Bear Grylls lawsuit
Discussion
Be interesting to see what,if anything comes of this...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15598087/mum-shatter...
Surely all entrants would have signed a disclaimer befere starting? if she wins her case would that not set a legal precedence for a disclaimer being a waste of time?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15598087/mum-shatter...
Surely all entrants would have signed a disclaimer befere starting? if she wins her case would that not set a legal precedence for a disclaimer being a waste of time?
Saleen836 said:
Be interesting to see what,if anything comes of this...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15598087/mum-shatter...
Surely all entrants would have signed a disclaimer befere starting? if she wins her case would that not set a legal precedence for a disclaimer being a waste of time?
No, because you can’t use a disclaimer to remove statutory rights. You cannot cover negligence with a disclaimer.https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15598087/mum-shatter...
Surely all entrants would have signed a disclaimer befere starting? if she wins her case would that not set a legal precedence for a disclaimer being a waste of time?
Wether the company running this was negligent or failed in their statutory duties. This seems to hinge on wether appropriate instructions were needed or given, and if there was appropriate mitigation in place.
Terminator X said:
When I ran Tough Guy there were 50k volt cables all over the place. Tad painful to be fair with no thought of a law suit on my part. As someone else mentioned we did sign a "death warrant" first so perhaps would have been unable to sue anyway.
TX.
I don't think you can ever legally waive liability for gross negligence though, say if any of the obstacles were designed to be purposefully dangerous rather than just uncomfortable.TX.
Don Roque said:
It was a survival race, it was meant to be tough. Funny that everyone else that day either passed the obstacle safely or dropped out safely.
This is my view tbh. I don’t do certain events activities or sports as I think there’s an increased chance of injuring myself. I expect whether she can sue or not depends on what steps were taken by the organisers and if they were viewed to be negligent. My daughter broke her arm on Monkey bars on holiday, that was just in a play park not some bear grylls survival obstacle course. No we didn’t try to sue anyone.
Our local “gladiator” race got the same treatment, Bear is nowt special nor unusual.
The local race to us was run by a fairly average bloke and the resultant law suit nearly ruined him (maybe did, I’m not aware).
It’s a shame but if someone breaks their back on your obstacle course unfortunately you’re liable, just as I would be if one of my lads fell off a dodgy scaffold or one of the girls electrocuted themselves on a frayed wire on a ill looked after hairdryer.
Of course some personal responsibility must be accounted for, but no one who signs up for a tough mudder/total wipeout type of thing does so with the thoughts they may get paralysed.
The local race to us was run by a fairly average bloke and the resultant law suit nearly ruined him (maybe did, I’m not aware).
It’s a shame but if someone breaks their back on your obstacle course unfortunately you’re liable, just as I would be if one of my lads fell off a dodgy scaffold or one of the girls electrocuted themselves on a frayed wire on a ill looked after hairdryer.
Of course some personal responsibility must be accounted for, but no one who signs up for a tough mudder/total wipeout type of thing does so with the thoughts they may get paralysed.
Smoggy XJR said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
It’s a shame but if someone breaks their back on your obstacle course unfortunately you’re liable,
AFAIK you're only liable if someone can prove negligence.Otherwise who’d ever build a play park or actually anything where someone could possibly get injured.
A friend ran swimming classes in her own swimming pool. There were strict rules regarding poolside behaviour, and what they could and could no do, imposed by her insurance company after a risk assessment, but she knew that if anyone was injured, they would sue - this in Surrey, so the place was full of lawyers - but she was covered. Or so she thought.
Students, who did not have mobility issues, were allowed to park their cars in a particular car park on the instructor's land. The route from the pool to the car park ran through a rather pretty terraced garden, with broad steps leading down. There were railings either side on the steps part, with gaps between the railings to allow access to a narrow paved path through the gardens for gardening. There were signs to say, 'Keep to the path' and 'Do not run'.
A woman decided that it would shave a few feet from the walk to her car if she went along the narrow (brick-width) path for gardening. She had walked past two signs saying stick to the path and one do not run on the way out, and at least three of the former and two of the latter on the way in.
She slipped on the path because, she maintained, there was damp earth on the narrow path. She lost the ability to apply for jobs for some months.
She sued, and, despite admitting she had hurried, my friend was advised to settle out of court because her insurance reckoned they didn't want to know as they hadn't been informed of the risks of the path. The odd things is that, because there was a chance the claim would not succeed, it made settling OOC economically a reasonable option. Had she fought and lost, it would have been crippling.
My friend gave up on teaching as her insurance premium would be too high to cover everywhere students might wander. She sold up and moved.
Disabled people were her main clients. They have had to find alternative solutions.
Students, who did not have mobility issues, were allowed to park their cars in a particular car park on the instructor's land. The route from the pool to the car park ran through a rather pretty terraced garden, with broad steps leading down. There were railings either side on the steps part, with gaps between the railings to allow access to a narrow paved path through the gardens for gardening. There were signs to say, 'Keep to the path' and 'Do not run'.
A woman decided that it would shave a few feet from the walk to her car if she went along the narrow (brick-width) path for gardening. She had walked past two signs saying stick to the path and one do not run on the way out, and at least three of the former and two of the latter on the way in.
She slipped on the path because, she maintained, there was damp earth on the narrow path. She lost the ability to apply for jobs for some months.
She sued, and, despite admitting she had hurried, my friend was advised to settle out of court because her insurance reckoned they didn't want to know as they hadn't been informed of the risks of the path. The odd things is that, because there was a chance the claim would not succeed, it made settling OOC economically a reasonable option. Had she fought and lost, it would have been crippling.
My friend gave up on teaching as her insurance premium would be too high to cover everywhere students might wander. She sold up and moved.
Disabled people were her main clients. They have had to find alternative solutions.
El stovey said:
Smoggy XJR said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
It’s a shame but if someone breaks their back on your obstacle course unfortunately you’re liable,
AFAIK you're only liable if someone can prove negligence.Otherwise who’d ever build a play park or actually anything where someone could possibly get injured.
Run down a hill, fall and break your back, more fool you.
Pay £££ to enter a professionally ran course that should have been designed without danger to life or serious injury?
Attention w
es want the Facebook likes for donning some camo and raising some money. They expect some fun colour bombs to be thrown at them, a few tough and muddy exercises, not to be in traction for months.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff