DQ the cheats

[QUOTE=IainR;443702]At the moment the organiser takes too much responsibilityQUOTE]

But it is a risky job, at least in theory.

There is a balance of risk that exists between RO and competitor. It is that balance that needs to be kept, with the responsibility for their own safety largely resting with the runner. That seems to be the view of most people here.

But in order for that to happen, the RO needs to keep him or herself on the right side of the risk line.

There are FRA Safety Requirements. I think it is pretty clear that if a RO complies with those, he or she will be staying on the right side of the risk line. (And will receive the full backing of the UKA insurers if anything does go badly wrong.)

There will be some elements that he or she might take a view on. Who knows how these decisions will affect the risk scales? We won't truly know until the Safety Requirememts are tested in some formal manner.

Clearly certain aspects will be viewed as more important than others; vetting for ER races and kit checking at M and L category races seem to me to fall into that category.

And how do the insurers react when ROs "depart" from the Safety Requirements? I have no idea, because the issue of looking at whether cover is in place or denied in difficult circumstances has never arisen.

Some will think it never will. I hope those people are right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeoffB

Bloody hell, you're still at it. It must be Groundhog Day!

(I'm going back to the 4x4 debate to see if they've finished yet).

---

Perhaps the 2 could be combined. Has any RO thought of having someone in a 4x4 following the race route as a sort of sweeper carrying all the neccessary kit thus saving us having to arse about with a bum bag

In the coroners inquiry that I was involved in, the misadventure finding was sealed by the fact that the runner was noticed to be under-prepared kit wise by a fellow competitor. This competitor offered assistance that was declined by the runner who subsequently perished in tragic circumstances. That one fact alone shifted the 'responsibility' from the RO to the individual. But had that thoughtful competitor not intervened????? I still break out in a cold sweat about it. Moral of the story....it's dangerous out there. We have a duty of care to ourselves and to our fellow compeitors that over-rules everything else. That's why carrying kit is not just for yourself. It's for others like poor old AMEX who may suffer catastrophic injury. The military call it 'buddy-buddy' care and it should be ingrained in our competitive philosophy.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS RACE IS HELD IN ACCORDANCE WIH BOTH THE RULES AND SAFETY
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FRA. I CONFIRM THAT I AM AWARE OF THE ORGANISER’S INFORMATION AND
REQUIREMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS RACE. I ACCEPT THE HAZARDS INVOLVED IN FELL RUNNING
AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM ENTERING AND RUNNING THIS RACE AT MY OWN RISK. OTHER THAN THE
ORGANISER’S LIABILITY FOR CAUSING DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY BY NEGLIGENCE, I CONFIRM THAT I
UNDERSTAND THAT THE ORGANISER ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY TO ME FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY
NATURE TO MYSELF OR MY PROPERTY ARISING OUT OF MY PARTICIPATION IN THIS RACE.

Morgan W - some really good comments.
These are on the universal entry form. I would suggest that if a race organiser has these on the form and the advertises the race accordingly as ER then the athlete is responsible in most circumstances.
He knows that experience is required and has entered the race. If it's 20 miles with 5000ft with ER I think that is clear to all that you need to have done some AM, AL or BL races.

It should not fall on the RO to check the experience as they have made it clear that experience is required.

With races that ask for "standards" such as the Three Peaks, you could argue they are making a rod for their own back, but if they risk assess that a runner should have (for example) 2 x AM or AL races behind them and the athletes put such details forward at entry, they are covered in my mind.

I would argue that an organisers negligence would be at an identified hazard, where the assessed course of action to mitigate that hazard had not been enacted eg. a road crossing - assessment to be manned by 2 marshalls - someone gets hit and 2 marshalls are not covering that point.

It's complicated - and I think some ROs take a few chances - not fell related, but I was at the Northern Road Relays recently and after the first races (U13s) had gone there was an appeal went out over the tannoy for volunteer marshalls as they were short.
They could well have been in trouble had an accident happened in the U13 Boys or U13 Girls race for proceeding without the appropriate number of marshalls in place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Head

Perhaps the 2 could be combined. Has any RO thought of having someone in a 4x4 following the race route as a sort of sweeper carrying all the neccessary kit thus saving us having to arse about with a bum bag

---

Very amusing. The Army does just that in basic training and formal testing scenarios, the ambulance (or jack wagon) follows at the rear. That's because there is a duty of care to inexperienced trainees. However, when they are trained grown-ups greater responsibility is given to the individuals and organisers on the ground, with medical back-up on call or at selected points along the route.

