PDA

View Full Version : Teaching without Insurance



Gus
6th-July-2006, 07:28 PM
Was wondering. Is it an offence to teach dance, especially workshops, without public liability insurance? Was wondering about this after hearing about what has been taught on a workshop, which I thought was bordering on the dangerous. All Ceroc and Blitz (and similar profesional instructors) have PLI cover, but I don't know that any of the independants in our region do have cover.

I know its VERY expensive, it cost me about £650 for a year when I was teaching my own workshops, thats why I teach under the umbrella of Blitz :wink: However, its seems little unfair that the Big Boys carry insurance whereas (most) of the independants don't ... or am I just being a sad cynical old git as usual :whistle:

littlewiggle
6th-July-2006, 08:01 PM
I am actually an Insurance Broker and Public Liability insurance (unlike Employers Liability) is not compulsory. It would be foolish to operate workshops without it as the organisers would leave themselves wide open to potential lawsuits. The venues themselves would have public liability cover built into their buildings and contents insurance but this is for their own benefit - e.g. someone slipping on a wet floor, etc. Hope this helps!

LW x

philsmove
6th-July-2006, 08:07 PM
As a punter I am not too worried about insurance, I suspect very few people bother to read what they are and are not covered for in any case

Yes I know people have been killed doing aerials, but the most dangerous thing you do is driving to the event

The average person stands a 1:200 chance of being killed in road accident

I go dancing to forget my worries, not to worry about if the organiser is insured

Sorry Gus but I do think you are being a sad cynical old git as usual

Have a warm fuzzy

PS £650 does not, seem to me to, be a lot for public liability insurance

Gus
6th-July-2006, 08:32 PM
Sorry Gus but I do think you are being a sad cynical old git as usual One of the consequences of coming from a Risk Assessment background :rolleyes:


PS £650 does not, seem to me to, be a lot for public liability insuranceIf you pull in only £500 a year from workshops, maybe it would seem a lot then?

littlewiggle
6th-July-2006, 08:36 PM
Exactly Gus - I take your point. The premium for PL cover alone is rather high but dancing is under the Performing Arts category which Insurers do rate highly.

Trousers
6th-July-2006, 08:56 PM
Still got the old ODA persona there I see Gus.

Or is there something more interesting lurking behind the cage rattling? Will this make it's way into On8 like the three part interview with a ceroc champ you spoke about. Gosh I hope it's Trampy!
:innocent:

Gus
6th-July-2006, 09:17 PM
I hope it's Trampy! :innocent:As much as I'm not Trampy's greatest fan, I would love to have piece about him in On8, a warts and all piece. He is defintiely one of the more interesting characters on the scene and has a significant following.

Actualy, the Champ is Steve Wongster .... I'm not sure if Trampy has actualy won a Ceroc freestyle event.

Nope ... the insurance piece came up as I'm now running a BPR project at a major UK insurer. The whole thing about people getting unfair advantage by not incurring costs that those who 'do it right' do is one of my little hobby horses. But a fair point was made about the punters not caring. Heck, punters don't even care that the instructors can't even teach properly some the time .... :wink:

David Franklin
6th-July-2006, 10:17 PM
Actualy, the Champ is Steve Wongster .... I'm not sure if Trampy has actualy won a Ceroc freestyle event.Steve Lampart won DWAS and came 3rd in Advanced one year (back when Advanced was the top category). I think it was 2001.

RogerR
6th-July-2006, 10:19 PM
Working without insurance these days is unwise tho there so far seems no legal liability to insure for PL. coming under the umbrella of a large organisation has its benefits in matters like insurance,accountancy and retained legal advice.

Keep shopping around, I wanted professional fireworks insurance recently and since a new company came into the market premiums have gone down massively.

