavement, and this was enough to start sounding alarm bells.

Now, who says that running on the fell or through forests at night is any safer, but the 'actual' risk is different and it would appear that it was enough to alter the club's thinking. Running across a road while taking part in a competition is also a different sort of 'actual' risk and may be perceived as such in litigation. Miscalculating the number of steps on a stairs and falling on your face is different.

I am sure there will be considerable debate if it ever happens.... and fingers are crossed that it never does. Our natural sense for self preservation is very strong!!

[roadrunner]

Picking up on Mrs H's point, it does all sound a bit OTT to me. Looking at the FAQs on the BOF web site, what the 50p does (if I understand correctly) is to cover the non-member for a claim made by someone else against them - for example, if they accidentally damage something or trip someone up and injure them. But a normal household policy tends to include this (at least, every one I've had does), and that cover seems to extend to family members in most circumstances, so why is it necessary for the BOF insurance to cover them as well? As far as claims against the event and its officials are concerned, they're covered by the BOF policy anyway.

I know it probably makes life easier in the event of a claim if everyone (organiser, planner, competitor) is covered by the same policy, though if there's other insurance cover as well the two companies are likely to argue about who pays how much. And what about family/friends who turn up and don't run? They aren't covered by the BOF policy in any case, but could just as easily be subject to a claim.

[Oldman]

I would hazard a guess that a landowner will wish to be sure that risks eg to his land, his woods and items on his land such as walls and fences are covered by appropriate insurance. He won't have that certainty if he is to depend on runners who are not members having appropriate insurance.

[Scott]

Actually, the main concern from the colleges I approached for permissions for this year's Oxford race was not so much damage to their grounds as the risk of them being sued if a competitor tripped over on their land and hurt themselves. Most of them were assuaged when I passed on the BOF insurance documents to them and convinced them that we were more likely to be liable as organisers than they were as landowners - though one college, who will remain nameless, have twice declined to give us permission on the basis that their buildings have "too many sharp corners" - but in the current litigious climate this remains a problem, for urban races in particular. Nobody's going to sue the Forestry Commission if they trip over a root, but it'd be mighty tempting to sue the owner of a potholed driveway, and this fact isn't going to make life any easier for the organisers of future urban events.

I'm not a legal expert (any lawyers out there able to shed some real light on this?), but my understanding is that "you do x at your own risk" statements aren't worth the paper that they're written on - if it can be shown that you, as organiser, are liable for something that went wrong, or failed to take adequate precautions or to give competitors adequate warning of the risks (cue start-lane reminders that Traffic Is Dangerous), then you can expect to be sued. Fortunately, we're all nicely covered by BOF insurance, but this certainly doesn't make such a scenario any more desirable, and johnloguk makes a valid point about the potential negative publicity if something does go horribly wrong in an urban race. I've already had a couple of pleading emails from people unhappy that we're not letting M/W14s run the "city" courses at Oxford, but we as an event team felt that both the advice of the City Council and our own safety concerns dictated that we had to draw the line somewhere, and we did not feel comfortable being (partially?) responsible for twelve-year-olds crossing a busy main road whilst looking at a map in a race situation. The parents of established orienteering families would doubtless be able to judge for themselves whether their children could run such a course safely, and would be sensible enought to stress the importance of road-safety awareness before letting them set off, but the same may not apply to those coming to their first event.

There's no doubt that city races are an excellent way to attract new people in to the sport, but at the same time it's vitally important that they realise that, whilst orienteering, they need to employ a bit of common sense and take some responsibility for their own actions. But, until we find a way to make sure that they do this, I would personally prefer to err on the side of caution.

[johnloguk]

Nobody's going to sue the Forestry Commission if they trip over a root

I reckon if a canny (s**thole!) lawyer wanted to they could successfully sue for a root if it was on a path and there weren't huge signs everywhere to remind people to watch out for them, or something stating that paths are "uneven" etc. Common sense has nothing to do with it once these guys get their teeth into something.

[lincolnsteve]

I've already had a couple of pleading emails from people unhappy that we're not letting M/W14s run the "city" courses at Oxford

Interestingly we had the very same situation at Lincoln. The Council Safety Group told us 16 & under were to run the junior course (bit harsh maybe but we had to follow their guidelines) We too had a few emails and replied explaining the situation. One family were not happy with this and told us they were more than happy their 16 yr old son was more than able to compete in the open. We again stressed the reason why and the junior was moved to the junior course. On race day I see the young lad start, run to the A course box, pick up a map and run as fast as he could away. This kind of attitude to safety and the risk of a club being stopped from putting on future events is out of order and just shows how bloody minded some people can be. Unfortunately our controller was a little more lenient that I wanted to be and only D/C him.

the quarry owners, The Church Commission, have plans to build 1500 houses in the quarry

Interesting - 50ft stone sides, stone base - one very large swimming pool!

[Rookie]

God forbid that all road crossings have to be marshalled/timed

I'd say that's more of a risk, since then you having a person responsible for saying when it is safe to cross the road. If they get it wrong have they been negligent? much better to leave it at the competitors discretion. I really don't like marshalling roads for that reason (an event I was asked to do a road for even had it in the final details that it would be marshalled to ensure children cross safely)

The UWOC exec have to do a high-risk duty of care course each year (along with MTB, canoeing, skiing activities, ie. lots of time spent outside of organised competition, when we have more in common with cross-country who aren't considered high risk...). At your own risk means nothing, as do waivers. Organisers have duty of care to reduce risk(eg. identify potential hazards and do something to minimise risk), but "At Your Own Risk" is still a good statement to have to to remind people to take care. I don't think organisers could be held responsible for anything outside their control , and in orienteering we never require a competitor to take the dangerous route, there will be safer alternatives (eg. not climbing the crag, go round, or use the pedestrian crossing) that competitors could choose to take.

