Accident "disclaimer"

[Maddison]

=When I got wind of its existence I did throw a bit of a wobbly and suggest that no flying would take place if I thought that they were trying to indemnify themselves against prosecution in the event of the kid hurting herself. Accordingly, when they showed me the document, the part from the company's name onwards had been inked out!

 

Out of interest, from your dealings with the company, does it seem like the company as a whole is trying to do a sloping shoulders routine? Or does it feel like there are a few people who have insisted on it?

[Claire]

The thing is, I can kind of see the point that they are (possibly clumsily) making. If there was an accident and the kit was at fault, the hire company would be liable; if there was an accident and the theatre staff were at fault, the theatre would be liable I'd assume (in the same way that I'd expect the theatre to be liable if they were flying scenery and dropped it on someone). However if the kid does something daft and messes about and hurts herself through showing off or whatever she needs to understand (and so do her parents) that the am company won't accept liability for THAT, which I think is fair enough- it's not their fault if she's been shown how to do it safely and she doesn't comply with that. In which case I don't really see how there's much chance of the am co being liable for anything unless the director directs her to do something stupid for instance (in which case a) they deserve it and b) they shoudl have the appropriate insurances anyway).

 

When you are one of the people liable for a potential insurance claim even when it's your friend you do think about it hard because I was in the situation where I've had to stop someone from appearing on stage because of insurance issues; not only would I not forgive myself if something happened, I am not prepared to go through some kind of claim that was preventable in the first place by everyone understanding where they stand on insurance.

[Stuart Basson]

...does it seem like the company as a whole is trying to do a sloping shoulders routine? Or does it feel like there are a few people who have insisted on it?

Difficult to fathom. One or two adult members of the thing "haven't seen it," and "Don't know anything about it," when I've tried to talk to them. Ultimately, though, the company is a bit of a one-man band, with everything that has to be decided about anything going through the founder/director. I've no clear idea of what motivated them to produce this.

 

...if the kid does something daft and messes about and hurts herself through showing off or whatever she needs to understand (and so do her parents) that the am company won't accept liability for THAT, which I think is fair enough...

 

You're right that everyone has a duty to look out for their own safety, and the kid in this case is patient, takes instructions well and is not overwhelmed by the sheer luvvie-darlingness of everything. The qualities you fairly imply as neccessary in the specific performer for this trick are something I'd want to consider at the casting stage - if the company casts a completely irresponsible berk in the role, are they in any way liable, I wonder?

 

As it happens, she walks onto a mark in darkness, is flown out at a given point in the action and then tracked off. Blink, and you miss it. You watch it, and you're forced to wonder why they've shelled out all that money for the kit! Until they use it later to fly a gentleman who is, shall we say, upholstered for comfort, and the greatest danger there is that the two crewmen gamely hauling him out might pop a gasket!

 

Many interestting responses on here - thanks to all!

[sleah]

Until they use it later to fly a gentleman who is, shall we say, upholstered for comfort, and the greatest danger there is that the two crewmen gamely hauling him out might pop a gasket!

 

Many interestting responses on here - thanks to all!

 

My imagination just saw two crewmen heaving said gent up, then gravity developing a rather evil grin, and two crewmen heading north as the gent heads south..... :huh:

 

:) :o

 

Which actually opens up more H&S issues :o Who's liable for crewmens' loss of earnings whilst recovering from herniers? :blink:

[Jivemaster]

The very existance of a "disclaimer" indicates that the am dram group have NOT got their responsibilities properly understood. HSE would have a field day and the claimant's solicitor (free or not) would start to unravel the society, it's owners, trustees, officers and leaders. If there wasn't (sufficient) insurance then the committee could be personally liable to the full extent of their personal assets. It's unlikely that the society is a limited company properly constituted, even so directors can be personally liable.

 

Many legal professionals would see a disclaimer as red rag to a bull, as an indicator of evasion or avoidance of responsibility, so they would take the society and it's officers apart.

 

While the "Child" issues raise other questions and would certainly set opinion against the society, flying an adult can be just as risky. You infer that he is heavy so the operating technicians will actually tire more than with a child. However the adult may have easily determined need for money on top of pain money, like lost income lost bonusses.

 

If you drop the child then it's pain money, if you drop the adult it's pain money PLUS next month's lost income each month from day one.

 

If you are using employed technicians to actually operate the flying then their employer can also have a liability under HSWA and if there are employees present then it's almost certain the the HSWA would apply in full. If they are self employed then each of them needs insurance cover for operating the flying, or again there could be personal liability.

 

Flying may be seen as a hazardous act BUT responsibly risk assessed, properly method statemented the hazard can be minimised and flying can be an insurable risk, but it's still a risk for which the society is liable and cannot disclaim liability or responsibility in law.

[Jivemaster]

When I worked in the engineering industry the company had, by law, a liability for the product when used as intended OR as likely to be misused.

[J Pearce]

The whole basis of h&s law is that by law we have a moral and legal duty to ensure that our actions do not place anyone else in danger.

(Simon, where are you with your snail in a lemonade bottle!?)

 

You cannot simply sign away this legal obligation to protect others from danger incurring from your actions. It would never ever stand in court, and as many others have put it could well put you in more trouble than if you stood up and took responsibility!

[Thirdtap]

'lo

 

Hopefully an on topic point.

 

Has anyone actually challenged one of these forms? I have had several similar forms which include not holding the operator responsible for accidents including DEATH when scuba diving, which does carry a reasonable amount of risk I've always signed them...

[Jivemaster]

In the UK you cannot accept harm being caused except in some very specific situations, eg medical surgery where they start by opening you up!

 

In someother countries you can sign a valid legal disclaimer - certainly disclaimers are valid in the USA.

[kitlane]

The whole basis of h&s law is that by law we have a moral and legal duty to ensure that our actions do not place anyone else in danger.

(Simon, where are you with your snail in a lemonade bottle!?)

 

You must mean Donoghue vs Stevenson.

[Simon Lewis]

(Simon, where are you with your snail in a lemonade bottle!?)

 

It was a Ginger Beer bottle ;-) Full details here, but I'd suggest that HSaW 1974 is probably more pertinent in this case.