http://www.railpro.co.uk/magazine/?idArticles=1608
The lawyer is Khamal Chauhan as far as I'm aware.
He works for Kennedy Law.
There is confusion as to whether he is engaged by the Insurers, UKA or the FRA as all have been credited with his services in correspondence.
Read the report on the link.
For Merseyrail think UKA/FRA
For Christopher MgGee think - Race Organiser
For Miss Varley - think Fell Runner who makes an error, perhaps caused by a misdirection by a marshall,or a miscount at a checkpoint.
Some will call it scaremongering.
But the safest standpoint for FRA and RO (and insurance) is 100% Volenti ie all the responsibility lies with the competitor.
That is not going to happen these days.
The next best position for the Insurance could quite easily be interpreted as defence of the insured ie the FRA/UKA.
So the RO may be "sacrificed" as collateral damage.
Harsh maybe. Exageration perhaps - but to make a point.
If the regulations were drawn up in the ROs interest, they would be drawn up differently than if they were drawn up in either the competitors or governing bodies interests.
It's about finding the right balance and the de facto NGB legal advisor is not the right person :-
1. because he has a conflict of interest.
2. because he is not expert in this area.
Last edited by Witton Park; 15-01-2014 at 11:25 PM.
Could the RO be hung out to dry?
Surely if the RO has an FRA permit, then the RO has agreed to enforce the safety rules (putting to one side a groundswell of opinion that the safety rules need redrafting).
In the event of an incident or accident which might give rise to a claim, if the RO can show that he/she together with suitably qualified and trained marshalls required all runners to comply with the rules, and took measures against those who didn't, the RO should be immune from 'sacrifice'.
The Trigger RO was clear in the race information that the new rules would be applied, and a runner was disqualified for non-compliance with a safety requirement.
The ROs should have specialist independent legal advice
These points you raise about a conflict should be considered further, I agree.
I would recommend that ROs obtain independent legal advice and think it is only fair that the FRA should pay for that.
I volunteered on a Management Committee for many years and a chain of events beyond the MC's control led to some members of the MC being pursued for significant costs which were entirely unforeseeable; disputing liability is time consuming and complicated.
a rush and a push and the land is ours
I have - not from a Blue Chip defence lawyer but from a prosecution lawyer in these matters who would look for the weakest part of defence.
In his opinion it would be the RO as things stand. there are so many requirements on he RO "must", "shoulds", "obilgatory", "ensure"
that he feels every RO will fall sort somewhere along the line.
NB. He's pretty good. Been on the tele lately a few times - and he's a fell runner.
Not sure this is a resignation thread matter.
But we give the lawyers an open goal. Look at the definition of words.
" no foreseeable risk of accidents in crowded areas"
Risk is any possibility does not need high probability
Forseeing is what you do in assessment, and every rock , tussock, mud etc gives possibility of trip slip fall or trample because of crowding, unless you can see clearly ahead past the next runner. You cannot. There is also the sizable risk of one faller, tripping another in a minor pileup, the victims having increasing momentum It only takes one rock,to turn that into a broken neck or brain bleed.
Don't even need to foresee it, fellrunning fact, I have seen a pileup of two or three happen.
So any field size allowing bunching ( all of them) is clearly outlawed, ie every fell race. In borrowdale I have seen many trips and even tramples in the first mile and it does not stop there. Trips happen everywhere people cannot see because of bunching due to field size.
Clearly forseeable risk, with any meaningful field
Ergo Borrowdale, langdale and others cannot even PRETEND they comply.
I would not sign up for such a crass rule, neither should such as wynn.
Speaking from safety stanpoint, lowering perception of risk increases it, less care is taken.
You should play the risk up and warn of it, not pretend it does not exist.
You cannot even warn of a risk, that you are not meant to have, without admitting you broke the rules.
Speaking from legal standpoint, is equally a problem. The defence volenti requires full knowledge of risk, You just told the runner there is no such risk,
Thats why a lawyer said that was a problem to an RO , a rule that is so much toilet paper.
And before anyone says it is scaremongering. Safety is abiut forseeing and managing the higly unlikely - the myriad of improbable things that can go wrong, and it takes training to see such risks. It should be managed with field size, but also by warning, and never be underplayed, the risk is real and forseeable with any realistic field. Tell them to be S*dd*ng careful until the field opens out.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 16-01-2014 at 12:09 PM.
The spelling bee is going to give you one hell of a spanking!!
Andy, I'm sorry to hear this, but I at least hope that your resignation will make some with a blasé "it'll all be okay" attitude to "wake up and smell the coffee", so to speak. Indeed, I think the discussions going on here of late have been much more productive than, say, the gagged New Safety Rules thread, and perhaps even the lurkers have realised the severity of the situation.
On an unrelated matter. I was receiving legal advice not so long ago. The exact words where "I'd find the weakest point, then pull everything apart from there"But we give the lawyers an open goal
pies
Not really sure this is the thread to be discussing insurance issues as relevant and as interesting as it is. Surely the question is WTF is going with the committee!!?? I hear all the arguments about these people are volunteers, giving up their time freely, if you want it differently step up to the mark but that does not excuse some of the behaviours being reported – shocking and truly saddening