Quote Originally Posted by Witton Park View Post
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.
Witton

I'm going to go all legal on you again; seems that some of my comments have been seen as helpful anyway!

The language on the standard entry from was my creation. A while ago I spotted an invalid disclaimer on the 3Ps entry form and told Dave Hodgson it didn't work. He asked me to produce one that did. I produced the words above in capitals and they found their way to the FRA.

I don't know whether they work or not. They are my best attempt bearing in mind the issue mentioned in post # 219. No-one will know if they work and protect the RO until they have been tested in the crucible of litigation, which I strongly hope never comes to pass.

As regards your suggestion above, I am not convinced this will work in all cases if the shit hits the fan.

I have mentioned the ROs duty of care a few times, and the scope of this duty will always be at the very heart of an issue if it goes down the legal path.

The ROs duty of care to an experienced runner and his or her duty of care to an inexperienced runner will, I suggest, be different, perhaps very different. (What I mean is that a judge would see them as different.) And this might well turn out to be a key issue if we ever get in a proper pickle.

We are familiar with differing duties of care of course in the sport. This is reflected in the way we deal with junior runners.

As Iain correctly points out, there are aspects of this thorny subject that relate to a combination of information and education, especially for newcomers and more inexperienced people who decide to compete.