Been reading with interest. This is relevant as it covers volunteers/amateur ride leaders
Ctc:
Courts have shown that they will consistently make judgements based on the skill, knowledge, experience of claimant and organisation. Paid professionals and large organisations have the highest expectations. They cannot claim ignorance or lack of resources to provide good policies and practice. At the other end of the spectrum children and inexperienced adults are not expected to be able to make good judgements on safety issues and the “professionals” are expected to bear the greater brunt of responsibility. For cycling there is an important middle ground. Where do experienced but unpaid volunteers fall? Are they expected to be at the professional end of the spectrum, or will a court decide they cannot be negligent if they are not being paid. What if everyone in a group is equally experienced? This has been discussed extensively within cycling but as and as there is little case law in our sector we have to look at parallel activities and take advice from legal advisors and insurers. The feedback we have suggests: The general common sense approach the Courts take is that an experienced but unpaid volunteer would be expected to act the same way as any paid person of his/her particular experience and expertise. Where the activity was part of a structured programme provided by a national or local body such as a sports club or scout group the expectation is on the governing body to provide structures and codes of conduct which the AP should adhere to. Governing bodies could be negligent if codes or advice are inadequate or inappropriate. Or an individuals can be negligent if they do not adhere to rules and guidance provided, however in reality a claimant will usually sue both and cover will be provided by the same insurer. At the heart of all this is someone’s definition of best practice. It would not be credible to a participant, a court, a SAG or any other regulator that leaders or organisers working within a long standing group or national body did not receive advice on basic good conduct of activities, whether paid or not. This has been proven from rugby referees to expedition leaders. If an organisation or an experienced person is involved the formal status of the group is irrelevant. If it could be proven that group members knew good practice, had access to advice but ignored it then negligence could be proven. And claims follow money. In the event of a claim the claimant’s legal advisors will be seeking a source able to pay damages and cover legal costs. An organisations public or employer’s liability cover is the usual source, but if there is no cover individuals’ home insurance policies may be used. Not being a formally organised activity does not mean there is no-one to sue, but it does mean the stress and likely outcomes fall on individuals alone rather than groups or their governing bodies and insurers. There may be extra bureaucracy involved in being an organised group, but in our opinion it is well worth it compared to the risk.
