Haverfordwest tragic SUP accident.

A waiver does not override the duty of care.

It only confirms that some activities have risk, and that the participant acknowledges that.

We already have legislation in place, unlike when Lyme Bay happened.

Indeed, and I still wouldn’t be surprised to see more coming out of this

Another rhetoric question- does having someone to blame make the grief any easier/better?

No.

Having been very closely involved in a club run fatality, the subsequent investigation, including my inquest evidence (testimony and video) exonerated the club of all liability. Regardless, riders are made aware that they participate at their own risk, although as an organised club, there is some duty of care (that was exercised appropriately).

It is utterly tragic, and clearly someone very experienced also met their death trying to assist. That must give some indication of the severity.

And this:

We take on risks – it is daily life. What we need to do is find that balance, and that includes learning from everyones past experience, but even then we would not want (And could not have) all risks removed from life.

A waiver does not override the duty of care.

Covered by the Unfair Contract Terms Act iirc, you cannot contract out of liability for injury or death.

Indeed, and I still wouldn’t be surprised to see more coming out of this

Having met a good few AALS inspectors, know others at HSE, and work closely with various OEAP & SAPOE folk, the industry will be calling for full facts and a balanced approach.

In my opinion we (at a policy and legal level) do strike a good balance at present. It is usually press and poorly-informed public who clamour for more paperwork. Because paper work is seen as a way of being safer. The reality however is it does not.

Waivers are ineffective, and particularly so if there’s a death, because the people who might sue are the family, and they didn’t sign them.

I’m not commenting on the Haverfordwest tragedy, that’s inappropriate at present, just generally on liability.

It’s all down to duty of care. Your duty of care varies with how much responsibility you take, the gap between your skills and knowledge and others in the group and the level of connection. If you’re paid to take responsibility, you probably have a higher duty of care than than a volunteer leader, who has a higher duty than a group member. If you have relevant qualifications or experience, so should recognise a risk, you have a higher duty of care. You can’t make a guided trip in a peer trip just by calling it that. Having a duty of care doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be liable for an accident, you can discharge your duty of care by acting reasonably.

Duty of care is also the basis of manslaughter by gross negligence, see here. But gross negligence implies that somebody knew there was a serious risk and deliberately ignored it, rather than just made a bad decision.

Because paper work is seen as a way of being safer. The reality however is it does not.

Absolutely. Many people think a risk assessment is a piece of paper; it’s not, it’s a thought process, the paper is just the evidence that you did the thinking.

Waivers are ineffective, and particularly so if there’s a death, because the people who might sue are the family, and they didn’t sign them.

Not just deaths, as per previous post on last page even a non permanent injury leading to an income protection claim and the injured party’s insurance co might create the claim. And they literally don’t care if you were doing something you loved and knew the risks, they want to minimise their payout.

Covered by the Unfair Contract Terms Act iirc, you cannot contract out of liability for injury or death.

Isn’t it that contract law can’t override statute.

Which involves me supporting their claim by giving evidence ‘for’ them, ‘against’ the instructor. Doesn’t make me look good does it? I’d expect to get dog’s abuse because I knew what I’d signed up for, etc…….

I’m not sure your evidence is “for” or “against” – a witness is giving evidence of the facts; you don’t get to dodge the inevitable questions about did you know the risk, did you forsee a possibility of serious injury, had you been honest about your previous experience and of course – did the instructor appear to have things set up well, provide a safety briefing, provide coaching on how to be less likely to screw it up etc. It doesn’t follow that your evidence would only be useful to your insurer.

That’s why I put the speechmarks. As soon as my insurer decides to contest my claim, and uses my evidence as part of that (evidence I might morally feel like I don’t want to give*) then you practically become their supporter.

Of course the reality is you tell the truth exactly as it happens and the court / tribunal would decide.

* on the basis I knew what i signed up for; but your T&C’s would say you have to try to minimise the losses to your insurer

That’s why I put the speechmarks. As soon as my insurer decides to contest my claim, and uses my evidence as part of that (evidence I might morally feel like I don’t want to give*) then you practically become their supporter.

Insurance is a totally different process from any legal proceedings brought as a prosecution by HSE or police.

The reason so many folk run scared of litigation is not to do with the legal process – it is crappy employer and insurance practices who are only focussed on maximum profit and/or minimising possible large pay out. It has very little to do with real life, causations or legal or moral liability.

We already have legislation in place, unlike when Lyme Bay happened.

Lyme Bay lead to the AALB? Which only applied to (unaccompanied?) <18’s? It has always puzzled me that we assume that adults with absolutely no idea of adventurous activities are able to assess for themselves if an organisation is well run.

The only reason for new legislation though would be: there’s clearly something wrong AND the current legislation doesn’t encompass it AND new legislation makes it less likely to happen again. My guess is there will not need to be new legislation because at least 1 of those elements will be missing.