MartinHarper
7th-July-2006, 12:37 AM
How many MJ teachers do you know who have had to claim on their PLI?

under par
7th-July-2006, 04:16 AM
How many MJ teachers do you know who have had to claim on their PLI?
And there a list of teachers with 5 years protected no claims bonus..:what:

clevedonboy
7th-July-2006, 07:38 AM
PLI is a real odd one - when I started running dances I took out cover. If I just bought the cover it would have cost something like £100. But by insuring my DJ equipment for a cost of about £60 I got £1M PLI cover thrown in. I'm unclear if it would cover teaching though.

philsmove
7th-July-2006, 09:20 AM
I'm unclear if it would cover teaching though.


read the small print

PLI is normally very specific
note if you employ someone to help you, even on a casual basis you are required to hold Employers liability

clevedonboy
7th-July-2006, 10:22 AM
read the small print

PLI is normally very specific
note if you employ someone to help you, even on a casual basis you are required to hold Employers liability

Not making myself clear - I don't need to worry about it as I've no intention of teaching. Just pointing out that there are many ways to get PLI & it need not be expensive, when compared to Events Cover & the like

BTW the same company offers a form of corporate insurance for DJ who employ other DJs

philsmove
7th-July-2006, 10:34 AM
Not making myself clear -

Sorry
Me neither
It was a general comment
Not ment for anyone in particular
=

Dan Hudson
7th-July-2006, 10:46 AM
Unfortunately and unusually I am with Gus on this.:what: I am not sure if its an offence, but it is a bit reckless. :mad:

We have public liability and employers liability insurances.

I also have insurance for the DJ equipment which also carries PLI for £1 million.

I would expect all other operators to have the same :cheers:

stewart38
7th-July-2006, 11:26 AM
Keep shopping around, I wanted professional fireworks insurance recently and since a new company came into the market premiums have gone down massively.

Afraid were into another soft market




As a punter I am not too worried about insurance, I suspect very few people bother to read what they are and are not covered for in any case

Yes I know people have been killed doing aerials, but the most dangerous thing you do is driving to the event

The average person stands a 1:200 chance of being killed in road accident

I go dancing to forget my worries, not to worry about if the organiser is insured

Sorry Gus but I do think you are being a sad cynical old git as usual



If I stood a 1 in 200 chance of being killed in a road accident id be bloody concern about Insurance god that’s more then 800 people dying on the streets every day because of a car accidents ! how many 00s you missed off ?

I dont know if a quadriplegic would be happy you had no insurance but its not compulsory.

I was dancing up north and found the wording on a ceroc PL letter/certificate on the front desk ‘interesting’ . The actual Insurer wasn’t shown which is odd

Lou
7th-July-2006, 12:20 PM
...I don't know that any of the independants in our region do have cover.

Remember, some independents can be members of the LeRoc Federation (who get their insurance through that), and some actually do arrange their own (I know Sherif did it that way). :nice: Not all independents are cowboys - but you knew that, didn't you, Gus?!
:wink:

Andreas
7th-July-2006, 03:06 PM
Interesting topic and even more interesting thread. You know what is MOST PROMINENT when reading this thread? No, it is not actually the discussion of the question raised, it is the following:


Sorry Gus but I do think you are being a sad cynical old git as usual


Still got the old ODA persona there I see Gus.


Unfortunately and unusually I am with Gus on this.


but you knew that, didn't you, Gus?!

You guys are so incredibly welcoming. You may or may not like the questions Gus raises. You may or may not have had bad experiences with topics started by Gus in the past. Whatever your motivation is, phrases like the above do not throw a bad image on Gus, not at all, they throw a bad image on you guys. These comments are completely and utterly redundant! To loosely quote the bible: "Those of you who are without fault may throw the first stone." It appears there are quite a few faultless people among us. Can't you see that even if Gus conciously tried to establish a peaceful life among the other forum members, you are constantly trying to geopardise his attempts, and by doing so poison the atmosphere for others?

I also do occasionally read the issues Gus raises and wonder 'why bring it up, it is a can of worms'. But if I don't want to discuss it then I'll stay clear of the topic. If I do want to discuss it then I don't lash out at him in whatever way, no matter if I agree or disagree with him!

End of rant! :cheers:


------------------------

Back to topic.

In NZ a lot, perhaps all of the independent teachers will not be insured. There (and quite possibly also in the UK) possibly not a single one of the Salsa 'schools' have an insurance like that. I am not totally certain about the differences in insurance coverage there and here that is done through the government. Sports injuries in NZ are covered to a certain extend but I am not sure if the government would claim the expenses back from the dance school.

