Are aerials officially banned at Ceroc?

[StokeBloke]

I suspect that the Ceroc “ban” is an attempt by Ceroc and their insurers to protect themselves from any claim from an injured party.

When Twirlie Bird and I spoke to Mike Allsopp (Ceroc Midlands franchisee and member of the Ceroc Committee) about the aerials ban, he told us point blank and categorically that the ban had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with insurance. In fact he seemed quite amused that posters on the forum were so far off base with that thought.

I remember the conversation at Stafford quite vividly, as during the discussion he barked at me "if I didn't like it I should get my own venue". The caring side of Ceroc

[fletch]

:
It would seem that as this Utopia event allowed aerials to be done without concern, that they were taking a more mature line. Allowing experienced dancers to exercise their discretion - BRAVO! At last, a glimmer of sense amongst all the madness

I'm not sure if Utopia have made a conscious decision to allow aerials at there venues, or just not made a decision to enforce the ban, to me it would seem's more like experienced dancers just making a conscious decision to ignore the rules, and from what I have personally witnessed, other dancers safety.

These people haven't got your mentality

[Lory]

Having a ban and not enforcing it may put the franchisee into a worse legal position than taking the position that dancing has dangers, and it is the responsibility of all dancers to look after their own safety and of those around them, and the management reserves the right to eject or ban dangerous dancers, but cannot guarantee that it will have the resources to identify those.

I think you might be right. If i'd been kicked and injured by some one doing an arial 'before the ban', i'd have been extremely annoyed with the couple for being irresponsible and inconsiderate but now the ban is in place, I'd be inclined to blame the venue management for not enforcing the ban and at the very least, I'd expect an apology but depending on the severity of my injury, I might look to them for compensation as well!

Questions.. What happens if someone is injured? Can they make a claim? If so, who from? Is there an official procedure?

[David Bailey]

None of my local venues have announced a ban, put up any signs or made any attempt to change the contract I entered into when I became a member. Ceroc would seem to be in breach of contract if they tried to stop me doing aerials.

I don't believe Ceroc Central have done anything either - talking to some of the relevant crew / venue managers, they've had no information come through.

Mind you, Ceroc Central have managed to fire all their taxi dancers two months before they start employing "buddies", so I'm not sure if they're a shining beacon of efficiency...

[David Bailey]

When Twirlie Bird and I spoke to Mike Allsopp (Ceroc Midlands franchisee and member of the Ceroc Committee) about the aerials ban, he told us point blank and categorically that the ban had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with insurance.

So what is it to do with then? If it were a genuine attempt to make dancing safer and more enjoyable, one might expect a bit more effort to, you know, actually tell people about it...

In fact he seemed quite amused that posters on the forum were so far off base with that thought.

Perhaps if any Ceroc venues actually made an effort to implement this policy, we might think it's a serious change, rather than just an insurance ploy.

[Trouble]

Unfortunately, this is the age old situation that happens all the time with organisers believing, its nothing to worry about.

Until somebody is seriously injured, they wil not force anything.

Until somebody actually makes a claim, they will not do anything

I just hope this deosn't happen but as you can see, there are still assholes out there who use aerials as a means to get there thrill/show off with no regard for whats around them or their own safety. Its still happening now with no mangement and i doubt it will stop until one of the above applies.

[Lynn]

Questions.. What happens if someone is injured? Can they make a claim? If so, who from? Is there an official procedure?

Is there not some sort of 'participate at your own risk' part that you agree to when you join? From an organisers POV that would make sense.

As far as a ban is concerned, a few things on websites and the occasional sign is pretty useless. If Ceroc do want to enforce a ban it needs to be done repeatedly and verbally from the stage.

[MartinHarper]

YOU have to comply to the membership rules as decided by Ceroc and these may be changed as long as they give you sufficient notice. It is like joining a club, they can change membership rules (within reason) and if you do not like it, then tough luck, no breach of contract and no money back.

