School hire Opinions Sought

[MarkBarl]

A recent hire got me thinking and I would be interested in opinions on the scenario below.

 

Dry hire to a school consisting of FOH speakers stand mounted, Amplifier and proc. A couple of powered monitors, a mixing desk (LS9-32) and some radio mic systems. To be helpful they were assisted in setting the system up at no charge. Everyone happy. Later contacted by finance asking for copies of public liability and risk assessments.

 

My take on this is that there is a duty on us to provide equipment that is safe i.e. Tested for electrical safety (visual PAT etc) stands in good working order and suitably rated for the speaker weight etc (happy to provide test certs). As the hire agreement did not include the set-up and that was not charged for, any liability in terms of people knocking speakers over etc, that is not due to a failure of the equipment provided, is not down to us. While we may also provide assistance for purposes of risk assessment by identifying risks that would be specific to the equipment provided and making suggestions for mitigation e.g Trip hazard for speaker stand, glow tape to identify boundary of stand. The responsibility for risk assessment is again not down to us.

 

Does this sound reasonable?

 

While I understand that the school has a duty of care to the pupils, staff and visitors I consider it unreasonable to expect us to provide liability cover beyond the safe condition of the equipment at the time of delivery. For hire to schools we would also consider it sensible to ensure that those using the equipment understood its safe use.

 

What do you think?

[david.elsbury]

You're correct. It's a "dry hire" - equipment only.

[Dave m]

I'd tend to agree.

 

I don't do dry hire, but the argument seems fair enough.

 

I'd be delighted to supply the post dated risk assessment on payment for the previously FOC assistance

[sandall]

It's a bit like the old Chines belief that if you offer help to someone you become responsible for them for life.

 

Perhaps m'learned friends will correct me, but it seems to me that, even if you don't charge, if you help them rig (as many of us are happy to do), you are then assuming responsibility for the safety of the set-up, & thus negating the carefully-crafted get-out clauses in your hire agreement. It's only happened to me once (for a BBC Radio job that required a tree's-worth of paperwork) but yes, unfortunately I think the school are probably in the right.

[GR1]

Mark I think you need to think about this situation clearly

 

If you Dry Hire to a client part of your Risk Assessment has to be whether they have the expertise to specify and use the equipment safely without supervision. If they don't you can't Dry Hire to them you have to provide a full service. If they do you deliver the kit to their premises and drive away. Offering a Dry Hire and doing the full service is very problematic because if there was an injury or other problem your insurer would look at the contract and walk away because you didn't provide any services which would give liability. The school's insurers would walk away because you physically rigged the kit which means that you thought it was safe to do so and you are the experienced Pro. You have to either not rig the kit or rig it and charge a zero fee on the paperwork but do all the Risk Assessments, etc as though you were charging for it.

 

You can't trade as a professional and be matey these days - you have to think everything through.

 

I hope this helps.

[MadeNew]

I was about to reply along the lines of 'its a dry hire the school should be accountable for it's safe usage.'

 

 

 

 

But GR1 got me thinking, if you set it all up yourself and something went wrong once you've walked off the site you're now accountable, and it'd be worth providing those documents?

 

 

 

 

I work in education, and often have local hire companies giving me a hand on set ups/etc. But have never really thought about it before as I've known most of the guys for years and accept we all know what we're doing... I have in-house risk assessments and will over see all projects/installs to check I'm happy with them. Essentially, I appreciate the extra help, but will take ownership of an in-house project.

 

 

 

[timsabre]

I work in education, and often have local hire companies giving me a hand on set ups/etc. But have never really thought about it before as I've known most of the guys for years and accept we all know what we're doing... I have in-house risk assessments and will over see all projects/installs to check I'm happy with them. Essentially, I appreciate the extra help, but will take ownership of an in-house project.

 

This is all very well until an insurance company gets involved after an incident. All they care about is shifting the liability from themselves and they will not care how long your customer relationship is or how many risk assessments you have done, you get completely cut out of the proceedings while they start a big liability fight. Been there and it is very frustrating.

 

If you help set it up, make sure your paperwork is in order even if you don't charge them for doing it.

[paulears]

When I stopped teaching and went to working for myself, my old college provided an insurance company with my private details (as I didn't work for them any more) when a student tried one of those "have you had an accident" claims - back injury caused by a piece of steeldeck falling on him during the get out from the pro venue we were in. Four years after I left! I had no memory of it at all, and told them I could't help. He then tied to sue the venue, who had a pice of paper indemnifying them against actions caused by the hirer, he then sued the college, and amazingly they simply paid up!

