With respect Andrew,

Surely the fact that such events take place very regularly (in Ireland
at least and so far as I know in the UK also) and always have done
proves that the simple 'either or' (either no liability or no
spontaneous fun) you propose is but a straw man. To the extent that
having insurance raises the price of events etc. (that is an argument
for some more efficient replacement for insurance - like the much
debated NZ accident compensation model) and to the extent that having
to insure makes such events safer, that is a good thing.

As for your "sympathetic disclaimer of liability to the parents of a
child grievously injured through the admitted negligence of those who
organize an event and destined to pay the price of 'harmless fun' for
decades to come, suffice it to say that this is a conversation which I
for one would find little short of abhorrent, with all respect.

No doubt this is but a value judgment, on which reasonable minds may
differ, even if they do so sharply.

Kind regards

Ger

On 6/3/14, Andrew Tettenborn <a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk> wrote:
> Driving is different: we already have compulsory insurance.
>
> On others, I'm simply not sure if "Responsible volunteers will insure",
> or whether they should have to. Take a village sports day: on a good
> day the total monies raised are likely to be Ł100-Ł200 for the church
> roof or whatever. Insurance will make a grievous hole in that, and may
> well make the operation not worth it. If my negligence in placing the
> finishing line too near a wall causes a child to become paraplegic, I
> don't see why either I or the organisers should be expected to insure
> against that, or otherwise to be liable. It's unfortunate, but I see
> nothing wrong in saying to the child and its parents (with sympathy, of
> course) that it's just one of those things. Again, at a charity barbecue
> -- or for that matter a barbecue put on for free by the retired City
> solicitor who lives in the village -- it seems to me it is monstrous to
> make the amateur burger-flipper or home-made mayonnaise-maker
> potentially liable for the food poisoning -- serious or even deadly --
> that may be suffered from inadequate cooking or refrigeration. We can,
> quite simply, have too much safety.
>
> I suppose it all comes down to whether you think it's a good thing that
> it should be made difficult for anyone to run fun without grievous risk
> to the bank balance unless they are a local authority bureaucrat or an
> establishment organisation like a big charity. I for one don't.
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On 02/06/2014 21:52, Jones, Michael wrote:
>>
>> One's motive (commercial, self-interest, public service, altruism) is
>> entirely irrelevant to the level of one's competence. Are we really
>> going to say that, e.g., someone volunteering (from the very best of
>> intentions) to take disabled children out on a day trip in a mini-bus
>> will escape any liability for negligently driving over the edge of a
>> cliff?
>>
>> Surely one doesn't have to be a bleeding heart liberal to think that a
>> rule excusing the incompetent do-gooder from liability would be a bad
>> rule? If that discourages some people from volunteering then so be it.
>> Responsible volunteers will insure. It's the irresponsible who don't
>> protect themselves and their victims (as, e.g., with uninsured
>> motorists); and the rest of us pick up the tab (as, e.g., with
>> uninsured motorists).
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Michael A. Jones
>> /Emeritus Professor of Law/
>> School of Law and Social Justice
>> University of Liverpool
>> Liverpool
>> L69 7ZS
>> www.liv.ac.uk/law <http://www.liv.ac.uk/law>
>> --------------------------------------
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Andrew Tettenborn [a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk]
>> *Sent:* 02 June 2014 18:32
>> *To:* Hedley, Steve; obligations@uwo.ca
>> *Subject:* Re: UK: New "good samaritan" legislation planned
>>
>> The real problem is that the Compensation Act was too mealy-mouthed;
>> and I suspect there's a danger of this measure having the same problem
>> despite the apparent tightening-up. A duty to take a factor into
>> account is too easy to weasel out of when faced with sympathy for the
>> seriously hurt: it's also so uncertain that the defendant is likely to
>> have to continue to take out insurance, just in case, which rather
>> defeats the object of the exercise.
>>
>> If we want to make a serious difference (and I think we do, even to
>> the extent of being entirely hard-hearted to the grievously injured),
>> it's arguable we should go further and take a leaf from the criterion
>> for loss of the right to limit liability under transport conventions.
>> In other words, say that in the case of public-spirited actions there
>> can be no liability at all except in the case of conduct intended to
>> cause damage, or undertaken recklessly and in the knowledge that loss
>> will probably result. Whether Parliament will have the courage to say
>> this remains to be seen: but I'm not hopeful.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> On 02/06/2014 18:08, Hedley, Steve wrote:
>>> "Extra legal protection is to be given to people carrying out good
>>> deeds, volunteering or planning local events who end up being
>>> involved in liability claims, the government has announced. Those
>>> thinking of doing something to help others should not be put off by
>>> the risk of being sued, ministers said ...": "Queen's Speech: Good
>>> deeds 'to be backed by law'", /BBC News/ 1 June -
>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27658594
>>> <http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27658594>
>>>
>>> For commentary see Thomas Crockett, 'Legislating for "Statutory
>>> Common Sense" and Personal Injury Litigation?', /piBlawg /2 June -
>>> http://www.piblawg.co.uk/post/2014/06/02/Legislating-for-Statutory-Common-Sense-and-Personal-Injury-Litigation.aspx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> *Andrew Tettenborn*
>> /Professor of Commercial Law, Swansea University/
>>
>> Institute of International Shipping and Trade Law
>> School of Law, University of Swansea
>> Richard Price Building
>> Singleton Park
>> SWANSEA SA2 8PP
>> Phone 01792-602724 / (int) +44-1792-602724
>> Fax 01792-295855 / (int) +44-1792-295855
>>
>>
>>
>> *Andrew Tettenborn*
>> /Athro yn y Gyfraith Fasnachol, Prifysgol Abertawe/
>>
>> Sefydliad y Gyfraith Llongau a Masnach Ryngwladol
>> Ysgol y Gyfraith, Prifysgol Abertawe
>> Adeilad Richard Price
>> Parc Singleton
>> ABERTAWE SA2 8PP
>> Ffôn 01792-295831 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-295831
>> Ffacs 01792-295855 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-295855
>>
>>
>>
>> *Lawyer (n):*One versed in circumvention of the law (Ambrose Bierce)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ***
>>
>>
>
> --
>
>
> *Andrew Tettenborn*
> /Professor of Commercial Law, Swansea University/
>
> Institute of International Shipping and Trade Law
> School of Law, University of Swansea
> Richard Price Building
> Singleton Park
> SWANSEA SA2 8PP
> Phone 01792-602724 / (int) +44-1792-602724
> Fax 01792-295855 / (int) +44-1792-295855
>
>
>
> *Andrew Tettenborn*
> /Athro yn y Gyfraith Fasnachol, Prifysgol Abertawe/
>
> Sefydliad y Gyfraith Llongau a Masnach Ryngwladol
> Ysgol y Gyfraith, Prifysgol Abertawe
> Adeilad Richard Price
> Parc Singleton
> ABERTAWE SA2 8PP
> Ffôn 01792-295831 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-295831
> Ffacs 01792-295855 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-295855
>
>
>
> *Lawyer (n):*One versed in circumvention of the law (Ambrose Bierce)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***
>
>
>