Thread: Legal obligations of some one leading a drive.

Originally Posted by gruntfuttock

I agree with you, and I understand where you are comming from, but you seem to miss the point. The law is an ass, and if somebody wants to sue you because they got hurt, then in a court of law you must prove that they read and understood the disclaimer. That is the law, and it is also why public liability policies are so high. Before many clubs used this type of disclaimer. "It is a condition of................................................ ..............................." in the end they still got sued because they could not prove the fact that the people read and understood the disclaimer. Why do they read out these things instead of giving you a paper to read when you get a new job?? same reason. I agree that it sucks and people should use common sense but you get people sueing the bar worker because they served them drinks, then the companies that made the drink for the fact that they made a drink which they got drunk on. It does not make sense and it sucks that we must treat people like this but that is society now. We are trying to protect people against themselves

but dont they also have to prove you invited that person on a trip surely it works both ways????

you could just say i was out on my own driving through the bush and unbeknown to me i was being followed....

i counter act that sue with restraining order

the b@rstard kept following me

There are many grey areas in this one and it is a legal mine field.

It might be hard to convince a judge that you did not know any body was following you, seeing that you orgnized the trip and agreed to lead it.

The most simple way is before going anywhere, a disclaimer is read out aloud to the whole group, and each member must sign the disclaimer. That will give you some proctection. But only some.

Originally Posted by gruntfuttock

There are many grey areas in this one and it is a legal mine field.

It might be hard to convince a judge that you did not know any body was following you, seeing that you orgnized the trip and agreed to lead it.

The most simple way is before going anywhere, a disclaimer is read out aloud to the whole group, and each member must sign the disclaimer. That will give you some proctection. But only some.

that is my point they would have to prove you organised it and signed something to say you were happy to lead
quite often on trips no one is a designated leader its just usualy someone falls naturally into that position because they are more suited to pull someone out or they may know the area better.
and yes they could prove it if you wrote it down in a forum but what if you hadn't???? what if you organised over the phone or even over a beer

See the first sentace of my reply

Originally Posted by gruntfuttock

See the first sentace of my reply

yes i saw that sorry was acutally quoting this

It might be hard to convince a judge that you did not know any body was following you, seeing that you orgnized the trip and agreed to lead it.

i know there are many grey areas, the thing i was trying to say was to prove something on one side you need to be abe to prove it on the other at least 9/10 unless it is clear cut neglegance i suppose

Without going into too much, usually the balance of probability.

As in Cooper v Slade (1858) 6 HLC 746 Willes J....
'the civil standard of proof should not be understood in any mathematical sense."

There are a number of stated cases relating to burdens of proof in civil matters.

While it is an almost forgone conclusion that these days, anything or anyone can be subject to a civil action.
As in a follow the leader, you follow expecting to be led in a safe manner. it is your expectations on the trip, that would probably take precedence.

Simplistic reasoning in civil matters doesn't always apply. Like counteracting.

go to your library and check it it , a good reference is ' Litigation, Evidence and Procedure, Aronson ,Hunter,Weinburg. (1988)( I don't have an updated copy)

Or check out the 'Law of Torts' Fleming.
Makes a good point on the Standard of care, .'Negligence is conduct falling below the standard established for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.'


john

Originally Posted by JohnE

Without going into too much, usually the balance of probability.

As in Cooper v Slade (1858) 6 HLC 746 Willes J....
'the civil standard of proof should not be understood in any mathematical sense."

There are a number of stated cases relating to burdens of proof in civil matters.

While it is an almost forgone conclusion that these days, anything or anyone can be subject to a civil action.
As in a follow the leader, you follow expecting to be led in a safe manner. it is your expectations on the trip, that would probably take precedence.

Simplistic reasoning in civil matters doesn't always apply. Like counteracting.

go to your library and check it it , a good reference is ' Litigation, Evidence and Procedure, Aronson ,Hunter,Weinburg. (1988)( I don't have an updated copy)

Or check out the 'Law of Torts' Fleming.
Makes a good point on the Standard of care, .'Negligence is conduct falling below the standard established for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.'


john

crikey!! interesting but deep!! my post about the conteract etc etc....was supposed to be tounge and cheek......i admit though i do find it hard to comprehend some laws etc as i do tend to look at things with a simplistic and idealistic view such as like i said above with the hole you have to prove they red a disclaimer! to you have to prove you said you would lead........!

I got that bit in the first instance
but with all things legal especially civil matters, it is he or she that finds the most precedents that would usually win.
While in a perfect world you could give your version, but in the legal world it is completly different.
Like Flemings Law of Torts, I haven;t touched that text for years, but it gives definitions of negligence,

Like this one,
Res Ipsa Loquitor
'... in some circumstances the mere fact an accident had occurred raises an inference of negligence against the defendant...'

'Res Ipsa Loquitor is no more than a convenient label to describe situations where, notwithstanding, the plaintiffs inability to establish the exact cause of the accident, the fact of the acccident by itself is sufficient in the absence of explanation to justify the conclusion that most probably the defendant was negligent and his negligence caused the injury...'
'... this maxim is based on common sense...'

legal talk for 'was negligent and caused an injury.'

The last bit is interesting,
Clearly, the occurrence must bespeak negligence and that the defendants; it must be such as to raise two inferences; (1) that the accident was caused by a breach by somebody of a duty of care to the plaintiff, and (2) that the defendant was that somebody.

( Fleming, 1971,260-1)

You could apply that to the follow the leader.



john