Jump to content

Public Liability Insurance


Recommended Posts

I recently contacted the local Council about placing a cache in a public park. My tentative email enquiry received a positive reply which stated that the council would be willing to consider an application and a couple of forms.

 

I filled out the forms as best I could and supplemented the application with a couple of documents explaining caching and describing in detail the cache I intended to place. We were married a few years ago in a civic building and I know the forms for that were the same as these I received.

 

I then received a letter granting permission subject to two conditions - me supplying details of public liability insurance and the dates and times for my event.

 

Dates and times I can explain, but they should know them if they'd read my supplementary information. I clarified that it would be ongoing from when I obtained permission. I emailed my contact and made the point that cachers will not be doing any activities in the park that other visitors wouldn't be doing i.e. walking round and looking at signs etc and that all cachers agree to the geocaching.com disclaimer: "Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache."

 

I've yet to have a reply. What do you think my chances are? With the current climate of everyone suing for anything, will the council go with "no insurance - no cache".

 

:D

Edited by scanker
Link to comment

I think they've sent you the forms for general events (like if you were organising a village fete on the council owned village green. I don't think that caching is really covered by that classification.

 

You shouldn't need public liability insurance for placing a cache (and if you get it, you might be setting a precedent). If the council have any problems with this, you could refer them to Hampshire County Council, who have a blanket agreement allowing caching on their land. See the GAGB website for more details about the HCC and many other agreements.

Link to comment

 

...I emailed my contact and made the point that cachers will not be doing any activities in the park that other visitors wouldn't be doing i.e. walking round and looking at signs etc and that all cachers agree to the geocaching.com disclaimer: "Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache."

 

I've yet to have a reply. What do you think my chances are? With the current climate of everyone suing for anything, will the council go with "no insurance - no cache".

 

 

I had this problem with the Blackwater Valey Path, they negotiated with several councils on my behalf. I replied as you did, (with some advice from GAGB,) and I got the permission, so I am optimistic you will too. Unfortunately I got gazzumped by a cache setter who still hasn't asked for permission so I never got to put my cache out. :D C'est la vie. Chacun son gout!! B)

 

Good Luck B)B)

 

S.

Link to comment

I recently contacted the local Council about placing a cache in a public park. My tentative email enquiry received a positive reply which stated that the council would be willing to consider an application and a couple of forms.

 

I filled out the forms as best I could and supplemented the application with a couple of documents explaining caching and describing in detail the cache I intended to place. We were married a few years ago in a civic building and I know the forms for that were the same as these I received.

 

I then received a letter granting permission subject to two conditions - me supplying details of public liability insurance and the dates and times for my event.

 

Dates and times I can explain, but they should know them if they'd read my supplementary information. I clarified that it would be ongoing from when I obtained permission. I emailed my contact and made the point that cachers will not be doing any activities in the park that other visitors wouldn't be doing i.e. walking round and looking at signs etc and that all cachers agree to the geocaching.com disclaimer: "Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache."

 

I've yet to have a reply. What do you think my chances are? With the current climate of everyone suing for anything, will the council go with "no insurance - no cache".

 

B)

I had similar issues with the Forestry Commission Region that covers my area. The person I was dealing with just could not comprehend that I was not having a 'one off' event. I eventually got through to her and all was OK. The insurance question did not come up, probably because I headed that off with the disclaimer para from the website. it really does depend on the IQ/Common Sense/ general interest of the person you are dealing with. :D I can recommend the help of GAGB.

Edited by careygang
Link to comment

Groundspeak's disclaimer of liability http://www.geocaching.com/about/disclaimer.aspx entends to any agent, officer, employee or volunteer administrator of Groundspeak Inc. It does NOT extend to Groundspeak members... ie. cachers who place caches with or without specific permission from the landowner.

 

For that reason I believe all cachers need to ensure they have public liability insurance in place, maybe via their household policy, to ensure they are not sued for any negligence in placement of their caches.

