So can anyone tell me the score with leading rides and group tours these days? I know there was something on here a while back about the Nick Sanders saga (think it was him) when one of his group ended up in a fatal accident with the family pursuing to sue him so what has come of it and these kind of scenarios since? What do the tour guides do who make a living out of it, is there some kind of special insurance they take out or is it as simple as getting the participants to sign some sort of legal form before each ride/tour? I do a lot of rides that i lead but obviously between friends this is different, is there anyone on here who makes a living out of guiding/tours? what do you do to cover your own arse incase someone is injured weather it be your fault or theirs?
Cheers (thumbs)
Liability for leading a group/tour
Re: Liability for leading a group/tour
Don't know from a personnel point of view, but this might give you a starting point
http://www.gl1800.org.uk/goldwing-owner ... de-leader/
http://www.gl1800.org.uk/goldwing-owner ... de-leader/
-
Diesel Pete
- Posts: 796
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:38 pm
Re: Liability for leading a group/tour
Theres an article on this very subject in this months ABR mag which should shed some light for you. (thumbs)
Re: Liability for leading a group/tour
Thanks to both posts! I'm waiting on the mag so shall have a look.
Cheers
Cheers
Re: Liability for leading a group/tour
If it's not a commercial situation then realistically there is no potential for liability. If its the former, then you will require risk assessments, method statements, insurance, disclaimers etc, no matter where in the world you operate, if you are based here you come under UK law even if your trips are elsewhere.
Re: Liability for leading a group/tour
In France Mike they (the gendarme) will come after the lead rider and prosecute for being responsible for following riders discretions. One of Chris Evan's openers picked a few days ban up whilst we were trying to keep up with him ,impossible task but fun trying. He was rather unlucky though as the copper was a local and recognised the bike so just called round his house that evening, shared a pastis and banned him for a few days. I love France 
The secret of a long life is knowing when its time to go.
Re: Liability for leading a group/tour
Mike54 wrote:If it's not a commercial situation then realistically there is no potential for liability....."
Dangerous mis-information!hmy:
-
Richard Simpson
- Posts: 3402
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 1:30 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Liability for leading a group/tour
Assorted stuff from the TRF forum on this very topic
As I understand the Saunders case rests on the quality of care provided to the rider after the accident, and not the accident itself.
The facts as I recall were:
1) Although he was aware of the hazardous nature of the expedition and had family commitments, the rider had not got life insurance cover. This was not the first of these expeditions that he had been on. The family are now looking for a payout, because the deceased had more in the way of financial commitments than capital (but still went on these expensive holidays without life cover).
2) Saunders' expedition was accompanied by a qualified medical doctor and a support truck
3) After the accident, the doctor stabilised the rider as best she could. In the aftermath of the accident he was conscious and discussed driving the support truck on a future expedition. He was then taken to the nearest large-ish settlement in the expedition truck for further medical treatment, where he sadly deteriorated and died.
4) The family's case rests on Saunders being negligent in not providing a helicopter or STOL fixed-wing aeroplane for casualty evacuation. They maintain that he could have been saved had he been evacuated directly to a modern hospital with an ICU rather than a cluster of huts on a dusty road.
That's what I recall from the report of the inquest. Draw your own conclusions.
Now to run-leading in the UK. Bear in mind that normal 'rules of the road' apply on green roads. Roost someone and take their eye out: that's your fault. Have a crash or whatever, then that's the fault of whoever caused the crash. Anyone who holds a licence has been judged competent to ride on the public road by a qualified person appointed by the Government, and they are responsible for their conduct and safety, as well as the safety of those around them.
The basic rule is: 'don't be a prat, and if others are being prats, leave them to it.'
You are responsible for you.
Most written disclaimers are of no value legally whatsoever.
A disclaimer is a legal contract.
A contract can only be enforced if it is drawn up with 'consideration for both parties.'
A disclaimer absolving the TRF/run leader from blame is unlikely to have been drawn up with consideration for the injured party. Indeed a lawyer could argue that it was evidence that the run leader intended to act without due care and was trying to avoid responsibility for his actions.
I'm no lawyer, but my advice would be we are riding on public roads and are covered by traffic law and our motor insurance 3rd party risk.
