Insurance Problems

[+astrodon]

I have recently requested permission to place a cache on National Trust property. This has been declined because of "potential insurance problems". They are concerned that if someone hurt themselves whilst seeking a cache on NT property they could be sued. I have looked at the disclaimer on the geocache website, and it includes "Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache." This sounds reassuring, but would it hold up in court?

[+Renegade Knight]

It depends on how your courts treat things and the laws of the land. Some places protect land owners from idiots when the owner doesn’t charge for recreation. Where I live is one of them.

 

Does the park ban hiking due to insurance problems? Or picnicking? Etc. etc. Normally insurance is a smokescreen. A way to say “No” without saying “No”.

[+sTeamTraen]

I have recently requested permission to place a cache on National Trust property. This has been declined because of "potential insurance problems". They are concerned that if someone hurt themselves whilst seeking a cache on NT property they could be sued. I have looked at the disclaimer on the geocache website, and it includes "Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache." This sounds reassuring, but would it hold up in court?

Almost certainly. The law is generally on the side of common sense. Occasionally one reads accounts of cases which seem to show that everyone has gone mad, but in general it turns out that there was lots of stuff we weren't told by the reporters in search of a "judge bites dog" story.

 

I'm not sure why, all of a sudden, everyone is "afraid of being sued". Personally I would be afraid of being beaten. Suppose you visit a National Trust property to visit the gift shop and trip over halfway round. What's the difference ? But it certainly seems that there are certainly a lot of people who have decided "never to take any risks, of any kind, ever". Although most of them still drive cars - the number one cause of death in many age groups, I believe. So in fact they have only decided not to take "any infinetesimal risks which might get them in the paper". And of course the only risk-free state is death...

 

PS: That said, I don't know if NT land counts as truly "public".

[+The Gecko's]

If you take a look at This Cache it says they have obtained permission from The National Trust to place the cache.

 

Might be worth contacting The C Road Ramblers and asking how they got the permission and using this as an example for your cache?

 

Dave - The Gecko's

[+John & Hazel]

Check out the pinned resources thread at the top of the page and GAGB who have had dealings with the NT

[+Bill D (wwh)]

GAGB have tried to get a national agreement with the National Trust, but for the moment they want to continue to monitor caches on their land. They are however happy for caching to continue on their land for the foreseeable future, and would like cachers to comply with GAGB guidelines. Permission for caches needs to be sought from the local warden.

 

Bill, committee member, GAGB

[+astrodon]

Thank you all for your comments. Think I will give it another try.

[+littlejim]

I'm not sure why, all of a sudden, everyone is "afraid of being sued"

Have a look at this then... RAIL DRIVES WALKERS UP THE WALL

[Leoness]

I'm not sure why, all of a sudden, everyone is "afraid of being sued"

Have a look at this then... RAIL DRIVES WALKERS UP THE WALL

 

Why, then, haven't they strung a net across the top of the Grand Canyon to stop people from accidentally falling in?!!!

[Alan White]

I'm not sure why, all of a sudden, everyone is "afraid of being sued"

Have a look at this then... RAIL DRIVES WALKERS UP THE WALL

In case it's not obvious, I'd check the date on that article....

 

When we last visited Hadrians Wall I was amazed to find that the new trail was actually on the top of the wall for long stretches. What a way to treat a 2000-year old monument.

 

And what inconsistency from those charged with looking after our heritage. You can't get within 30m of Stonehenge, yet you can climb all over Hadrians Wall.

 

Rant over, we now return you to our normal geocaching programmes.

[+MartyBartfast]

If you take a look at This Cache it says they have obtained permission from The National Trust to place the cache.

Perhaps the NT have a different view depending on what type of land it is, the one above looks like open heath/hills which is accessible by anyone at any time and just happens to be in the possession of the trust. They might have a different view for estates/parkland where access is restricted & where some sort of access controls are in place.

[NickPick]

I'm not sure why, all of a sudden, everyone is "afraid of being sued"

Have a look at this then... RAIL DRIVES WALKERS UP THE WALL

That article should really be titled "Why 47 year old americans shouldn't demonstrate cheerleading routines on Hadrian's wall"

 

You should also note the date of the article - 1 April 2005!

 

I also noticed the Ramblers Association chairman "Wyn Dupp" and HSE Spokesman "Joe King"

Edited April 6, 2005 by NickPick

[+littlejim]

In case it's not obvious, I'd check the date on that article....

