Thread: Coroner finds off-road park management poses danger

Hi All,
Two terms:
- "Duty of Care", &
- "Negligence"

No matter what the "disclaimer" you (as the user or customer) sign, you cannot sign away your rights to have (in this case a 4wd park) an owner/operator observe his/her necessary duty of care wrt the users. What that duty extends to in the case of a 4wd park is a minefield and will only be satisfied by one (or many) court cases.

Again, if the 4wd park owner/operator is found to be negligent in its operation of the park, no disclaimer signed by a user will protect them.

The coroner is unable to make a decision regarding "duty of care" or "negligence", it must be decided by a civil court.

Best Wishes,

Have checked out the Black duck site and the whole mountain is closed while they have an expert look at the tracks, See the Black Duck Valley Trail Map for further details. Yes there are some bike tracks open.
They do not show any 4WD pictures or details to promote it as a 4wd park unless I am missing something. I used to attend Black Duck 4WD Park app once a month back in 1994 -1996 and there were very few accidents and not many bikes at all as it was promoted as a 4wd park and if we thought it was to dangerous we would not attempt it. Now by what I see, it is a bike park and after watching YouTube attached to Black Duck site I can see why bike riders are getting injured every week end which is what we here in our local paper as the ambulance from Gatton has to attend more then once nearly every weekend which is a lot of driving for them by what you read in paper. Have not gone back due to being told about the amount of bikes and near misses with bikes coming around corners I like to drive and watch where my tyres are going and enjoy the scenery, not watching for bikes comming at me or past me.

Just my five cents, Cheers Allan.

As I said, the unfortunate death of two people doesn't replace the concept of common sense. That is is the problem with some 4WDers who get themselves into all sorts of strife because they're not equipped to do so or there ego gets the better of them

If I did injure myself or kill myself (touch wood), I wouldn't hold the park liable it's my own judgement and I have to live with the consequenses (or my family).

It doesn't matter how good, ballsy, egotistical or just plain foolhardy you are as a 4WDer, you'll always come across something that is not wise to traverse. I always apply the lodgic if I feel uncomfortable, don't fo it. The alternative is that'll always end in tears or 'dickhead' gong amongst most people.

BDV was once a good 4WD park and I hope the owners do sort out the issues and can make it safe once again. Til then it's a boycot from me personally.

Trav

The biggest problem is even if the landowner is exonerated in a court and found not to have contributed or caused an incident, civil court is another kettle of fish. Decisions can be made in a civil court and rarely rely on legal fact, but a finding can quite easily be made against the landholder because of injuries sustained by the claimant or their families. It is thess judgements that destroy businesss, increase insurances to the point where a business is not viable and eventually lock us out of any sort of recreational activity that has any risk.
There should be legislation in place to protect people and businesses from these sorts of findings. This is not to say they should be protected from negligence. But if they are not found criminally liable or negligent a civil claim should be automatically denied as well and the people involved should have to rely on their own insurance.