[ER]

A general principle of law is that liability cannot be excluded for death or personal injury when the cause of the death or personal injury is caused by negligence. No disclaimer can therefore exclude liability in these circumstances. The law of tort affords those under English and Welsh jurisdiction (they do it different in Scotland) protection against harm to a variety of interests including harm to one's person. "The primary function of the law of tort is to define the circumstances in which a person whose interests are harmed by another may seek compensation." Hepple and Jackson. Tort law says that we owe a duty of care to each other. A higher duty is owed to those who may have difficulty identifying risk and danger such as children.

Much of the discussion has centered on the liability of the organisers to competitors who may be injured. What about the liability of the individual competitor to a person with whom they may collide accidentally or the motorist who having knocked down a runner who was not watching where they are going sues the competitor for personal injury having suffered a post traumatic stress syndrome. Would the organiser or the individual competitor be liable?

It is highly unlikely such events would occur and I do not intend to cause anxiety or concern. Johnloguk made an excellent point about the bad publicity that could ensue from an untoward accident. Many moons ago I had to advise on ensuring the safety of competitors, spectators and all concerned in the World Tri Champs. The liability to the organiser and also the bad publicity that could follow from an accident was uppermost in my client's mind.

I and the family are dedicated sprint orienteers. I want to see this aspect of the sport flourish and succeed as it is doing. I think that what has been done so far by organisers in ensuring our safety is excellent. The best way to avoid risk is to minimise it as much as possible. That is why I partly disagree with Awk's post that he prefers to make the assessment of risk. It is difficult to do that unless the hazards are known and the only persons who do know that before the course is revealed are the organisers and planners. I therefore was happy to accept their assessment that my 16 year old should not run at Lincon and York in the open race. However I also agree with Awk that where the planner and organiser has evaluated the risks as at Warwick and decided it is ok for 16- to run in the open, it is still incumbent on the parent and each of us to make our own assessment, take appropriate measures such as consciously telling any youngsters in our care and oursleves to be careful crossing roads etc. and then go an enjoy the race. I see it as a technique of sprint orienteering to learn how to be safe and not endanger others. Not sure I have learnt it though.

Finally I must include a disclaimer. The above are the views of the writer and no reliance must be placed on them. They do not constitute legal or other advice.

[EddieH]

Rookie, you make a good point about passing responsibility to the road marshall.

In the massive street event attached to WMOC in Wienner Neustadt the police (or was it military) had the job of stopping the traffic for the runners. I was aghast at one fortunately relatively minor road crossing. Runners were pouring down a narrow lane and straight across this marshalled road. The very insecure young marshall would see a runner coming and step gingerly one foot into the road - no hand signals, and needless to say the cars ignored him. The more he was ignored the more timid he became. In the 2 minutes I was there I saw a few slammed brakes and it was a miracle that no-one was hurt.

Marshalling in a forest event with a distinct crossing point is sensible - I simply don't see it as practicle in town races. And as the above shows, if competitors think that traffic is being stopped, it really has to be done. There was a main road crossing immediately after a control so that everyone crossed in the same place. It was a normal pedestrian crossing point and was marshalled by two very efficient officers who stopped all traffic when arunner was approaching - that was safe but utterly dependent on the competence and legal uniform of the marshalls.

[Gonzo]

Interestingly we had the very same situation at Lincoln. The Council Safety Group told us 16 & under were to run the junior course (bit harsh maybe but we had to follow their guidelines) We too had a few emails and replied explaining the situation. One family were not happy with this and told us they were more than happy their 16 yr old son was more than able to compete in the open. We again stressed the reason why and the junior was moved to the junior course. On race day I see the young lad start, run to the A course box, pick up a map and run as fast as he could away. This kind of attitude to safety and the risk of a club being stopped from putting on future events is out of order and just shows how bloody minded some people can be. Unfortunately our controller was a little more lenient that I wanted to be and only D/C him.

.........and now we can all go to the LOG web site and see that there were 3 M16s prsent at the race - all very competent and experienced orienteers. Two correctly followed the rules, one didn't. Something (someone) for future organisers to watch out for !!! Jeopardising the whole future of a race (or with enough bad publicity a series) is not acceptable.

[FatBoy]

I've mentioned this before, but I think it's relevant to chip in again. While has been pointed out, you cannot disclaim against personal injury or death, or negligence on the part of the organiser, you can make sure the competitor is aware of the risks. It's the orienteering equivalent of "Contents may be hot" or "May contain nuts". I personally think "You compete at your own risk" is a legal nothing. You can't say it's at one's own risk when you're not saying what the risks are, and you've no proof that any individual competitor has read it anyway.

Within Slalom when you apply for your race bib for the year, and whenever you enter a race, you (or Parent/Guardian if U18) sign to say that you know what the risks are. It basically means that when little Johnny gets injured on a rock, the prosecution cannot say that little Johnny's parents weren't told there were going to be rocks.

So while it may pain us to have to sign an "Assumed Risk" statement on entry to a city race, stating that we are aware there will be live traffic etc, I think it's a 21st century necessity. I think BOF should work with their insurers to come up with a standard one for urban and one for non-urban, so that means us regular competitors don't have to read it each time, and organisers won't have to have the worry of wording it correctly for each race. I suggest looking at the slalom one is a good place to start. Now if only I could find the full version...