This is true. I was cautioned after an accident MTB’ing when a friend looked like they may not make it.

Being cautioned and being arrested are not the same thing though. Whilst we should not infer guilt even if the arrest results in charging (which could be months away if it ever happens), there’s an implication that the case has proceeded beyond the general fact-finding and into a criminal investigation. Whilst that might be useful from a finger-pointing perspective it probably makes it harder to get to the truth and learn how to prevent it from happening again.

I don’t think we’re disagreeing.

I was responding to the “why do people sue for damages when they knew it was a risky activity and signed a waiver to that effect” comments on earlier pages.

And the answer is that it might not be their choice, as soon as their life / critical illness and injury / income protection insurer gets a look at it.

Pretty please could we stop referring to Lyme Bay as an event. It’s not an event it’s a place. And whilst it’s not a problem in this case it is deeply offensive when people use the name of a place as shorthand for an atrocity or accident that happened there.

Many thanks

it is deeply offensive when people use the name of a place as shorthand for an atrocity or accident that happened there.

Mildy annoying maybe, but deeply offensive…..

You’re probably right. How about we compromise with deeply annoying?

Lyme Bay The kayaking deaths that occurred in Lyme Bay on a  led trip lead to the AALB? Which only applied to (unaccompanied?) <18’s?

Indeed – it is all under 18’s in practice I understand – but AALB are employed by HSE. This has led to embedding of knowledge and approaches in HSE, as well as their last chief exec, which ‘gets’ outdoors, adventure, risk benefit etc.

Is AALS provided by AALB not suspended outside of England too? So OEAP and SAPOE have significant role here.

When we were investigated over our fatality, it was both the court (Sherriff and representatives), HSE and Trading Standards who were involved in the investigation. HSE simply brought in freelance workers from AALB/AALS.

I feel I am going down a warren that is important but maybe moves off what I was trying to do in this thread. I do have trust in (particularly HSE) to do a proper investigation and process of the incident – and publish learning.

Will asking leaders/companies providing adventurous activities off-site now need to licence? I don’t think so – there isn’t the money, there will be many who avoid it, it won’t necessarily make things safer.

Isn’t it that contract law can’t override statute.

Negligence claims are civil, not statute?

Negligence claims are civil, not statute

I think it’s that negligence claims are common law (tort), not statute. Civil and statute aren’t mutually exclusive, claims for faulty goods are based on statute.

And whilst it’s not a problem in this case it is deeply offensive when people use the name of a place as shorthand for an atrocity or accident that happened there.

Tobruk
Dunkirk
Three mile island
Lockerbie
Chernobyl
Fukushima
The Somme

….. It really isn’t.

Dunblane

Hillsborough

…

…
Pearl Harbour
…
(It’s still not offensive – in fact it’s not even annoying)

10 Downing Street, atrocity magnet.

10 Downing Street,

I don’t know, they could have used the PIRA mortar baseplate location to name the incident

MOAB – it’s a very long time since I had to worry about AAL Regs, I knew there were changes afoot but didn’t realise they were actually underway. Certainly when first introduced some providers just switched to only taking adults or children with parents, to avoid the hassle.

When we were investigated over our fatality, it was both the court (Sherriff and representatives), HSE and Trading Standards who were involved in the investigation.

Presumably you weren’t investigated by the Sheriff? He may have presided over a fatal accident inquiry but the investigation would be by the procurator fiscal and others. Or he could have presided over a trial, either on his own or with a jury – but even more so then he wouldn’t be investigating, just making sure a fair process was followed and then decisions made on the evidence the investigators presented. Perhaps confusingly many of the PFs offices are actually in court buildings (to save them walking so much).

https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/commerical-stand-up-paddleboarding-accident-on-river-weir-with-loss-of-4-lives?fbclid=IwAR2eqZ_v09ulGpXrb6G1EObSBYMk_zJei1dCHbx9mCLZIR0hoqZIxpkV_B0

It’s a shame that there is no mention of designing weirs on rivers in a way that doesn’t cause deaths, the most extreme suggestion in the report is a possible barrier near the weir.

It was certainly an avoidable incident but shouldn’t we be able to navigate natural rivers without fear of death from manmade features?

It’s a shame that there is no mention of designing weirs on rivers in a way that doesn’t cause deaths, the most extreme suggestion in the report is a possible barrier near the weir.

It was certainly an avoidable incident but shouldn’t we be able to navigate natural rivers without fear of death from manmade features?

Good point, perhaps, but you might be ignoring the fact that many weirs were built decades ago to control river flow and help prevent flooding. There is one in Chippenham where I live, that was built back in the late 60’s, early 70’s, IIRC. Chippenham has a sailing club, which was well pleased at the raised water level above the weir, but below its shallow enough to be able to walk across at times. SUP’s weren’t even thought of back then, there were a few canoes about, but it was mostly small sailboats.