So yes, it is a grey area. My advice would be to have people sign their lives away on entering the dance floor. This is reasonably common practice in NZ that you hand out a 'no liability' form at some of the events. And as far as I am aware, in NZ that is valid at court, not sure about the UK though. :flower:

philsmove
7th-July-2006, 03:31 PM
You guys are so incredibly welcoming. . :flower:



it was Gus who suggested he was being a "sad cynical old git as usual"

and i had to agree with him :wink:


He has raised an interesting issue

My own take on the subject is


If I was a teacher, (I am not) I would defiantly take out insurance to project myself should someone claim against me


I f I do something risky, e.g. skiing I take out my own insurance, and I do not rely on the ski company being insured

If I go dancing I am not worried about my instructor being insured as I consider the chances of me having a claim against my instructor very small



Unfortunately and unusually I am with Gus on this.:what: I am not sure if its an offence, but it is a bit reckless. :mad:
:

if the instructor has a house / wife and kids to support, I agree he would be reckless to teach without insurance

But PLI for dancing instructors is not fortunatly not mandatory:flower: :flower:

El Salsero Gringo
7th-July-2006, 03:44 PM
My advice would be to have people sign their lives away on entering the dance floor. This is reasonably common practice in NZ that you hand out a 'no liability' form at some of the events. And as far as I am aware, in NZ that is valid at court, not sure about the UK though. :flower:There are lots of liabilities that you can't sign away like that. I don't think that anything in law excuses you from having to take appropriate care and not be reckless for the safety of others. You have a duty of care, depending on your role, not withstanding what other people agree to. So, if you hold yourself out to be a dance teacher then your customers have a reasonable expectation that your instructions are going to be in some sense safe to follow.

It seems to me that you've got a whole host of different potential liabilities: customers injuring themselves during the class (while under your supervision); customers injuring themselves during freestyle; customers injuring each other; you directly injuring a customer; and so on.

So while we're about it: how about third party insurance for ourselves, so that when we tread on someone's foot and put them in plaster for a month - or worse (I'm sure you can imagine many scenarios) - we're covered too?

Andreas
7th-July-2006, 03:54 PM
There are lots of liabilities that you can't sign away like that. I don't think that anything in law excuses you from having to take appropriate care and not be reckless for the safety of others. You have a duty of care, depending on your role, not withstanding what other people agree to. So, if you hold yourself out to be a dance teacher then your customers have a reasonable expectation that your instructions are going to be in some sense safe to follow.

It seems to me that you've got a whole host of different potential liabilities: customers injuring themselves during the class (while under your supervision); customers injuring themselves during freestyle; customers injuring each other; you directly injuring a customer; and so on.

So while we're about it: how about third party insurance for ourselves, so that when we tread on someone's foot and put them in plaster for a month - or worse (I'm sure you can imagine many scenarios) - we're covered too?

Obviously there are plenty of insurance policies to keep ourselves safe. Donations to my account please. Any amounts accepted :D

I think one thing that you point out very correctly is the fact that no matter how much insurance policies you pay for, you will never be able to cover everything.

Yes, as a punter one should be able to be confident that the class is safe. But what does that mean? When you run an aerial workshop then where do you draw the line? You can go through great lengths and still will never be able to make 100% sure nothing happens.

My opinion on 'signing the life away' at the door is that it is an acceptable means because people come to your class voluntarily. You don't coax them into coming along and doing things they don't want to. So why would you as the teacher have to carry the burden of insurance? When you teach somebody to cook you also don't have insurance cover for that.

I believe a valid question to be raised is: Do punters prefer to sign a form that removes liability from the organiser of an event or would they rather pay more due to insurance cover? Phil said earlier in this thread that he does not want to bother with insurance (as a consumer) but just have fun. Me too. When I go to a dance I don't want to bother myself with 'what if I slip'. Going to a class I am aware of the risk and always have the chance to say 'no'. So I'd also be prepared to sign mentioned paper. The problem with that is the negative connotation of such a paper. It makes the event look like high-risk. But that could possibly be at least partly remedied through appropriate marketing. :cheers:

philsmove
7th-July-2006, 04:25 PM
.....My opinion on 'signing the life away' ...... :


Because the adventure tourism is such a big revenue earner in NZ

I think the law in NZ on “signing your life away” is very different to the UK

NZ does not seem to have such as cottom wool society as we do

El Salsero Gringo
7th-July-2006, 04:38 PM
Yes, as a punter one should be able to be confident that the class is safe. But what does that mean?It means only what your barrister can persuade the court that it means, which will be after the event.

