UK Injury Claim

[+t.a.folk]

We are very pleased your nightmare has finished ?

 

It seems to us that we are not the only people who are relieved for you but left anxious about what it was about the cache that prompted the claim.

[+sTeamTraen]

A pain in the bum I know, but once the 'other side' realise that you're not going to be a push over (and won't be forking out thousands to defend yourself) they more often than not give up. It's just one those things that no one thinks they will ever need until it's too late.

 

I think I read somewhere that McDonald's started contesting all the suits against them - including ones where they knew they were going to get hammered - because it was cheaper than all the out-of-court, "please have some money and go away and be quiet" settlements.

 

Concerning the post about disclaimers being an admission of a problem: an ex-colleague of mine is quite big in freestyle skiing and has been all round the world checking out facilities. He told me that in the US, it's common for a ski resort to have no padding at all on the pylons holding up the lifts (skiers will know what I mean; in Europe you have several feet of padding covered in fluorescent plastic). Apparently, the established case law is that if you hit the bare pylon and kill yourself, it's your fault, whereas if they pad it, they are admitting that it's dangerous, so if you hit it and need emergency surgery on your perm, you have a chance of successfully sueing them.

[+Trucker Lee]

Great news!!!

 

Of course, we all knew the claim was bogus. Still, got to be a weight off your back. Congrats.

[+davy boy]

A pain in the bum I know, but once the 'other side' realise that you're not going to be a push over (and won't be forking out thousands to defend yourself) they more often than not give up. It's just one those things that no one thinks they will ever need until it's too late.

 

I think I read somewhere that McDonald's started contesting all the suits against them - including ones where they knew they were going to get hammered - because it was cheaper than all the out-of-court, "please have some money and go away and be quiet" settlements.

 

Concerning the post about disclaimers being an admission of a problem: an ex-colleague of mine is quite big in freestyle skiing and has been all round the world checking out facilities. He told me that in the US, it's common for a ski resort to have no padding at all on the pylons holding up the lifts (skiers will know what I mean; in Europe you have several feet of padding covered in fluorescent plastic). Apparently, the established case law is that if you hit the bare pylon and kill yourself, it's your fault, whereas if they pad it, they are admitting that it's dangerous, so if you hit it and need emergency surgery on your perm, you have a chance of successfully sueing them.

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

Just the same as finding a cache,you read the cache page and decide weather its your type of cache,if not you leave it.

If you accept to find it,its on your head and if anything happens don't come whinging and get on with it!!!!

 

Glad it all turned out well.

[+Simply Paul]

Glad to hear there's a happy ending to a sad story. I hope it's a long long time 'til there's a sequal...

[+NickandAliandEliza]

pay about £7 a month via the Pol Fed and also about £5 a month for one that covers us when the Pol Fed one doesn't.

 

Quite apart from the irony of having a cheaper insurance policy to pay for the eventuality that the more expensive policy doesn't cover you, do you believe that being doubly insured makes you a bigger or smaller target for the "compensation" racketeers?

 

......no real point in going into the ins and outs.

 

Who will know what we have until they try it on?

[+ANDYBUG&LADYBIRD]

Thats great news Nick, have you got your Gps out of the loft yet?...................

[+Happy Humphrey]

Sounds like good news, although like most others I've no idea what happened except that a geocacher tried to claim that another geocacher set up a cache negligently..? Should we be worried that this will happen more often? Is there anything we should pay special attention to when setting a cache, or should we simply ensure that there is no way of identifying the cache owner..?

What I'm saying is that it would be useful to know the circumstances so that we can learn from the incident.

[+Beds Clangers]

Hi all,

 

Cache in question was called Curious Beds 4, 1.5/1.5 Multi and was hidden at head height in a old split tree, nothing fantastic about it and I'm sure you have all done many similar caches. The individual claimed to have broken their ankle while trying to retreive it. They contacted the landowner, private individual, who had my details from when the cache was placed. The rest I think you can guess!!! Cache had been found by a few others with no real issues.

 

Basis of the claim, was that I failed in my duty of care by placing the cache (they called it a box) in a dangerous location. We had a short letter exchange with the claims company, I have a friend who is a solicitor, which really helped. The actual accident happened in April 2006 but the claim only arrived in late August 2006.

 

Told our UK admin (Peter) about this who contacted GC.com for me. I had to have the cache totally removed from GC.com as the claims company were actually quoting details from it.

