
Originally Posted by
nippersmith
Wouldn't the insurance company instruct the solicitor to defend a claim in the event of a claim against a RO who was covered by insurance arranged through the FRA.
The RO could in theory be sued by (a) a member of the public who is injured or suffers loss as a result of a collision with a fell runner in the race (b) by a runner who becomes injured in the race or (c) by the relatives of the fell runner in the event of a death.
Surely it is in the interests of the insurance company to ensure that ROs are trained and compliant with best safety practice?
So that both runners and third parties unrelated with the event (eg the walker who gets knocked over and suffers a fracture) are kept as safe as possible in the circumstances?
Sports law is complex, it would be interesting to know the name of the lawyer advising the FRA. Some lawyers are better than others.
It is good see that someone has taken steps to show their public support for Always Injured as he often refers in his posts to people supporting him who don't wish to do so in public for a variety of reasons.
It is difficult to pull all the various strands together and work out the nature of the problem which has compelled Always Injured to continue to type long and detailed posts; many allegations have been made - some serious - together with references to the "Gang of Three" and I have not seen, I could have missed it, any direct response to these allegations.
If the Committee by their statement put on the home page yesterday, acknowledge that there should be changes to the current rules, "the suite of documentation still needs work" then doesn't it make sense to get working on the required changes, in the interests of safety?