As a friend of mine would have said, when asked why he went round and checked *every* safety chain on a piece of flying scenery - twice - "because, if I don't, it won't look good at the enquiry." Likewise, in court, 'Safe' will be whatever your class wasn't.


My opinion on 'signing the life away' at the door is that it is an acceptable means because people come to your class voluntarily. You don't coax them into coming along and doing things they don't want to. So why would you as the teacher have to carry the burden of insurance?Why? Because when you charge people for dance classes they have a right to expect certain standards to be upheld. If you accidentally fail to uphold those standards then they may have a remedy in law by taking your money from you. So you don't have to have insurance; you can put your house up for sale or declare yourself bankrupt instead! Your choice... :whistle:

Andreas
7th-July-2006, 04:58 PM
Why? Because when you charge people for dance classes they have a right to expect certain standards to be upheld. If you accidentally fail to uphold those standards then they may have a remedy in law by taking your money from you. So you don't have to have insurance; you can put your house up for sale or declare yourself bankrupt instead! Your choice... :whistle:
:rofl:

I know that you are legally on the right side. However, I would not necessarily put the blame on an organiser/teacher in the case of an injury. Obviously, if it was negligence on their behalf then they should be held accountable for it. That, however, would be difficult if you had signed an agreement beforehand, which is a pity. The other side, of course, is that an injury happens because people didn't do what and how you told them, despite you pointing out that 'this way or not at all' to do a move savely. Now would you want to be held accountable because people have a choice to listen to you or not? Legally you are, because the presence of those people assumes they were listening. But should you?

I am not trying to point fingers the other way and say big venues by paying for insurance make it hard for indentendents to get off the ground. It is more like, why actually should anybody be held accountable for injuries that are not their fault? Naturally this would be a completely philosophical discussion and thus a waste of our time. But this reflects my outlook on life. I am not going to sue anybody because I was too dumb to actually watch and listen and do things in a safe way as presented. It feels completely unjust. At the same time, however, it'd mean that quality control of teaching would have to be increased. I guess, if we are going to do the maths on that one then for a big company paying for insurance will be cheaper than quality control. For an up-start it'd be the other way around.

Anyway, that's my 2p :flower:

Andreas
7th-July-2006, 05:01 PM
Because the adventure tourism is such a big revenue earner in NZ
:rofl:


I think the law in NZ on “signing your life away” is very different to the UK

NZ does not seem to have such as cottom wool society as we do

Yes, I think it is. I don't know details but to me it appears to be more 'practical' and 'pro-active' than 'better safe than sorry'. Obviously both approaches have advantages but I'd prefer the first one. :cheers:

Having said that, Ceroc in NZ also do pay for insurance.

David Franklin
7th-July-2006, 05:04 PM
I believe a valid question to be raised is: Do punters prefer to sign a form that removes liability from the organiser of an event or would they rather pay more due to insurance cover? Phil said earlier in this thread that he does not want to bother with insurance (as a consumer) but just have fun. Me too. When I go to a dance I don't want to bother myself with 'what if I slip'. Going to a class I am aware of the risk and always have the chance to say 'no'. So I'd also be prepared to sign mentioned paper. The problem is that just because you sign the paper, it doesn't absolve the promotor/teacher of liability. I would say the situation you describe is fairly common - Andy/Rena used to make people sign something similar before their airsteps classes, and I don't think people did so without thinking about the consequences. And if someone received a minor injury, I'm sure they would bite the bullet and say "OK, well I accepted the risks".

But if someone broke their back, and was going to be in a wheelchair for the rest of their life, and was wondering how they were going to pay their bills, I'm not nearly so sure they'd be so stoic. The interesting legal question is whether they'd win; I assume they'd have to prove negligence.

I don't know how it works when the activity is inherently risky, or if you are relying on other people to keep themselves safe. Because in the end, you can only make it likely they will do the right thing, you can't ensure that they will.