Also the names of the people involved and the submission time / date...

[+daleswalker]

In case it's not obvious, I'd check the date on that article....

Also the names of the people involved and the submission time / date...

I can't believe that, at least for a little while, I was taken in. And for that matter I also can't beleive I am actually admitting it here. Still if we can't laugh at ourselves....

[+littlejim]

I can't believe that, at least for a little while, I was taken in

Don't worry - you're not the only one by a long way! I'm looking forward to seeing if any letters appear in the paper next Friday!

 

Now, getting back on topic (sorry for digressing!), we have a National Trust site locally where a path was closed for a while due to potential rockfall. Now, the path has reopened with warning signs about the potential dangers. Would it satisfy any local NT concerns if a similar warning were to be added to the CAGB - NT agreement?

[Leoness]

In case it's not obvious, I'd check the date on that article....

Also the names of the people involved and the submission time / date...

I can't believe that, at least for a little while, I was taken in. And for that matter I also can't beleive I am actually admitting it here. Still if we can't laugh at ourselves....

 

I think that the reason we're taken in by such stories is that our views of American culture make them just so plausible!!!

[+sTeamTraen]

I think that the reason we're taken in by such stories is that our views of American culture make them just so plausible!!!

Of course; if "our view" of Americans is that they're stupid, then we will believe stories about them being stupid.

 

The discussion as to how very large numbers of British (and other nationality) people who have never visited the United States, or indeed in many cases ever met a single American, came to form such a view, would probably get closed down by the moderators.

 

I don't think it has much to do with current US foreign policy, although that probably doesn't help. And of course, compared to the rest of Europe, we Brits can add an extra anti-American chip to our shoulder by complaining about how they "don't speak correctly". (I'm with Bill Bryson on this one, and indeed on almost everything else...)

[nobby.nobbs]

it's just standard xenophobia assuming that other races aren't quite as bright as us....though studies have shown the average american can't even spot themselves on a world map......

 

trouble with disclaimers is they are worth the paper they're written on. you can't deny liability if you are judged to be legally liable. the only way is to get someone to sign a disclaimer.....not exactly practical for people out caching/rambling etc.

 

people too ready to sue for the daftest of reasons and too many judges willing to award damages.

[+The Northumbrian]

I'm not sure why, all of a sudden, everyone is "afraid of being sued"

Have a look at this then... RAIL DRIVES WALKERS UP THE WALL

In case it's not obvious, I'd check the date on that article....

 

When we last visited Hadrians Wall I was amazed to find that the new trail was actually on the top of the wall for long stretches. What a way to treat a 2000-year old monument.

 

And what inconsistency from those charged with looking after our heritage. You can't get within 30m of Stonehenge, yet you can climb all over Hadrians Wall.

 

Rant over, we now return you to our normal geocaching programmes.

Todays Hexham courant does let you know that it was April 1st

[+sTeamTraen]

>though studies have shown the average american can't even spot themselves on

>a world map......

 

Do you have a reference for that study ?

 

About 20 years ago when the civil war in Lebanon was on the news every night, Belgian TV went out into the streets and asked people to find Lebanon on a map. Remember, this is Belgium, probably the most internationally-minded country in Europe. It was hilarious. People were pointing at Holland (next door!!!), Canada, Brazil, everywhere. And not just people saying "erm... no idea... is it here?", there were some going "that's easy, everybody knows it's here" (pointing to India).

 

>people too ready to sue for the daftest of reasons and too many judges willing to >award damages.

 

I really don't believe the second of those is true. Here's a good rule of thumb: if it gets in the paper, it isn't happening much. Big damages awards for breaking your fingernail ? Gets in the paper. Know anyone it's happened to ? I don't. Being killed in a car smash ? Happens all the time. You need 4 deaths in the same car to make page 19. Know anyone it's happened to ? Far too many...

[+Happy Humphrey]

Good post, sTeamTraen,

 

It's ironic that so many Brits assume Americans are stupid when you realise that many Americans doubtless believe that most British are eccentric loonies! (Perhaps they're right...). Something to do with only seeing the foreigners via old films on television, I suspect.

 

This comment about the British reaction to an April Fool by Patrick Moore amused me, and I wouldn't be surprised if the sentiment is widespread;

 

from Museum of hoaxes comments

 

The Brits (as I call them) are real nice people but definitely not the brightest bulbs on the string.

