Cache Disallowed after loads of effort to set it up !

[+parkmoy]

so we should ban cars because someone may be tempted to cross the road.

 

Hardly the same as you are well aware.

 

Please allow people to make their own decisions in life, if they want to climb, let them, if they want to sit in armchairs let them.

 

The council is made up of individuals that we vote in to supposedly support our views, how many peoples view is it that we must not climb trees. sometimes I despair of the rubbish that people will follow just because the council says so.

 

Fight for your right to make your own decisions instead of blindly following

 

I didn't say that people shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions, I said I could see where the Council were coming from. Landowners owe a duty of care to people on their land under the Occupiers Liability Acts 1957 and 1984. There is an enhanced duty of care towards children, who I believe also take part in geocaching?

 

Have a look at http://www.compensationsecrets.co.uk/artic...oes_it_all_mean

for a simplified explanation.

 

In these days of compensation culture I for one can't blame the Council for taking the 'easy' way out.

[dodgydaved]

 

Have a look at http://www.compensationsecrets.co.uk/artic...oes_it_all_mean

for a simplified explanation.

 

 

 

I did and read this:

 

"Volenti non fit injuria – if the Claimant consented to the risk, then he is unlikely to be successful claiming compensation. "

 

....sounds right for caching, but I am no lawyer

[+parkmoy]

....sounds right for caching, but I am no lawyer

 

Obviously, or your reply would have extended to at least 20 pages and you would have charged us a fortune

 

On a more serious note it wasn't my intention to debate individual parts of legislation which would be pointless since only a court is competent to make a decision. The point I was making is that there is legislation and landowners have to consider it just as the Council presumably did.

[dodgydaved]

....sounds right for caching, but I am no lawyer

 

Obviously, or your reply would have extended to at least 20 pages and you would have charged us a fortune

 

 

....as does my eldest son

[+Happy Humphrey]

You are having a larf aren't you??? As much as I respect the Ramblers Association do we want to find ourselves totally alienated from landowners as I believe the Ramblers Association are, otherwise they wouldn't be in court the whole time fighting for the right to cross land.

I'm a member and I can assure you that you're miles wide of the mark with that one! They've been extremely successful with land access; spectacularly so, in fact.

[+Morton]

"Volenti non fit injuria – if the Claimant consented to the risk, then he is unlikely to be successful claiming compensation. "

 

....sounds right for caching, but I am no lawyer

Warning - I have spent some time in the past looking at this area, and I believe I know what I'm talking about, but I'm not a qualified lawyer either. Place no reliance on the following.

 

Volenti is indeed the principle which endorses risk-taking in any sport, and other areas of life. It's an absolute defence, which trumps all other considerations. But it only applies to a risk which a reasonable person in the claimant's position would have known about. It doesn't completely free the other participants of all responsibility.

 

Example 1: You place a cache in woodland, in a moderately overgrown area 50 metres from the path. A would-be finder trips over a tree root and breaks his ankle. A court would probably decide that a reasonable person, on looking at the area, would be aware of the risk of tripping over a tree root. The court also accepts that the cacher entered the area voluntarily and no duress was involved, so volenti applies and the case against you is thrown out without further discussion.

 

Example 2: You place a cache in an area where there are a lot of open mine shafts. You don't mention this on the cache page or do anything else to warn people, and there are no fences or notices on the ground. A would-be finder falls down a mine shaft and breaks his leg. A court might decide that a reasonable person wouldn't have anticipated the risk of falling down a mine shaft. Volenti doesn't apply - which doesn't mean you're inevitably held to blame (for example, you might not have known about the mine shafts either!), it just means that other factors would come into play.

 

As with so much, this is simply a formalization of common sense, but of course no two people ever quite agree on what "common sense" is. So to make absolutely sure a reasonable person knows about a risk, it may be prudent to tell them about it, even if it seems obvious to you. You need to be specific, though - general "disclaimers" like "you assume all the risks" don't achieve much in this area, because they don't contribute much to a reasonable person's ability to understand the risk they are taking.

 

I once (in New Zealand) went on a trip where you got to walk on an active volcano, and the company which organized it made me sign to say that I knew active volcanos could erupt. It quite seriously hadn't occurred to me until that moment

 

Cheers

Richard

[+Haggis Hunter]

I once (in New Zealand) went on a trip where you got to walk on an active volcano, and the company which organized it made me sign to say that I knew active volcanos could erupt. It quite seriously hadn't occurred to me until that moment

You are completely right. I have been inside the worlds only drive in volcano in St. Lucia, and until now this didn't occur to me either.

[markandlynn]

I once (in New Zealand) went on a trip where you got to walk on an active volcano, and the company which organized it made me sign to say that I knew active volcanos could erupt. It quite seriously hadn't occurred to me until that moment

 

Cheers

Richard

 

Better cancel my trip to this cache then