Quote Originally Posted by Witton Park View Post
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.

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.