 

With the help of Bryan Roth of GC.com, who happens to be USA lawyer, we explained the basics of caching and that it is a hobby just like rambling and there are risks which the cache seeker accepts in using GC.com data. We simple got a letter which stated that the claims company "will not pursue" this claim any further.

 

They then tried a spurious claim against the landowner which again failed. This secondary "claim" really got to me and was the reason for my original "post" to disappear. Feeling very fed up with caching I did disable my caches but after the claim against the landowner was resolved very quickly, I enabled most of them.

 

It would be almost impossible for this indivdual to prove that they actually sustained this injury at the cache location and didn't simply slip on a nearby stile or trip over a log. I've been back to the cache location to remove it and I cannot see how this happened unless they actually climbed up the tree and fell out of it!!!

 

Obviously the injured person had some knowledge of caching as the landowner was asked who placed the cache on his land. All I know about them is that they were a couple, they visited the landowner but said nothing about the claim. I still don't know who they are as they were never named in any letters just as "our client".

 

Not much more to say really. I think most of you will agree that I just happened to be the cacher this "person" decided to have a go at and FAILED!!

 

Regards

 

Nick (Beds Clangers)

[+wizard1974uk]

Thanks for clearing that up Nick.

[+studlyone]

Excellent news - at last common sense prevails.

[+HazelS]

Oh Nick...

 

I'm, so pleased that it's all over for you...

 

You've certainly been through the mill, and I hope that you've now had you GPS batteries charging, and gotten out there and cached to your hearts content.

 

H

[+sTeamTraen]

Obviously the injured person had some knowledge of caching as the landowner was asked who placed the cache on his land. All I know about them is that they were a couple, they visited the landowner but said nothing about the claim. I still don't know who they are as they were never named in any letters just as "our client".

 

You mean they didn't log a find? You should sue them! They can't be much cop as cachers. My will states that if I fall off a cliff and get killed after finding a cache, nobody gets a penny until it's logged!

[+The Forester]

Many thanks for the fullsome description of what actually took place.

 

I'm surprised that the speculative claims firm spent even five minutes attempting to screw money out of this case. There were excessively optimistic if they thought that any reasonable person, or their insurer, would roll over and play dead in the face of such an unsupportable claim.

 

In very broad terms, I've discussed the matter with an old school chum who's now a Sheriff (a Scottish Judge). Without assessing or commenting on any specifics of the case, he told me that such a claim as this would have no chance on success in a Scottish Court unless the pursuer could prove that the defender should have known that there was a special degree of risk and failed to take reasonable steps to address such a risk such as by making clear warning or reducing any unnecessary part of that risk (my words, not his). It is not sufficient for a pursuer simply to claim that they suffered a misadventure. They would have to prove that the defender had done something unreasonable or had failed to do something which should reasonably be expected of them.

 

Simply placing a cache halfway up a tree, or a cliff-face for that matter, could never form the basis of a claim in the Scotish legal system unless the cache creator had done something quite extraordinarily crass such as deliberately placing it in some kind of deliberately concealed man-trap.

 

The whole issue of liability became quite a hot topic in Scotland last year as a result of a new piece of legislation which effectively gives the public what amounts to the right to roam. Some landowners fretted that they would have to take out special insurance. In fact, it would be extremely difficult for somone who injured themselves to prove that their injury was a landowner's fault. Scottish Courts take the view that anyone who ventures into the countryside takes their own risks.

 

In Scotand, as in England, a pseudo-legalistic disclaimer on a cachepage wouldn't be worth the electrons it's printed on. In fact, even if you persuaded a cache-hunter to sign a piece of paper absolving a cache owner/creator and the landowner from liability, the promise would be utterly worthless, for several legal reasons which include the Unfair Contracts Act. All you can do, as a cache creator, by including such a disclaimer on your cachepage, is give ammunition to a speculative claimant that you had something to hide or had reason to believe that you might have been negligent. That's not clever.

[+The Northumbrian]

[quote name='The Forester' date='Oct 22 2006, 07:37 PM' post=

as a cache creator, by including such a disclaimer on your cachepage, is give ammunition to a speculative claimant that you had something to hide or had reason to believe that you might have been negligent. That's not clever.

I have heard the very same thing. By placing a cache disclaimer, you are giving ammunition to a would be claimant by "stating" there may be some sort of risk involved. But at the same time, in my way of thinking, it's like having a bet on the National.you know before hand that you could lose. but you go ahead and take the chance. you cant sue the bookie , the jockey or the ownere if the horse falls