Most clubs have clauses in their membership rules permitting them to change the membership rules, and talking about how they communicate those changes. Ceroc Enterprises doesn't.
I would imagine the £1 refund is sufficiently small that folks won't bother getting lawyers involved.
I'm still not a lawyer.

[Trouble]

Is there not some sort of 'participate at your own risk' part that you agree to when you join? From an organisers POV that would make sense.

there actually is no such thing as participate at your own risk. If somebody was to have an accident and the proprieter/organiser or owner was found to be negligible, they would still be liable. Allowing aerials in a busy social dance floor could be seen as negligible.

When we sign to say we are participating in dancing, we are signing to say we are going to act sensible and dance as long as, they provide us with a safe envionment to do.

I will give you an example; The reason im so into this is im a health and safety officer in my company.......

If we went to a dance hall and water had been split by somebody, then one of us went flying over and broke a leg. Who is repsonsible. Health and Safety executive would only be interested in seeing, could this have been avoided.
1.Was there something the orgnaiser could have done to stop this happening.
If they find that there was by say, not allowing people to walk across the dance floor with drinks in their hands, and they had signs saying this and a way of managing it, they would not be liable, But if they have not made allowances for this, they could be liable.

This is called Risk Assesment. Everybody has to do risk assesments. Ceroc do not have this currently that i can see and this is negligible. They have done nothing to allow aerials but minimise the risk. Control of the risk is all important when not wanting to be taken to court.

[David Franklin]

Is there not some sort of 'participate at your own risk' part that you agree to when you join? From an organisers POV that would make sense.

Usual "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer, but my understanding is that section of the form is not worth the paper it's written on.

(from a law forum - doesn't mean it's right, of course):

Notices stating use is "At owner's or user's risk" have little validity in Law as one cannot sign away ones legal rights. A fact that has been tested in Law many times.

As far as liability goes, the first and obvious person to be sued would be the person who performed the aerial.

(from Oxford University Sports Federation): The law says we owe our neighbours a "duty of care" not to injure them by negligent acts or omissions.

The duty of care requires you to consider the consequences of your acts and omissions and to ensure that those acts and/or omissions do not give rise to a foreseeable risk of injury to any other person. Clearly, one is not expected to guarantee the safety of others, merely to act reasonably.

Obviously, one major defense is going to be to claim that performing the aerial was 'reasonable'. But if Ceroc have banned aerials on a social floor, it is going to make it a lot harder to sustain that argument. (Although if the rule is not publicised or enforced, not that much harder. But I expect the rule to be enforced more in the future).

Moving down the 'chain', if a venue wasn't enforcing the aerials ban and so a dancer was able to successfully argue his actions were reasonable (in terms of the accepted behaviour at that venue), then I suspect the venue could be found liable. But even then, Ceroc head-office would be able to say that they had made it very clear that venues were not to allow aerials, and so they would aim to escape liability (leaving the franchisee to carry the can).

So from Ceroc's point of view, they've made it a lot more likely that any future victim will sue someone else rather than them.

Repeat: I am not a lawyer. On the other hand, some of the people involved very closely with the overall running of Ceroc are. I suspect they have investigated this a little more carefully than the people posting legal theories here.

[Lynn]

there actually is no such thing as participate at your own risk. If somebody was to have an accident and the proprieter/organiser or owner was found to be negligible, they would still be liable. Allowing aerials in a busy social dance floor could be seen as negligible.

Surely there is some element of 'participate at your own risk' eg if you have a medical condition its your responsiblity to ensure you don't make that worse.

Are those 'disclaimers' meaningless?

So if an accident is a result of an aerial, and the organisers could be held liable, even if the move was not taught at their venue, what about drops, or indeed other moves where injury is caused through poor floorcraft or other dangerous dancing?

Bringing in a aerials ban can be seen as a responsible move, but it needs to be made clear what an aerial is and - most importantly - and this is where Ceroc seem to be falling down seriously, given the fact that franchisees are 'amused' at forum speculation - why aerials are banned.