Unless you’re suggesting weir and other waterway engineers used a crystal ball to try to foresee dangers like these, with the sort of watercraft in existence forty years ago, I honestly can’t think of any way weirs could have been designed to alleviate an issue nobody could have imagined would exist nearly half a century on.

shouldn’t we be able to navigate natural rivers without fear of death from manmade features?

That’s exactly the point! They’re no longer ‘natural rivers’, they’ve been engineered with man-made features.
Chippenham town centre had a lovely stone bridge with a park just upstream, the water below was shallow enough I could wade around there and catch crayfish, just the other side was an old mill, and at low water levels you could wade right across the river. After very heavy rain, the bridge would be under water, I can clearly remember a tractor and trailer being used to ferry shoppers from one side of the bridge to the other.

Then they removed the old bridge, dredged out the riverbed to about half a mile upstream of the bridge and built a new bridge and the weir about 200 metres downstream, the water below the bridge by then about fifteen feet deep. The river further down was extensively straightened to carry water quicker downstream, towards Melksham, where more work of a similar nature was carried out, including another weir, and the same was done in Bath.

It’s a shame that there is no mention of designing weirs on rivers in a way that doesn’t cause deaths

Suggests you didn’t read the report in full and the Synopsys isn’t really reflective of the full detail.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63906ea0d3bf7f328063e844/2022-13-Paddleboards-Report.pdf

Section 2.6 is reflective in detail.

The main problem was that the leaders didn’t know how the weir behaved and interacted with the tide on the lower part of the river.
They didn’t even look at the weir.
The BCU did advise on the weir but the measures taken don’t appear to have been effective.
If you have a SUP ditch the ankle leash unless you are surfing and use a waist leash.
If you are approaching a significant hassard get out of river and inspect from the bank.
Please be careful on the water and stay safe.

Section 2.6 is reflective in detail.

The annex has an even more detailed review of the hazards of weirs and how to handle them to the extent its a useful document in its own right.

Related subject – I listened to this during the week, not unrelated, and thought it was refreshing that it made a sober, realistic assessment of potential dangers attached to inexperience in addition to extolling the activity. Quite rare in current media that it struck a good balance as an intro to anyone who’s curious about packrafting.

No 554 – Packrafting – An Introduction

Unless you’re suggesting weir and other waterway engineers used a crystal ball to try to foresee dangers like these, with the sort of watercraft in existence forty years ago, I honestly can’t think of any way weirs could have been designed to alleviate an issue nobody could have imagined would exist nearly half a century on.

I’m sorry,but this is not true. I clearly recall the weir on the Awe being a kayaker killer just less than 40 years ago. And the only reason I don’t have personal knowledge going back further is because I’m not old enough and started paddling late. I’m 100% sure that people knew weirs were lethal to riverrunners long before that. The reason nobody gave a shit was that in the minds of the powers that be the kayaker shouldn’t have been there and so nobody GaS.

I’m intrigued how the increase of wild swimming and SUPing is going to impact on waterway access

I’m 100% sure that people knew weirs were lethal to riverrunners long before that. The reason nobody gave a shit was that in the minds of the powers that be the kayaker shouldn’t have been there and so nobody GaS.

Sadly I agree with this.
And on the wier in question there’s mention of missing risk assessment and angle blocks to aid escape.

If you have a SUP ditch the ankle leash unless you are surfing and use a waist leash.

@Bruce Why is that? (Not a SUPer but Mrs kilo is)

When a current is running, either in a river or a tidal flow then there is a real danger of the paddler snagging the leash on a branch, rock or other obstical in the water and the board going one side of the obstical whilst the paddler goes the other. It doesn’t take much flow to mean that the paddler is unable to push against it and reach down to release the leash. A waist leash with an easily reached quick release tab means its much more likely the paddler can exit an emergency situation. Palm equuipment have just started producing a very good version.

@Bruce Why is that? (Not a SUPer but Mrs kilo is)

It’s in one of the appendices to the report I believe.  It’s recommended in fast moving water as it’s quicker and easier to release at waist height if you go under and the leash gets caught.  The ankle ones are recommended only for slow moving waters such as lakes and they recommend you always use it on the same ankle so you automatically know where to go to release it

edit: just too slow 🙂

Thanks both.

I haven’t read the report but I agree that anyone who takes payment to lead and teach a group should have walked around the weir. A risk assessment would have identified that as a considerable hazard as such.

Moving onto the weir itself, surely the owners should put something there to stop people going over it. Appreciate it could cause issues in retention of debris when the water is high – so would need a bespoke design. There should also be something designed so if anyone would get trapped in there, a way for them to escape. What, I don’t know, but some form of steps and railings?

Let’s not just leave it as they shouldn’t be there and it was the instructors fault – with nothing being physically done to these dangerous low dams.