cruiser park closing!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rangier Rover

I have often pondered opening up a 4X4 park here but Insurance and dealing with crazy and or intoxicated people has put me off for now. Too many dangers here in these hills. If you make big mistake it could be fatal.:eek:
I have the facility as in showers, toilets and even some accommodation. Its just the liabilities:(
Still working on it.:) If it ever happens will be by invite only for a start;)

---

I too have wanted to do this,, but as you suggest, it's a mine field of problems.
You could always just ban booze from the property, that'll help for starters, it might also get a more family orientated groups out there who don't want all the crap from drunks that normally puts them off,,
That would allow you to have a "common area" where you could have a cooking campfire and small bar,, you'd be able to police it alot better,, have limits on how and who you serve etc,,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shonky

I can provide an Ambulance and a handful of medics of varying qualifications from basic St John Volly right up to helicopter rescue physician... :angel:

---

I am not sure a series 2a ambulance is up to top specs...ho har said he or some else will die of old age before you got there:p


Mrs hh:angel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The ho har's

I am not sure a series 2a ambulance is up to top specs...ho har said he or some else will die of old age before you got there:p


Mrs hh:angel:

---

:lol2::lol2:Don't be to hard on the ol 2A:p We could always air drop the old girl in to speed things up a little:twisted:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rangier Rover

I have spoken to my insurer and solicitor. It does appear the waiver will not stand.:(

---

Oh. That's a shame. And that's even when you on sell insurance to them as part of their entry?

Of course, when it comes to doing stuff on private land, what's illegal apart from murder or manslaughter? If some idiot does something that hurts someone else or damages their vehicle how can the park operator be negligent? All that's needed are signs that warn of potential dangers, have rated tracks for degrees of difficulty, make certain there is a safety patrol on site when patrons are there (that's where the clubs come in), and have a degree of scrutineering before they are allowed onto the tracks. If the driver persists and the results are bad then surely `negligence' is passed on to the driver from the park operator. After all, how do race tracks get on?

Seems to me that all that is need is to identify the potential threats, mitigate them, make certain driver's are aware of the threats and pass onus on to them to take necessary steps to avoid the threats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disco2hse

Oh. That's a shame. And that's even when you on sell insurance to them as part of their entry?

Of course, when it comes to doing stuff on private land, what's illegal apart from murder or manslaughter? If some idiot does something that hurts someone else or damages their vehicle how can the park operator be negligent? All that's needed are signs that warn of potential dangers, have rated tracks for degrees of difficulty, make certain there is a safety patrol on site when patrons are there (that's where the clubs come in), and have a degree of scrutineering before they are allowed onto the tracks. If the driver persists and the results are bad then surely `negligence' is passed on to the driver from the park operator. After all, how do race tracks get on?

---

In your previous post you purported to know all this stuff... Now you confess you really have NFI.

Tony, there might still be other ways to do it - maybe set up a separate limited/trust company. There are a few (good) lawyers on here who may be able to give you some options (unlike armchair experts like myself and disco owning kiwis...). e.g. DaveS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

In your previous post you purported to know all this stuff... Now you confess you really have NFI.

---

Wow. That's nasty. :eek: I also said that the situation on this side of the ditch is different.

Someone needs their happy pills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disco2hse

Wow. That's nasty. :eek: I also said that the situation on this side of the ditch is different.

Someone needs their happy pills.

---

Sorry you took my comments the wrong way. However (1) you are evidently not a lawyer (neither am I). The AU system is completely different to NZ, and you seem to have little/no knowledge of the system we have here.

Btw - you may wish to read page two of this document - re the NZ public liability system.
Powered by Google Docs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Sorry you took my comments the wrong way.

---

No. I didn't. That some pretty nasty s**t.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

(1) you are evidently not a lawyer (neither am I).

---

Never said I was. But you apparently seem to be suggesting that only lawyers can make comment on this subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

The AU system is completely different to NZ, and you seem to have little/no knowledge of the system we have here.

---

They are both based on british concepts.

I think your main problem is xenophobia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disco2hse

I think your main problem is xenophobia.

---

Thanks, that is the funniest thing I have heard in months. Is this the point where I should say "some of my best friends are new zealanders?"

I find it especially funny since I only moments before called someone out for a racist post in the "brand loyalty" thread.

How does me saying you don't know what you are talking about constitute xenophobia???

If you have followed any of the recent public liability court cases in AU or UK, you would know that no "waiver" can waive inherent duty of care. Duty of care even exists towards trespassers!!!

Btw - did you rear the section about the NZ system?

Ahem..back to waivers.
They are of use. There are 2 issues. Firstly when people get injured they try and get around them--" I wasn't told what it was"--"I didn't understand it"---"was pis..d when I signed" etc etc
2ndly while they don't eliminate the park owners duty of care, driver being injured does not= breach of that duty. Duty of care for a park owner is different to ,say,that of a child care centre owner. Drivers in the park need to be able to see & assess the risks for themselves & accept the results of their judgements. If they have agreed in writing to do that at their own risk--no problem. But the park owner could liable if there were say hazards a reasonable park user could not be expected to be aware of. e.g a normal looking bog hole that was actually 4 meters deep. Park owner would need to give clear warnings for things like that by signage etc. to enable drivers to make informed decisions.
Having said all that, from the alcohol induced idiotic behaviour I've seen in parks I reckon
anyone who thinks about running one needs to ask themselves some serious questions about what they are prepared to go thru.
Cheers Discolaw