I prefer to do my fell-running on a grown-up basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorganW

The unthinkable happens and there is a tragedy. Surviving relatives are advised to have a go (legally) at the RO.

One of the questions the Coroner will ask (never mind the barrister for the family in civil proceedings) is, what steps did you take to to check the experience of this particular, and other, competitors? (Because that goes to your credibility as a race organiser.)

Do you want to answer "I didn't have any system at all" or do you want to be able to answer that you did have a system, and then allow your legal/advisory team to argue about its validity/worth in the particular case?

---

The role of the Coroner, unless I am mistaken, is to investigate the cause of death - not to portion blame. As detailed below by Kent County Council's statement.

"The coroner has a duty to investigate the circumstances of sudden, unnatural or uncertified deaths that are reported to him.
They have to find out the medical cause of the death, if it is not known, and to enquire about the cause of it - if it was due to violence or was otherwise unnatural.
In addition the coroner is responsible for determining issues of treasure trove."

This has also been highlighted in the many coroners verdicts and statements into the cause of death of British servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan - They are not supposed to specify that 'insufficient equipment lead to an individuals death only that he was unlawfully killed by unknown Afghan insurgents and died from extensive blood loss - or something similar. Who is to blame is the responsibility of an inquiry / investigation.

To that end a simple question and provide an example as to 'what ALs have you completed in the last 24 months? would suffice - similar to that used on the Welsh 1000 application form.

'...OTHER THAN THE
ORGANISER’S LIABILITY FOR CAUSING DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY BY NEGLIGENCE, ....'
That's the bit a good lawyer could drive a truck through. How do you define negligence in any given circumstance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

'...OTHER THAN THE
ORGANISER’S LIABILITY FOR CAUSING DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY BY NEGLIGENCE, ....'
That's the bit a good lawyer could drive a truck through. How do you define negligence in any given circumstance?

---

Have you done a Risk Assessment?
What hazards did you identify?
What action was taken to mitigate those hazards?
Was that action reasonable?

If a RO of a 20m/5000ft race Risk Assesses that Experience is Required. They then inform the entrants that Exeprience is required then that demonstrates in my opinion that they have taken reasonable action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

'...OTHER THAN THE
ORGANISER’S LIABILITY FOR CAUSING DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY BY NEGLIGENCE, ....'
That's the bit a good lawyer could drive a truck through. How do you define negligence in any given circumstance?

---

The only reason those words are in the standard entry form is to try and ensure that the disclaimer wording which precedes them will hold water for the protection of the RO.

It is not possible under English law to exclude your liability for causing death or personal injury by negligence.

If a limitation or disclaimer does that, it won't work for the benefit of the person who seeks to rely on it.

The safest way to ensure that the disclaimer language doesn't fall foul of this rule is to expressly say that those liabilities are not excluded.

Causing someone's death or injury by negligence will almost always attract liability; the question of the negligence, if there is an argument, will be determined by the court as in Hedley and Cuthbertson mentioned earlier. Much will revolve around the scope of the ROs duty of care as seen by the court, and the view it forms as to whether this has been broken. That is where evidence and experts come in.

I say "almost" because there are 2 very helpful legal concepts which might help a RO when otherwise he or she might have crossed the line. Contributory negligence (failing to carry the mandatory equipment maybe) and (I won't use the Latin) putting yourself in harm's way. The difference I recall is that in the first, the RO is liable but the liability is then reduced, and this might be by 100%. In the second, liability is never established.

Even if negligent, the insurer should pick up any liability (as with Cuthbertson).

Provided of course that the RO hasn't adversely tipped the scales of risk against themselves by doing something that prompts the insurer to abandon him or her.

Complicated!

"The role of the Coroner, unless I am mistaken, is to investigate the cause of death - not to portion blame. As detailed below by Kent County Council's statement.

"The coroner has a duty to investigate the circumstances of sudden, unnatural or uncertified deaths that are reported to him.
They have to find out the medical cause of the death, if it is not known, and to enquire about the cause of it - if it was due to violence or was otherwise unnatural.
In addition the coroner is responsible for determining issues of treasure trove."


In practice, once the cause of death has been thoroughly investigated, it may be obvious to all that there is someone to blame.