 

Jon

Link to comment

Groundspeak's disclaimer of liability http://www.geocaching.com/about/disclaimer.aspx entends to any agent, officer, employee or volunteer administrator of Groundspeak Inc. It does NOT extend to Groundspeak members... ie. cachers who place caches with or without specific permission from the landowner.

 

For that reason I believe all cachers need to ensure they have public liability insurance in place, maybe via their household policy, to ensure they are not sued for any negligence in placement of their caches.

 

Jon

Seriously?! B) Should your post have a B) or a :D at the end? If we can really be sued by cache hunters, I am archiving all of my caches right now! B)

Link to comment
Sorry if I'm being extra stupid today, but I can't see what I'm supposed to be looking at. Do you mean the caches you have placed?

Yes, I have no active caches at the moment. Groundspeak's disclaimer appears to extend to "any agent, officer, employee or volunteer administrator of Groundspeak Inc". As a cache setter we are not covered by this disclaimer. The blanket diclaimer that the 'cache seeker assumes all responsibility' will not hold if the cache setter has seen to be negligent - it's a mater of interpretation.

 

For this reason I think it's prudent to ensure we all have liability insurance in force when placing a cache.

 

Jon

Link to comment

Public liability insurance has been an issue with some of the agreements that GAGB have negotiated with landowners, and we have made inquiries about it. Insurers are unwilling to provide cover because there are so many unknowns. PLI for a one-off event is one thing, but for a cache that's out there in the long term and liable to be hunted for by any number of people in different weather and different circumstances and so on is just not something they're willing to provide.

 

At the end of the day, common sense has prevailed, and the requirement for PLI has always been dropped in our agreements. My personal opinion is that it would be a mistake to take out such cover, as it would set a dangerous (and, I think, unnecessary) precedent. You hide a box, and you invite people to go out there and find it. They do so at their own risk, just as anyone who chooses to go walking out in the countryside does so at their own risk.

 

Provided you make any non-obvious dangers clear on the cache page, I don't think there's any risk of litigation in the event of an accident. In at least one case, a cacher did try to take action against the cache setter, realised that it was a no-win situation, moved on to take action against the landowner, and then, I believe, dropped that too. None of my own caches have any sort of insurance cover, and I'm absolutely happy with that situation.

 

---

Bill, Chairman GAGB

Link to comment
In at least one case, a cacher did try to take action against the cache setter, realised that it was a no-win situation, moved on to take action against the landowner, and then, I believe, dropped that too.
I assume this is the case that went on for over a year until it was dropped... at great heartache to the cache-setter involved! My point is what, if anything, do Groundspeak do in support of a liability claim against one of their members? Their own dislaimer does not include/cover individual members, and I think it should. After all, without us, they would not exist.
Link to comment
In at least one case, a cacher did try to take action against the cache setter, realised that it was a no-win situation, moved on to take action against the landowner, and then, I believe, dropped that too.
I assume this is the case that went on for over a year until it was dropped... at great heartache to the cache-setter involved! My point is what, if anything, do Groundspeak do in support of a liability claim against one of their members? Their own dislaimer does not include/cover individual members, and I think it should. After all, without us, they would not exist.

Groundspeak are attempting to cover themselves quite reasonably in my opinion from a cache setter recklessly endangering people looking for a cache. Even thought they review caches they can't be expected to know of all the dangers in a particular cache. It is up to us, the cache placers, to make sure we don't do anything negligent. If we behave reasonably we should be OK. For most caches there isn't a problem as they present no greater risk than going for a walk. For caches placed in a potentially dangerous situation like on a rock face or under water those risks should be made clear on the cache listing. This doesn't guarantee that a cache placer, landowner or Groundspeak won't get sued- it just means that any action is likely to fail.

Link to comment

This thread made me wonder if there were any similar situations and whether this issue has arisen. The two that sprung to mind are:

 

1) Publishers of walking route books. Could they be sued if someone following the route injures themselves?

 

2) Other voluntary outdoor groups such as ramblers clubs - do they need to have insurance when they have an group ramble?

 

Lisa

Link to comment

I think they've sent you the forms for general events (like if you were organising a village fete on the council owned village green. I don't think that caching is really covered by that classification.