 

Sadly, I suspect that by setting some of it, even for no charge, does make you responsible for it - even if it's totally out of your control once you leave. Only one way to test it, and that's not something we hope happens.

 

However - from my knowledge of education systems, nobody talks to finance, so they'd not have any way of knowing you assisted. They'd only see the paperwork. By providing the paperwork, you are rather agreeing that dry hires are your responsibility, which would roll on to the next hire. I'd probably write to them and draw their attention to your T&Cs which probably detail the responsibility aspect, and see what happens.

[timsabre]

My insurance experience was similar, a student claimed to have burned themselves on a smoke machine we'd dry hired to a school, personal injury shark sued the school who rejected it, they then sued us. Despite all paperwork being in order, our insurance co paid out £12k almost immediately without asking us. Then put our premiums up. Very annoying.

[MarkBarl]

Thanks for all the replies. It about sums it up that if you want to be helpful make sure it is on the paperwork. Otherwise don't help. The very worse thing would be to be between 2 stools on the insurance side. Definite pause for thought, also to name an individual who is competent on behalf of the hirer who is willing to be responsible.

[gibbothegreat]

I'm coming at this from a slightly different point of view, which is as the tech manager of a local authority venue. We're simply not allowed to use a supplier that doesn't have Public Liability Insurance of at least £5M, and that includes performers.. Council policy, non-negotiable. I suspect the reasoning is actually touched on above in Timsabre's post - if an incident does arise, you as the client are not in control, the insurance companies are, and it can only make sense to have many targets for their greed fair apportioning of liability as possible. Also, in terms of a council with 8,000 employees, it is a way of giving the finance dept some measure of reassurance that they are using proper companies rather than their mates...

[Bobbsy]

My insurance experience was similar, a student claimed to have burned themselves on a smoke machine we'd dry hired to a school, personal injury shark sued the school who rejected it, they then sued us. Despite all paperwork being in order, our insurance co paid out £12k almost immediately without asking us. Then put our premiums up. Very annoying.

 

The litigation society is an American import I wish we didn't have.

 

In my last full time job I was a partner in a small production/facilities company I set up with mates. For a while we employed a nice young woman as a "runner" to help look after clients etc. during studio bookings. On day, while pouring coffee from the typical office style drip filter machine, she dropped the glass pot which shattered and burned her leg. We took her to A&E (nothing major) gave her some paid days off and thought it was all over. Her mum then got involved with an ambulance chaser and they sued us for because we "hadn't instructed her in the safe use of a coffee pot". We wanted to fight it but, like the above, our insurance company said it was cheaper to make a deal and pay. Totally wrong in my view.

 

Anyhow, on this topic...I suggest that even for dry hires you need boiler plate paperwork transferring all responsibility to the hirer, both PLI and also repair/replacement in the case of loss or damage. Horrible to say, but I'd suggest NO risk assessment for dry hires because doing one could imply you're taking responsibility.

 

And, alas, as soon as you help out you better be prepared with PLI etc. because I believe the law will see that you're taking responsibility for safe installation and operation.

[MarkBarl]

I'm coming at this from a slightly different point of view, which is as the tech manager of a local authority venue. We're simply not allowed to use a supplier that doesn't have Public Liability Insurance of at least £5M, and that includes performers.

 

Where would you expect liability to stop though. For example if you hired some speakers and stands which you rigged yourself and someone fell into one causing it to fall on someone else, where would the liability fall? Surely not with the supplier.

[Boggy]

For example if you hired some speakers and stands which you rigged yourself and someone fell into one causing it to fall on someone else, where would the liability fall? Surely not with the supplier.

 

If someone was seriously hurt in an accident, I can imagine that the rest of the hired gear may be examined. If the gear had previously been abused, there may be liability on the supplier (i.e. the supplied gear was not fit for purpose). Having said that, if you rig any gear that is obviously faulty I think a large portion of the liability should rest with you. If it is not obvious that the gear is faulty, then the supplier is next in the line.

[timsabre]

I'm coming at this from a slightly different point of view, which is as the tech manager of a local authority venue. We're simply not allowed to use a supplier that doesn't have Public Liability Insurance of at least £5M, and that includes performers.

Where would you expect liability to stop though. For example if you hired some speakers and stands which you rigged yourself and someone fell into one causing it to fall on someone else, where would the liability fall? Surely not with the supplier.

In my (rather embittered) experience the insurance companies would decide between themselves who was accepting liability. You (as the supplier) would receive a letter from the client's insurance company attempting to claim that you are liable. You would have to pass this onto your insurance company who would then decide how to deal with it, they may deny it or settle it. You would not get any say in the matter.