If you want to introduce change, you need to get people on board with the reasons.

And it needs to be done from the stage with regular annoucements, in the same way everything else deemed important by Ceroc is.

[fletch]

If Ceroc do want to enforce a ban it needs to be done repeatedly and verbally from the stage.

The problem with this is the real culprits don't realise when its just announced as a general comment from the stage 'That means you'

When Maddy was in 'the small school' she regularly came home with nit's, I spent hours treating and combing her hair only for her to go back to school and catch them, again, because one or two parents did nothing about there children's nit problem, choosing to ignore letters asking all parent to be vigilant, apparently the teachers weren't allowed to tell them directly.

My point is, if someone is performing aerials in a busy environment, or been unsafe, the only way is to tell them directly, not generally.

[Lynn]

The problem with this is the real culprits don't realise when its just announced as a general comment from the stage 'That means you'

But it makes life so much easier for taxi or venue crew to quietly approach someone and point out that the comment from the stage does apply to them. If nothing is being said from the front it can look like its the crew member's own comments, rather than a policy that they are applying.

[Raul]

So from Ceroc's point of view, they've made it a lot more likely that any future victim will sue someone else rather than them.

On the other hand, some of the people involved very closely with the overall running of Ceroc are. I suspect they have investigated this a little more carefully than the people posting legal theories here.

I used to be in charge of the technical section of an insurance company. You are correct on the first point.

This leaves the venue franchisee as the next in line after the perpetrator to be sued for negligence. In my opinion, the venue franchisees who believe that this policy has nothing to do with insurance, are deluding themselves and i do not suspect that Ceroc will put them right either.

If the people closely involved with the running of Ceroc do have a legal background, i suggest that they also look at the venues that they manage directly (as Bigdjiver noted) - starting with Fulham and Ashtons?

[Trouble]

I used to be in charge of the technical section of an insurance company. You are correct on the first point.

This leaves the venue franchisee as the next in line after the perpetrator to be sued for negligence. In my opinion, the venue franchisees who believe that this policy has nothing to do with insurance, are deluding themselves and i do not suspect that Ceroc will put them right either.

My points are not theories either, they are fact. Simple facts David Franklin.

[David Franklin]

My points are not theories either, they are fact. Simple facts David Franklin.

Exactly! You are posting facts with supporting evidence, so my comment wasn't aimed at you. Though I still suspect the Ceroc lawyers have investigated this particular situation more thoroughly than you - it's their job to do so, after all.

[fletch]

But it makes life so much easier for taxi or venue crew to quietly approach someone and point out that the comment from the stage does apply to them. If nothing is being said from the front it can look like its the crew member's own comments, rather than a policy that they are applying.

I agree with this Lynn, its when its a general comment from the stage is made and then not followed up with direct action to people doing it, just another general comment from the stage on the hope that the people doing it will twigg

When you have people that regularly read and post on the forum, that also know people that have been injured by inconsiderate dancing, and still ignore it, and carry on doing lifts and aerials in a very close vicinity of other's, it is only a matter of time before someone does get injured again. Some people are so selfish, they don't care who gets hurt as long as they look good

[Lynn]

I agree with this Lynn, its when its a general comment from the stage is made and then not followed up with direct action to people doing it, just another general comment from the stage on the hope that the people doing it will twigg

Yes, I certainly didn't mean only from the front, but if you want to inform your customers about a change in policy that should be the starting point. Not every single week, but frequently enough to ensure people know about it.

[Raul]

When you have people that regularly read and post on the forum, that also know people that have been injured by inconsiderate dancing, and still ignore it, and carry on doing lifts and aerials in a very close vicinity of other's, it is only a matter of time before someone does get injured again. Some people are so selfish, they don't care who gets hurt as long as they look good

You obviously feel very strongly about this issue, and when someone very tolerant like you takes such a stance, it deserves attention.

Your posts give justification for a blanket enforced ban.