 

You shouldn't need public liability insurance for placing a cache (and if you get it, you might be setting a precedent). If the council have any problems with this, you could refer them to Hampshire County Council, who have a blanket agreement allowing caching on their land. See the GAGB website for more details about the HCC and many other agreements.

You say that "You shouldn't need public liability insurance for placing a cache", but that is entirely a Landowners decision, and can be a prerequisite of the Landowners Public Liability insurance, If their insurance company requires this then it would take a strong body to negotiate a clause which excludes Geocaching. IMHO, I believe that a PLI is unlikely to give way on this, as it would form a president which they would not wish to set.

Link to comment

It is the aspect of negligence that is the important point, surely. If cache setters are not negligent, and all suitable warnings are in place concerning at least the retrieval of the cache, and possibly the approach to the cache, if that included something out of the ordinary, then the setter should be safe.

 

Many of us are aware of the situation last year, which came to nought. Unfortunately, there is nothing to stop anybody from finding an amenable solicitor and suing for any story they can make up. It is distressing, but if all reasonable steps are taken to ensure that searchers are safe, then the setter should be safe as well.

Link to comment

...I've yet to have a reply. What do you think my chances are? With the current climate of everyone suing for anything, will the council go with "no insurance - no cache".

 

:P

 

You have bumped inot a common misunderstanding. Caches sound like a regular event intead of a recreational activity that individuals do as they will over time.

Link to comment
Sorry if I'm being extra stupid today, but I can't see what I'm supposed to be looking at. Do you mean the caches you have placed?

Yes, I have no active caches at the moment. Groundspeak's disclaimer appears to extend to "any agent, officer, employee or volunteer administrator of Groundspeak Inc". As a cache setter we are not covered by this disclaimer. The blanket diclaimer that the 'cache seeker assumes all responsibility' will not hold if the cache setter has seen to be negligent - it's a mater of interpretation.

 

For this reason I think it's prudent to ensure we all have liability insurance in force when placing a cache.

 

Jon

 

Hi

 

I think it's interesting that you hold the opinion that a serious risk exists and therefore you won't place any caches. At the same time I note that you have found 1500+ caches.

 

This seems to suggest that you are perfectly happy for lots of other cachers to take these risks so you can go and find the caches. Seems a bit one sided. As you said later about Groundspeak, without us they wouldn't exist, well without lots of cachers being prepared to put caches out you wouldn't be able to go caching. :P

 

I think you are right about Groundspeak's disclaimer not including cache setters, it's to protect them and their business. I don't, however, believe that there is a significant risk of a negligence claim to me as a cache setter.

 

Public Liability is about negligence, not just the fact of an accident. To make a successful claim someone would have to prove that I hadn't taken reasonable care when placing the cache. I believe that this wouldn't include 'normal' hazards associated with being in the country/city, or hazards (like a weak bridge or something) that I couldn't reasonably have known about. If I put a cache out in a dangerous place, full of obvious or concealed hazards that I'm aware of, but then don't tell anyone about or do anything to mitigate them, then I might be in trouble if an accident resulted and if the person decided it was worth the effort to sue me.

 

Most hazards are going to be associated with the land the cache is on and I believe landowners are not liable for everything that might happen for eg to a walker on their land. If they don't fix the bridge, stile, gate etc, then they might be. If I trip over a rock I don't believe they would be. I'm sure cases like these have been tried in the courts and landowners have not been found negligent for my carelessness. Sure, if they don't fence an old mine or fix a structure they may be, but the normal hazards of the landscape are not their responsibility. This may be slightly different in a park, and because Councils are assumed to have big insurance policies and worth suing. But I'm sure I heard of a couple of cases recently where a judge hadn't supported one of the "ludicrous" claims that the papers love to report.

 

So I hope we can avoid getting so paranoid that everything and anything must be insured. I don't believe we are at the point that cache placing is a high risk activity, and I will be keeping my caches going and will continue to set new ones in beautiful and lovely spots. I hope you will to.