As soon as we try bolting things on like 'training' or 'disclaimers' we open up a legal can of worms ....ie how good was the training? who delivered it? what was their qualification? when was it last refreshed?
All stuff lawyers love to make money out of.
We are just riding on legal roads/highways, with friends. We have a normal duty of care not to harm them. There's no disclaimer can make that go away.
If you do get a lawyer letter from someone relating to a motor accident, I understand that it is normal procedure NOT to reply but just to forward it to your insurer.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/29/contents
Deterrent effect of potential liability
.
A court considering a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty may, in determining whether the defendant should have taken particular steps to meet a standard of care (whether by taking precautions against a risk or otherwise), have regard to whether a requirement to take those steps might—
(a)
prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken at all, to a particular extent or in a particular way, or
.
(b)
discourage persons from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity
As I understand the Saunders case rests on the quality of care provided to the rider after the accident, and not the accident itself.
The facts as I recall were:
1) Although he was aware of the hazardous nature of the expedition and had family commitments, the rider had not got life insurance cover. This was not the first of these expeditions that he had been on. The family are now looking for a payout, because the deceased had more in the way of financial commitments than capital (but still went on these expensive holidays without life cover).
2) Saunders' expedition was accompanied by a qualified medical doctor and a support truck
3) After the accident, the doctor stabilised the rider as best she could. In the aftermath of the accident he was conscious and discussed driving the support truck on a future expedition. He was then taken to the nearest large-ish settlement in the expedition truck for further medical treatment, where he sadly deteriorated and died.
4) The family's case rests on Saunders being negligent in not providing a helicopter or STOL fixed-wing aeroplane for casualty evacuation. They maintain that he could have been saved had he been evacuated directly to a modern hospital with an ICU rather than a cluster of huts on a dusty road.
That's what I recall from the report of the inquest. Draw your own conclusions.
Now to run-leading in the UK. Bear in mind that normal 'rules of the road' apply on green roads. Roost someone and take their eye out: that's your fault. Have a crash or whatever, then that's the fault of whoever caused the crash. Anyone who holds a licence has been judged competent to ride on the public road by a qualified person appointed by the Government, and they are responsible for their conduct and safety, as well as the safety of those around them.
The basic rule is: 'don't be a prat, and if others are being prats, leave them to it.'
You are responsible for you.
Most written disclaimers are of no value legally whatsoever.
A disclaimer is a legal contract.
A contract can only be enforced if it is drawn up with 'consideration for both parties.'
A disclaimer absolving the TRF/run leader from blame is unlikely to have been drawn up with consideration for the injured party. Indeed a lawyer could argue that it was evidence that the run leader intended to act without due care and was trying to avoid responsibility for his actions.
I'm no lawyer, but my advice would be we are riding on public roads and are covered by traffic law and our motor insurance 3rd party risk.
As soon as we try bolting things on like 'training' or 'disclaimers' we open up a legal can of worms ....ie how good was the training? who delivered it? what was their qualification? when was it last refreshed?
All stuff lawyers love to make money out of.
We are just riding on legal roads/highways, with friends. We have a normal duty of care not to harm them. There's no disclaimer can make that go away.
If you do get a lawyer letter from someone relating to a motor accident, I understand that it is normal procedure NOT to reply but just to forward it to your insurer.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/29/contents
Deterrent effect of potential liability
.
A court considering a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty may, in determining whether the defendant should have taken particular steps to meet a standard of care (whether by taking precautions against a risk or otherwise), have regard to whether a requirement to take those steps might—
(a)
prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken at all, to a particular extent or in a particular way, or
.
(b)
discourage persons from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity
Re: Liability for leading a group/tour
Tourider wrote:Well go on then smart arse, where's your comprehensive information and contribution?Mike54 wrote:If it's not a commercial situation then realistically there is no potential for liability....."
Dangerous mis-information!
Note I said REALISTICALLY.
Re: Liability for leading a group/tour
btw, in a commercial situation, a dislclaimer does not in any way absolve the firm/person from liability in relation to negligence, so in effect, Richard is correct to say they are pretty much a waste of space.
