New safety rules

[alwaysinjured]

In arriving at the final version, I would hope that relevant comments from this thread will also be considered by our Committee together with the Coroner's views and any requirements from UKA/their insurers.

UKA have already expressed an opinion on matters specific to the previous case but also hinting at their views more generally in testimony. Am aware of some issues arising: it would be helpful for the entireity to be circulated so that people are aware of UKA stance which is perhaps not as helpful as we might hope or expect. It was a public hearing, so there is little reason not to publish it.

On the matter of insurers: Don't you just hate insurers who love to leave loopholes to exit whenever you need to claim!

I quote from the insurance policy as it pertains to organisers: (Bet most RO have never read it)

"Hazardous Activities Exclusion – this policy does not apply to
liability arising out of hazardous activities which increase
the risk of bodily injury or damage to property."

Whilst it does not say it means or includes fell running, and the examples given relate to ancilliary matters, the fact it says "not limited to" is typical insurers "wriggle room"

( Spot the anorak - the only person you have probably met who turned down two hire and courtesy cars in the past, because of the fine print. These agreements are not all the same. It is amazing what some people think you will sign up to!)

[Witton Park]

I assume that at some point in the past the insurance was provided independently by the FRA. Was it? Did it work? If so, why did it change?

[Fellhound]

Was Brian the only one believed to have gone off route deliberately?

This is just from my fallible memory (disclaimer!) but I believe Judith was on a pre-planned escape attempt (so deliberately off-route) and John Rix took shelter behind a boulder after losing a shoe during the Ben Nevis Race (so also deliberately off-route)

The latter was found by mountain rescue still alive but died of exposure before they could get him to safety. Had he stayed on the race route he could conceivably have been back in the valley hours earlier, assisted by other competitors and probably wearing half a dozen cags that they would have surely loaned to him.

[Lefty]

Have any claims ever been made on the FRA ( UKA ) insurance if so have the insurers got out of paying out due to loopholes ?

[Graham Breeze]

Have any claims ever been made on the FRA ( UKA ) insurance if so have the insurers got out of paying out due to loopholes ?

There has never been a claim.

An important legal maximwould apply to fell running: volenti non fit inuria which means "to a willing person injury is not done" or, if you enter a fell race, which is clearly a hazardous sport, and something goes wrong don't then try and claim because you knew what you were doing.

In Yorkshire we would translate the Latin as "well, what did you expect?"

[OB1]

There has never been a claim.

An important legal maximwould apply to fell running: volenti non fit inuria which means "to a willing person injury is not done" or, if you enter a fell race, which is clearly a hazardous sport, and something goes wrong don't then try and claim because you knew what you were doing.

In Yorkshire we would translate the Latin as "well, what did you expect?"

I agree, It would probably make more sense if we were to re-write the rules in Latin or Yorkshire - we'd get less complaints perhaps? As they'd probably be easier to understand than the gobbledygook they are currently written in?
Non sibi sed omnibus!

[alwaysinjured]

There has never been a claim.

An important legal maximwould apply to fell running: volenti non fit inuria which means "to a willing person injury is not done" or, if you enter a fell race, which is clearly a hazardous sport, and something goes wrong don't then try and claim because you knew what you were doing.

In Yorkshire we would translate the Latin as "well, what did you expect?"

I am glad to hear it.
Dealing with insurance companies makes you cynical:
if they think they can, they certainly try.

The main issue to concern in the insurance is:
"If injury or damage is caused by a deliberate act or omission
there is no cover."
If breaking of rules or guidlines by an RO or marshall was considered a contributory factor, invoking the above rule would be considered by the insurance company.

Like having hazards on a course warranted "hazard free" for example.

"res ispsa loquitur" - the thing speaks for itself - would then seem to fit better than "volenti non fit inuria" if there are not supposed to be hazards, but the fact of a trip or a slip proves there were.

Let us not give these legal vultures ANY more scope than we have to.
"They are buggered" was one of the more fruity legal opinions I have heard recently expressed of these rules and guidelines, by someone qualified to know.

"on your own head be it" needs to prevail.
Looking forward to a more bulletproof version 2

[LissaJous]

This is just from my fallible memory (disclaimer!) but I believe Judith was on a pre-planned escape attempt (so deliberately off-route) and John Rix took shelter behind a boulder after losing a shoe during the Ben Nevis Race (so also deliberately off-route)

The latter was found by mountain rescue still alive but died of exposure before they could get him to safety. Had he stayed on the race route he could conceivably have been back in the valley hours earlier, assisted by other competitors and probably wearing half a dozen cags that they would have surely loaned to him.

It might be most productive to add the following line to the already-unwieldy entry form / disclaimer:
"If you are injured or feeling cold or unwell, your first course of action should be to inform another runner if at all possible"

[Mike T]

This is just from my fallible memory (disclaimer!) but I believe Judith was on a pre-planned escape attempt (so deliberately off-route) and John Rix took shelter behind a boulder after losing a shoe during the Ben Nevis Race (so also deliberately off-route)

The latter was found by mountain rescue still alive but died of exposure before they could get him to safety. Had he stayed on the race route he could conceivably have been back in the valley hours earlier, assisted by other competitors and probably wearing half a dozen cags that they would have surely loaned to him.

Deliberately off route, or lost/disorientated? The evidence for one or the other will vary from case to case, but in the end will come down to opinion/conjecture. The same applies to how long they survived in their final resting place.
There is no doubt we are more likely to stray off the route when tired/hypoglycemic/hypothermic, and when the weather/visibility are poor. Staying on the race route is often the safest option, though turning back on it may be better than pressing on. So called escape routes should be confined to well recognized routes such as the Band - the advice to just "go down" can result in falling off a cliff, or ending up in the vast emptiness of Eskdale, for example. Should each race have advice on safe escape routes, and, perhaps more importantly ways not to go?

[alwaysinjured]

Deliberately off route, or lost/disorientated? The evidence for one or the other will vary from case to case, but in the end will come down to opinion/conjecture. The same applies to how long they survived in their final resting place.
There is no doubt we are more likely to stray off the route when tired/hypoglycemic/hypothermic, and when the weather/visibility are poor. Staying on the race route is often the safest option, though turning back on it may be better than pressing on. So called escape routes should be confined to well recognized routes such as the Band - the advice to just "go down" can result in falling off a cliff, or ending up in the vast emptiness of Eskdale, for example. Should each race have advice on safe escape routes, and, perhaps more importantly ways not to go?

On judith, the last one to see her opined that her descent to patterdale may have been deliberate.
http://www.weshamroadrunners.com/Mem...wn_March07.htm


But we should not publish advice except informally, and certainly not as rules or guidelines.

It will come back to haunt us: for example the inevitable fallible but clearly ideal of tracking competitors between checkpoints, will be presented as evidence of impropriety if it fails and will become the focus of media attention see a newspaper quoting " rules" which can be used to hang an RO.

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co...._race_tragedy/

Still waiting for UKA opinion to be published in full.

Which is why such must be done in a MUCH more guarded way, using qualifiers such as " ideally" to make it less mandated, and more just useful advice.