 

Cheers

Link to comment

As a long time lurker, I'm intrigued with all this permission seeking you lot go through with local authorities.

Where I live we always seek the landowners permission if we're placing a cache on private property. But for city parks, well, we already own them, just as we do the national parks and wilds. Councils are elected bodies, there to look after our interests for us - they manage the land on our behalf, but they are not the landowners. Maybe things are different in the UK, but you all seem to be making things a lot harder for yourselves than you need to.....

Link to comment

 

 

This seems to suggest that you are perfectly happy for lots of other cachers to take these risks so you can go and find the caches. Seems a bit one sided. As you said later about Groundspeak, without us they wouldn't exist, well without lots of cachers being prepared to put caches out you wouldn't be able to go caching. :P

 

 

Somewhat cruel to Jon, who until last year was a prolific cache setter.

 

Jon was one of several cachers who decided to archive or adopt out one or more of their caches at the last round of liability issues.

 

We all play the game as we see fit, and I'm not sure the way last years issue was quelled gave any confidence.

 

Jon has put a lot into caching and has every right to claim something back.

Link to comment

Does this park allow you to play Frisbee or have a picnic?

 

It has been my impression that councils asking for liability insurance don't understand geocaching well enough. It's a fall-back answer.

 

Work with them, give'em a CITO or two. Most parks like people visiting, explain how you can help them.

Link to comment

As a long time lurker, I'm intrigued with all this permission seeking you lot go through with local authorities.

Where I live we always seek the landowners permission if we're placing a cache on private property. But for city parks, well, we already own them, just as we do the national parks and wilds. Councils are elected bodies, there to look after our interests for us - they manage the land on our behalf, but they are not the landowners. Maybe things are different in the UK, but you all seem to be making things a lot harder for yourselves than you need to.....

 

Hi Minimaus

valid comment, but where are you from? I assume not the UK from your last sentence. US perhaps? Be interesting to know the 'authorities' stance where you are...

Link to comment

 

 

This seems to suggest that you are perfectly happy for lots of other cachers to take these risks so you can go and find the caches. Seems a bit one sided. As you said later about Groundspeak, without us they wouldn't exist, well without lots of cachers being prepared to put caches out you wouldn't be able to go caching. :laughing:

 

 

Somewhat cruel to Jon, who until last year was a prolific cache setter.

 

Jon was one of several cachers who decided to archive or adopt out one or more of their caches at the last round of liability issues.

 

We all play the game as we see fit, and I'm not sure the way last years issue was quelled gave any confidence.

 

Jon has put a lot into caching and has every right to claim something back.

 

I have no idea what all these 'issues' were. Can someone enlighten me. :)

Edited by careygang
Link to comment

As a long time lurker, I'm intrigued with all this permission seeking you lot go through with local authorities.

Where I live we always seek the landowners permission if we're placing a cache on private property. But for city parks, well, we already own them, just as we do the national parks and wilds. Councils are elected bodies, there to look after our interests for us - they manage the land on our behalf, but they are not the landowners. Maybe things are different in the UK, but you all seem to be making things a lot harder for yourselves than you need to.....

Someone actually owns each bit of land in the UK as I understand it and councils do own land. I'm sure it's different in other countries.

Link to comment
they manage the land on our behalf, but they are not the landowners.

 

I have to agree with you - in that the councils are elected bodies representing the populous - therefore they can't actually own the land as an individual would.

AFAIK, all land in the UK that isn't owned freehold by an individual is actually owned by the Crown, and leased to individuals......?

Link to comment

<snip> therefore they can't actually own the land as an individual would.

You'd think that but some of these people are quite immovable and petty when it comes to red tape. If there's a way of their enforcing some petty little rule, some - not all - will do their utmost to stonewall (dry stonewall?) the rural cacher. It's best to persevere and be polite. telling them to ___ off only when absolutely necessary :laughing:

Link to comment
Local Authority is just as much an owner with the same rights and responsibilities as an individual.

But a local authority's an elected body, isn't it? There to represent us? Therefore WE own the land (leased from the Crown) - it's just managed on our behalf by the LA......