[Slight aside: When getting travel insurance, I have always checked whether dancing is covered, and I have tried to explain that the kind of dancing Bryony and I do is quite acrobatic. The insurers have replied that as far as they're concerned, dancing is dancing, and it's categorized as a low risk activity, so we're covered. I understand David and Lily have had similar experiences].

philsmove
7th-July-2006, 05:20 PM
! how many 00s you missed off ?

I

None, Have look on the back cover of the highway code

El Salsero Gringo
7th-July-2006, 05:22 PM
I am not going to sue anybody because I was too dumb to actually watch and listen and do things in a safe way as presented.
But if someone broke their back, and was going to be in a wheelchair for the rest of their life, and was wondering how they were going to pay their bills, I'm not nearly so sure they'd be so stoic.Quite. If the food for your three children - that you can no longer support because of your injuries - is to be paid for by the settlement between you and your (former) dance teacher's insurance company, I think you'll view that matter differently, Andreas!

El Salsero Gringo
7th-July-2006, 05:27 PM
When getting travel insurance, I have always checked whether dancing is covered, and I have tried to explain that the kind of dancing Bryony and I do is quite acrobatic. The insurers have replied that as far as they're concerned, dancing is dancing, and it's categorized as a low risk activity, so we're covered. I understand David and Lily have had similar experiences.I'm pretty sure that insurance companies judge risk on the numbers, so to speak, rather than how dangerous an activity sounds. So if they get very few claims from dancing injuries, it's going to be cheap to insure. It really wouldn't be practical to subdivide every activity into specialist subtopics like Ballroom, Salsa, Ceroc etc.

Andreas
7th-July-2006, 05:46 PM
Quite. If the food for your three children - that you can no longer support because of your injuries - is to be paid for by the settlement between you and your (former) dance teacher's insurance company, I think you'll view that matter differently, Andreas!
I can totally see where you come from. But SHOULD they really be liable because I CHOSE not to watch and listen carefully? I don't think so. To me this is not a question of sympathy but of fairness.

If I go running in the woods, fall and injure myself badly and no longer will be able to provide food for my three children. Who am I going to sue? The person who owns the forest or the company that manufactures my shoes? Or the ferret that was responsible because there was a twig on the ground which I fell over?

I don't think there is much of a difference between the two scenarios. Sure, there is a difference when you are teaching. But insurance is also necessary for freestyle events, isn't it? Regardless, if I am not paying due attention to the person teaching then I am 'just running in the woods'. I am making a choice and my choice gets me into trouble.

I believe that these days we are increasingly less responsible for the outcome of the choices we make. We easily turn and point fingers. that is why insurances and lawyers make such a good living. If people would actually have the guts to stand up for their choices and live with the consequences both of those institutions would be a lot worse off and we'd have more money in our pockets. If an injury is my fault it is my fault and I cannot expect the organiser of an event to pay for it.

And then my bubble burst ... :cheers:

WittyBird
7th-July-2006, 06:08 PM
IMO...

Everything you do is done at a certain risk, even going to work in a morning etc. I think this country is getting more like the States tho. Never your own fault and always looking to blame someone else.

People need to look at themselves more before they can issue blame on others.

Why should we have to think about 'if this doesn't work I'll sue' it's such a negative state of mind to be in :mad:

Icey
7th-July-2006, 07:05 PM
I am not going to sue anybody because I was too dumb to actually watch and listen and do things in a safe way as presented. It feels completely unjust.

You wouldn't try to make a claim because you hadn't been paying attention, but I'm certain there are plenty of people that would. Gus can't take the risk that everyone will think along the same lines as you, he can't afford for someone to injure themselves in his workshop and try to claim against him.

IMO, the insurance would be essential rather than optional but then I'm an accountant and we generally go for the safe option over the risky one.

RogerR
7th-July-2006, 07:07 PM
In the UK the "blood chit" is pretty pointless, It may discourage trifling claims but the principal still has a duty of care. Buying insurance individually is very expensive and the insurance must be tailored to the situation. The cheap PLI that DJs have that comes with the equipment insurance insures against the insured item being stolen or causing injury. One of these companies doesnt insure leads, so if someone trips on a lead there is NO cover - exact quote from the Co. Mobile DJ kit insurance with mobile DJ PLI will NOT cover Dance Teaching and event promoting. Even worse, some people insure only one item eg the amp, assuming that this gets them full PLI actually the PLI cover relating to eg the amp only covers injuries due to the amp, so if a speaker falls then you are on your own again.