Basically "a nice bunch of chaps I dare say"

 

[+littlejim]

I'm looking forward to seeing if any letters appear in the paper next Friday!

A few suitably ironic replies in the Hexham Courant... Hexham Courant Letters

[+sTeamTraen]

A few suitably ironic replies in the Hexham Courant...

... and one or two from the hard-core members of the green ink brigade.

[Beer Monster]

though studies have shown the average american can't even spot themselves on a world map

I must admit, I'd have trouble spotting myself on a world map, unless it was a really big scale map.

 

Even then I'd have trouble - I keep moving around! Ooh look - there I go again, off downstairs to grab a beer!

 

[nobby.nobbs]

sorry that was meant as irony. i seem to remember reading the story but it just goes to prove how ready we are to accept stereotypes. a survey done on a thousand or so people who had trouble identifying something from a world map...

 

lots of people assume too quickly that people abroad are stupid. then you get a news report from the back of beyond somewhere in rural africa or asia where they have trouble getting enough food to eat let alone education.....but they can always find someone who can speak english. you'd have trouble doing the reverse in some large towns in this country!

 

the whole things going mad. bags of peanuts with "may contain nuts". cup of coffee "contents hot" need i go on? 99 % of us might well be intelligent but you have to watch for the other 1% who will do stuff unless specifically told not to and sometimes even then because they've been told not to!! come back darwin all is forgiven.

[+powerbook_fanatic]

When we last visited Hadrians Wall I was amazed to find that the new trail was actually on the top of the wall for long stretches. What a way to treat a 2000-year old monument. 

I did the Hadrians Wall National Trail when it first opened.

 

The only stretch that was actually on the wall was about 100 yards near one of the forts - Birdoswald or Housesteads I can't remember - and you are offered an alternative route through the wood. IIRC it was clearly stated that this was the only part of the wall that you were allowed to walk on.

 

Most of the wall that you see now was rebuilt in the 1800s.

 

Malcolm - The Powerbook Fanatic

[nobby.nobbs]

very much like the avebury stone circle, victorian bloke dug most of them up and placed where he thought they looked best!

 

and stone henge is just an alien ikea garden ornament.

[+sTeamTraen]

bags of peanuts with "may contain nuts".

I've never seen such a thing. Urban legend ? In any case it should say "Contains nuts". You might find "Ingredients: Peanuts, Vegetable Oil, Salt", but that's a different set of rules in action.

 

What I object to is when the whole allergy labelling thing in undermined by food packers putting "May contain traces of nuts" on every package they ship, on the basis that "Some of the people who pack this food may have eaten peanuts at lunchtime and breathed in the general area". This means that people with nut allergies don't have a clue about how unsafe the food might be, but the company has checked a box on its "we're good corporate citizens" chart.

 

Many people are just overwhelmed with modern society. My father-in-law is a bright chap, but I had this conversation with him:

 

- Me: "Ha! The idiots! This package says 'contents may be enjoyed hot or cold', but it also says 'ensure contents are piping hot throughout'! They've copied the standard reheating warning on to something where it doesn't matter."

- F-i-L: "Yes, but maybe if you only warm it, it wakes up dangerous bacteria which then need to be killed by thorough heating."

- Me:

 

PS: I have seen with my own eyes the microwaveable pudding which said "Warning - after heating, contents will be hot".

[+littlejim]

Warning - after heating, contents will be hot

Who wrote this stuff - it must be either:

1. A committee of Lawyers ensuring Company cannot be sued.

or

2. Spike Milligan

[+sTeamTraen]

Warning - after heating, contents will be hot

Who wrote this stuff - it must be either:

1. A committee of Lawyers ensuring Company cannot be sued.

or

2. Spike Milligan

If this stuff had any legal value, it might be worthwhile. Even in the US, it's not clear that any amount of labelling will prevent you getting sued. Anyway, I would have thought it was more important to win if you do get sued, as you can't stop people suing you if they want to have a go.

 

I read a few years back that McDonald's had got so fed up of paying out $$$ on out-of-court settlements for stupid cases, that they announced that they would contest every case that was brought against them, including the ones where they knew they had a high chance of losing. Apparently they expected to save a fortune this way, because the simple fact that they weren't prepared to settle to save going to court, put a lot of the "Lionel Hutz"-type lawyers off. (He's the Simpsons' lawyer. )