Link to comment

but ultimately if we do place a cache without their " agreement" whether needed or not, all they have to do is just go and remove it.

 

it is ultimately cheaper and easier to get them to agree. most of them have a charter to encourage the use of the land etc by the public so caching can be shoe horned in by that means.

 

as regards insurance. you take on liability for the cache container but nothing else unless you somehow make the surroundings different by the caches prescence. all other liability should still be covered by the landowner/ manager. though i'm not a legal expert.

Link to comment
Local Authority is just as much an owner with the same rights and responsibilities as an individual.

But a local authority's an elected body, isn't it? There to represent us? Therefore WE own the land (leased from the Crown) - it's just managed on our behalf by the LA......

No - they are the legal owners much as we would often prefer to think otherwise. <_<

Link to comment

Whilst at Dinner Party at a Barrister friends house yesterday evening, I mentioned Geocaching and PLI, here is his take on this, based on several scenarios.

 

1. You place a cache on a or close (within arms reach) of a Right of Way, but do not have the Landowners permission for this.

 

If an accident occurs, the Seeker can sue the Landowner, and the Landowner could place a counter claim against the Setter. It is in this case the responsibility of the Landowner to provide safe passage, but the Setter has not sought permission, so the Landowner can pursue the Setter for the loss, this would most likely be handled by the Landowners PLI company.

 

2. You place a cache on a or close (within arms reach) of a Right of Way, and you do have the Landowners permission for this.

 

This would place a greater onus on the Landowner, as they are accepting the practice, and this would make it difficult for the Landowner to pursue the Setter, but the Seeker still might have a case against the Landowner.

 

3. You place a cache off a Right of Way, but do not have the Landowners permission for this.

 

Both the Landowner and Setter could be pursued, but it is likely that the Setter would be the person held responsible, but the Seeker could claim that there was inadequate warnings on the land, the situation would require local topological examination.

 

4. You place a cache off a Right of Way, and do have the Landowners permission for this.

 

Again this would place a greater onus on the Landowner, as they are accepting the practice, and this would make it difficult for the Landowner to pursue the Setter, but the Seeker still might have a case against the Landowner.

 

We looked at several Gecache pages whilst chatting about this, and noted two types of warnings on pages First is the one by Groundspeak:

 

Geocaching Disclaimer

 

Geocaching.com is owned and operated by Groundspeak Inc. Information in the Geocaching.com database is updated regularly. Neither Groundspeak Inc., nor any agent, officer, employee or volunteer administrator of Groundspeak Inc. warrants the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information and shall not be liable for any losses caused by such reliance on the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of such information. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of this information, portions may be incorrect or not current. Any person or entity that relies on information obtained from Geocaching.com does so at his or her own risk.

 

Geocaching, hiking, backpacking and other outdoor activities involve risk to both persons and property. There are many variables including, but not limited to, weather, fitness level, terrain features and outdoor experience, that must be considered prior to seeking or placing a Cache. Be prepared for your journey and be sure to check the current weather and conditions before heading outdoors. Always exercise common sense and caution.

 

In no way shall Groundspeak Inc. nor any agent, officer, employee or volunteer administrator of Groundspeak Inc., be liable for any direct, indirect, punitive, or consequential damages arising out of, or in any way connected with the use of this website or use of the information contained within.

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

This website is for personal and non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, excerpt, distribute, transmit, publish, license, create derivative works from, or sell any information, or services obtained from this website.

 

Other products and companies referred to herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies or mark holders.

 

Groundspeak Inc. reserves the right to change the terms, conditions, and notices under which this website is offered.

The opinion on this, is that there is nothing in English Law that makes this a binding agreement, and therefore in England and Wales (we were unsure about Scotland, as the Scottish have a slightly different legal system), this hold little weight for either the Setter or Landowner.

 

The other warnings, are the ones on the cache page, made by the Setter, which usually read as follows.

 

The owner accepts no responsibility, Find this at your own risk

 

or other similar phrases might be seen in some light as a disclaimer, but would certainly not remove the Setters or Landowners liability if an accident occurred, and it was seen to be either the Setters or Landowners negligence.