El Salsero Gringo
7th-July-2006, 07:29 PM
I can totally see where you come from. But SHOULD they really be liable because I CHOSE not to watch and listen carefully? I don't think so. To me this is not a question of sympathy but of fairness.Well I suppose it would be for the court to decide; Just because you have an accident in class doesn't *automatically* mean that someone else has to pay for the consequences.

I like to kid myself that we have wise people such as judges to make these decisions in a way of which we would all generally approve. Despite some media reports I can't recall any such where, when *all* the facts were known, the outcome was widely held to to be unfair.

The difficulty as I see it twofold, however: firstly, that decision gets made after the event and purpose of the insurance is to take away the uncertainty about the outcome even before an event which results in a claim has even occured. Secondly, defending a claim - even an 'unfair' one - can be *extraordinarily* expensive, especially if in a higher court, because of the adversarial nature of the British courts. You've no choice but to engage solicitors and barristers on your own behalf. And even if you win - if the claimant was publicly funded you don't get any of your costs back.

ElaineB
8th-July-2006, 10:15 AM
I am a claims Manager in a Brokers and believe me, there are a few people who will claim regardless of whether or not they were at fault! Negligence would have to be proven against the teacher, but as Philsmove said, we are in a 'cotton wool' Society.

Just a few of examples of recent claims that I have dealt with:

Successful claim against a Company who run a sports complex. Punter slipped pool side and bruised back. Why was the claim successful? Because there was no notice to say 'beware, when wet, surface may be slippery!'

Youth (10 years old) who broke into a building compound, late at at night :angry: stood on top of portacabin and attempted to break in through the roof. He fell throught he roof and broke his collarbone. My Client, the builder, held responsible. Why? Because break-ins had happened before and they should not have just relied on the fencing. They should have employed security guards. :angry: This one really makes me angry, because the parents brought the claim. If it had been my little darling, he would have been marched down to the site and made to apologise and then I would have made him hand over his pocket money for the next however many years.........and he would have been grounded, etc., etc!

Two employees streching animal skins. One holding a knife while doing it. Hand slipped and he injured the other employee. Employer held responsible. Why? Because they should have told the employee to put the knife down and had this documented in writing.............

Not succesful:

Car driver attempted to sue my Client for moving a fixed 'safe crossing'. He didn't see it in a well lit main road and drove straight into it.

Psychological trauma for falling over a stone dog! :confused:

Need I go on?

Elaine

El Salsero Gringo
8th-July-2006, 10:42 AM
Two employees streching animal skins. One holding a knife while doing it. Hand slipped and he injured the other employee. Employer held responsible. Why? Because they should have told the employee to put the knife down and had this documented in writing.............This one I can understand, on general principle, if not specifically (and let's face it, I'm sure there are more details about who was doing exactly what and how they'd been instructed.) Time was when employers were not responsible for their employees welfare and the world was a much less pleasant place, particularly for those at the bottom of the pile. Work at height without safety equipment? Handle dangerous chemicals without ventilation? Don't want to do it? Find another job! When people need the money to feed themselves and their families they're very easy to exploit.

So we introduce stringent requirements for health and safety in the workplace, rigorously enforce them, and have compulsory insurance to cover accidents. The actual reasoning used to reach this decision may be a bit 'suspect' - but basically, if an employee at work gets injured, and unless that injury is beyond a shadow of a doubt due to some criminal recklessness on their own part - isn't it fair enough that they should be covered? Wouldn't you want to be?

El Salsero Gringo
8th-July-2006, 10:45 AM
Youth (10 years old) who broke into a building compound, late at at night :angry: stood on top of portacabin and attempted to break in through the roof. He fell throught he roof and broke his collarbone. My Client, the builder, held responsible. Why? Because break-ins had happened before and they should not have just relied on the fencing. They should have employed security guards. :angry: This one really makes me angry, because the parents brought the claim. If it had been my little darling, he would have been marched down to the site and made to apologise and then I would have made him hand over his pocket money for the next however many years.........and he would have been grounded, etc., etc!This is an interesting one - it's certainly not new though. You have a well established duty of care to anyone on your property, even if they're trespassing! And if the fence isn't good enough to keep out even a 10 year old boy, then how good was it anyway?

