More Women

I'd rather think they ought to defend it FoC!

|| Obviously, there are circumstances where a claim IS reasonable, too: || In the same way, my hypothetical off-road || operator could let me onto his premises, take no steps to find out || if I had any experience, make no effort to inform me of any risks || and say "off yer go". In THOSE circumstances, he'd be negligent and || if I were damaged, I'd expect to claim from him. The difference || being that the risks were not either inherently obvious nor clearly || stated.

I'd go a bit further - I'd say (in your hypothetical example) that the site operator should only be liable if he knowingly hid something from you, or otherwise failed to point out something that no reasonable person could have foreseen. To me, if the driver has no experience and no idea of the risks, it's his responsibility to find stuff out first. This is the way we learnt as kids - we'd try stuff out, get into some hellish scrapes, and gradually learn that some things weren't as easy or as safe as they looked. We would then approach them with a greater degree of care and forward planning. If we'd had a grown-up checking on our experience level and warning us of the risks before we started, we'd never have learned anything.

So - if the inexperienced off-roader arrives at the site, pays his money, and promptly rolls his vehicle on a side-slope, I'd say that was tough on him, and no-one's fault but his own. If the site owner knew of a clear and unusual risk - say a metal spike hidden at the bottom of a muddy pool - and failed to tell the driver, then perhaps he should be liable for the damage (although I'd still be tempted to say that the driver should have checked the pool first. If he didn't know to do that, well he will next time).

|| But as a general rule, I reckon there's far too much of people || wanting someone else to take responsibility for their actions going on.

Agreed.

it's cheaper in Thailand (so I understand).

We're with the EEF, and they have a guaranteed employment service that insures us against being taken to a tribunal, provided we route all our employment questions through them before we do anything.

Steve

That's about the legal position regardless of any signs he puts up, he has a duty of care and keeping quiet about say a block of concrete in the bottom of a ford would be a breach of it, but typical dammage caused by off roading would not.

The only purpose for a sign would be to point out to the terminally thick that offroading is potentially damaging to your vehicle so they couldn't argue in court that it wasn't common knowledge. Any further working claiming no responsibility for anything is at best pointless and it could be argued that it discourages people with justifiable claims from proceeding, which of course is why they post these signs.

If it was possible to absolve yourself of your duty of care, as some have argued, it would be a license for cowboys to rip people off big time. What really needs changing is the small claims system, not to stop people with justifyable claims but those who abuse the system with totally speculative ones hoping the insurers will pay out anyway.

Greg