 

What he said was essential, would be a written clear indication of any dangers which could be faced during the pursuit of the cache, like:

 

Beware traffic within 3 metres of location

 

2 metre climb required

 

Loose rocks above head height

 

Danger cliff edge near caching location, do not approach from the wrong path, or wonder off the footpath.

 

He did say, that the game looks less of a hazard than the majority of pastimes, and as such there is really little to worry about, but and gaining personal indemnity would not be a bad idea, for both seeking and setting Geocaches.

Edited by Colourbox
Link to comment
No - they are the legal owners much as we would often prefer to think otherwise

 

But we appoint and pay for the council (they are put there by us to represent our interests?) - therefore anything owned by the council must be owned by the electorate of that council?

 

I can see that in the case of, for example, council offices or housing, it would be rude (to say the least) to barge in and place a cache - but aren't parks and other outdoor spaces etc held in common by the people, and managed by the council?

Link to comment

WELL, thought this was well and truly put to bed!!! :D

 

NOT, going to dig up anything to do with my claim as I think most "posters" on the forums did speak to me directly.

 

As it was me who had the "claims case" thought I'd add my comments. <_<

 

The case against myself and the landowner was dropped for one very simple issue, "how do you prove that the actually injury occurred while seeking the cache?".

 

If you go out walking and slip/trip on a stile, do you then sue the landowner for the broken wrist or the cowpat in the face? Where's your risk assement for your walk, I'm JOKING, or am I :D

 

Over the past year there have been a number of other attempts or probes at "claims". I have provided background information on a few and as we stand, I believe, there have been NO successful claims against UK cachers. Todate, I have had 387 e-mails regarding this issue!! :D

 

The thing that I have found most interesting is that while we in the UK see the USA as having a "claims" culture I have had more e-mails from UK cachers than anywhere else (85% UK, 10% USA, 5% ROTW)!!! Perhaps based upon the claim against myself??

 

I know the "event" against myself caused major issues for some cachers. I did disable all my caches for a while and have not placed any more since, but there are other reasons for that :D .

 

I still have 14 active caches, I have landowners permission for all of them, I do not have any form of PLI (not that I'm aware of to cover caching), I have followed the gc.com guidelines and I still enjoy my caching.

 

If anyone would like to contact myself directly then feel free :D:D

 

Cheers

 

Nick

Link to comment

WELL, thought this was well and truly put to bed!!! :P

 

NOT, going to dig up anything to do with my claim as I think most "posters" on the forums did speak to me directly.

 

As it was me who had the "claims case" thought I'd add my comments. :)

 

The case against myself and the landowner was dropped for one very simple issue, "how do you prove that the actually injury occurred while seeking the cache?".

 

If you go out walking and slip/trip on a stile, do you then sue the landowner for the broken wrist or the cowpat in the face? Where's your risk assement for your walk, I'm JOKING, or am I :)

 

Over the past year there have been a number of other attempts or probes at "claims". I have provided background information on a few and as we stand, I believe, there have been NO successful claims against UK cachers. Todate, I have had 387 e-mails regarding this issue!! :D

 

The thing that I have found most interesting is that while we in the UK see the USA as having a "claims" culture I have had more e-mails from UK cachers than anywhere else (85% UK, 10% USA, 5% ROTW)!!! Perhaps based upon the claim against myself??

 

I know the "event" against myself caused major issues for some cachers. I did disable all my caches for a while and have not placed any more since, but there are other reasons for that :) .

 

I still have 14 active caches, I have landowners permission for all of them, I do not have any form of PLI (not that I'm aware of to cover caching), I have followed the gc.com guidelines and I still enjoy my caching.

 

If anyone would like to contact myself directly then feel free :):)

 

Cheers

 

Nick

I appreciate what you have said here, but the sad fact is that even hill walkers are taking out PLI. It might be difficult to prove that is was caching related, but an accident is an accident, and as such a Landowner and his PLI company has the complete legal right to request indemnity.

Link to comment

I can't believe this old chestnut is still doing the rounds.