Andreas
8th-July-2006, 12:09 PM
Ouch, this is ridiculous! If a court makes the victim of a burglary pay for the injury of the thief then this court or the law of the country has a severe problem. It is called active criminal protection. Just remind me somebody not to buy estate in th UK, please.


It is almost as bad as this rape case in Iran:

Three guys rape a girl. Through DNA tests they are being prosecuted and thrown into prison. One of the guys commits suicide. Now the parents of the girl had to sell their house to pay half the blood money. What??

ElaineB
9th-July-2006, 10:28 AM
This is an interesting one - it's certainly not new though. You have a well established duty of care to anyone on your property, even if they're trespassing! And if the fence isn't good enough to keep out even a 10 year old boy, then how good was it anyway?

There was a big gang of the little darlings and they used a stolen car to get through the Herris fencing! :angry: No, it is not new......take BR and the fencing around railway lines for instance...........kids are drawn to these sorts of things and if they are not kept in good order, tragadies will occur.

Yes, there is quite correctly a duty of care to the Public and I also despair to see the number of cases where the 'Insured' has failed miserably and still think they are not at fault.


Elaine

stewart38
11th-July-2006, 12:48 PM
I believe a valid question to be raised is: Do punters prefer to sign a form that removes liability from the organiser of an event or would they rather pay more due to insurance cover? Phil said earlier in this thread that he does not want to bother with insurance (as a consumer) but just have fun. Me too. When I go to a dance I don't want to bother myself with 'what if I slip'. Going to a class I am aware of the risk and always have the chance to say 'no'. So I'd also be prepared to sign mentioned paper. The problem with that is the negative connotation of such a paper. It makes the event look like high-risk. But that could possibly be at least partly remedied through appropriate marketing. :cheers:

You cant disclaim against personal injury although signing of ‘disclaimers’ could have weight in court


None, Have look on the back cover of the highway code

God that’s right


The total number of deaths in road accidents fell by 8 per cent to 3,221 in 2004 from 3,508 in 2003. However, the number of fatalities has remained fairly constant over the last ten years.

So if 3,500 died on the roads a year in 85 yrs that’s 297,500

If population is 60,000,000 so you have a one in 17,142 chance of dying in a year and if you live to 85 a one in 200 ish chance of dying in a road accident


I suppose a solution is live till you 10 and the odds I guess get better or do they ?


I'm pretty sure that insurance companies judge risk on the numbers, so to speak, rather than how dangerous an activity sounds. So if they get very few claims from dancing injuries, it's going to be cheap to insure. It really wouldn't be practical to subdivide every activity into specialist subtopics like Ballroom, Salsa, Ceroc etc.

If we started doing that how the hell we going to spend enough time on the forum .:sad: Dancing is not a high risk activity (relatively)

Yliander
11th-July-2006, 02:40 PM
I believe a valid question to be raised is: Do punters prefer to sign a form that removes liability from the organiser of an event or would they rather pay more due to insurance cover? Phil said earlier in this thread that he does not want to bother with insurance (as a consumer) but just have fun. Me too. When I go to a dance I don't want to bother myself with 'what if I slip'. Going to a class I am aware of the risk and always have the chance to say 'no'. So I'd also be prepared to sign mentioned paper. The problem with that is the negative connotation of such a paper. It makes the event look like high-risk. But that could possibly be at least partly remedied through appropriate marketing. in Australia all companies that I have attended get you to sign an indemnity form basically saying that you acknowledge that dancing is an athletic activity and release the company from liability in the event of an accident.

And while this sounds like it could stop you from sueing a company if they did something stupid that caused your injury but it can't - but it does help to protect them from customers doing something stupid and suing them. Ie punter with a heart condition comes to class has a heart attack - the dance company can't be blamed as they warned of the physicalness of the class. Basically the disclaimers are there to protect the company from being sued by people who do stupid things and don't want to take responsibility for it. It however doesnt protect the company if they do something Inherently unsafe that results in injury