 

If you are negligent and someone is hurt, then you can be sued, if there is no negligence on your part, then you cannot be sued.

 

How many of us have not been nettled or spiked with thorns? Who do we sue? The man who allowed the nettles to grow? It's an accident and no one is to blame. Who has not stepped into a ditch to find the water deeper than it appeared? Do you sue the digger of the ditch? No, you utter the expletive of your choice and get on with it.

Link to comment
If you are negligent and someone is hurt, then you can be sued, if there is no negligence on your part, then you cannot be sued.

Exactly, and this is one reason walkers are now covering themselves with PLI, it they are negligent then they have cover to protect. Leaving a gate accidentally open and a cow gets one the road, that is negligent. But, a Landowner who has Public rights of way, also requires to cover their self with PLI, and if they are sued, then their PLI company is going to want to pursue any party involved who did not seek permission for the use of the Landowners land.

 

Even the Right to Roam only allows you to walk on the land, not to Hide or Seek a cache. If you do this without permission, then the Landowner can take steps against the person / persons if they so wish. In fact in the discussion I had it was suggested that a Landowner could accuse a Cache setter of dumping rubbish if permission was not sought; this could gain a person an ASBO, a fine of up to £50,000 or a prison sentence.

Link to comment

Just had an email back - common sense prevailed! :)

Due to the nature of your event it will not be necessary to have Public Liability insurance as no equipment etc will be brought into the park that could cause injury to members of the public. Also it will not be necessary to specify dates for your events.

 

Looks like my first cache may not be far off! :)

Link to comment

.... but aren't parks and other outdoor spaces etc held in common by the people, and managed by the council?

Sorry but no - a local authority is a legal entity and can own land just like anyone else.

 

As a Local Government Officer, and one that deals with land appropriation from time to time, I can verify what John says...

 

Local authorities can, and do own vast amounts of land. It does get a bit more complicated... as different departments within the council can own different pieces of land, and then there are pieces of land owned by County Councils (if you're not in a Unitary council area.)

 

Yes, councils are made up of councillors elected to represent the populous, but that council owns land, just as it owns buildings, roads etc etc etc...

Link to comment
Just had an email back - common sense prevailed! :)
Due to the nature of your event it will not be necessary to have Public Liability insurance as no equipment etc will be brought into the park that could cause injury to members of the public. Also it will not be necessary to specify dates for your events.

 

Looks like my first cache may not be far off! :)

 

Excellent news!

Link to comment

It frustrates me that this discussion has to take place at all. I'm not far from Snowdonia and indeed I enjoy hiking in the mountains. If someone falls off the edge of the mountain (indeed someone unfortunately lost their life this way just last week on the Carneddau) it is their fault. If someone drowns in a lake under their own mis-adventure (ie not as part of an organised trip), it is their fault.

 

I want to place a cache in a tree. I think its good place to hide one, and the fact its make people look an additional 4 or 5 metres in an additional search rather than just grubbing around the ground is a great idea. However, would I expect anyone to sue me? No. All I've done is told someone where it is or its whereabouts. That person is the person who has made the decision to climb that tree, step on that bough, reach over the branch. Not me, not the person down the street. But that individual. A lawyer may well have a different perspective but who do parents sue when a child climbs and falls from a tree? Mother Nature?

 

We've got to be careful. Its not so much nanny state, we're nannying ourselves and stopping our little challenges that help push us beyond own comfort boundaries and help shape who we are.

Link to comment

It's very easy to blame the state, whereas it's nothing to do with government, local or national. It is individuals who persue claims to seek compensation (ie make money), admittedly encouraged on by greedy lawyers out to make a killing, especially on a no win-no fee basis. Local authorities, etc. that suggest public liability insurance are only seeking to cover their own backs in tis climate.

 

Fortunately, when this was tested a few months ago by someone trying to claim on a geocahe (there's a thread somewhere) the potential litigant was advised against persuing - common sense did indeed prevail.

 

Go ahead and put one in a tree, great idea - otherwise we are giving in to this lot of money grabbers.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...