Jump to content

Anyone PLAYING Airsoft ever claimed on a Sites Public Liability Insurance?


sir naggedalot

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

As Swerve said, insurance is not a synonym for liability. There is a serious amount of misinformation here about this sort of stuff! You cannot sign away your rights, nor can you absolve another of their duty of care. The site has a duty of care to its patrons to provide a site safe from dangers due to negligence, so no rusty nails sticking out of cover, no syringes decorating the ground etc.

 

The site has public liability insurance to protect themselves if someone has an accident on their property, and they were liable. In order to prove liability you must prove that someone was negligent. If it was a marshal, they will be named in the suit, but it is still the site that is liable because they have a higher duty of care, and are responsible for the marshal being there.

 

Waivers are nothing. In fact they are less than nothing. You cannot sign away liability - what you are doing is signing an information docket stating that you understand the risks involved. This is done to keep insurance companies happy. In sporting policies they require you to take steps to make people aware of the risks involved so that if they suffer an accident, and you can prove that they were the authors of their own misfortune, then they will rightly get nothing.

 

If the site doesn't have adequate insurance, that doesn't in turn make them not liable but rather that any potential payout comes from their own coughers. If an accident occurs from gameplay, and not to do with the site, then it is not covered by public liability insurance - there would need to be personal accident cover included in membership etc, or to have one personally.

 

PS: Back in my day (i.e not long ago) schools had insurance, with each student having cover. Of course they would call an ambulance - anything less would be considered grossly negligent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I belive I have said before,"your responsible for your own health and safety" after you have signed to say you have "understood the dangers"

 

 

It keeps the Insurance happy because they know they dont have to pay out.

Waivers are nothing. In fact they are less than nothing. You cannot sign away liability - what you are doing is signing an information docket stating that you understand the risks involved. This is done to keep insurance companies happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Signing something that states you have been made aware of risks does not absolve any other party from their responsibilities, which may in part include aspects concerning your health and safety.

 

Your right again Swerve.

Yet again you have brought fact and logic to a Internet Forum Discussion.

 

Who ever said this is getting like the Laser thread was right lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer the question posed in the thread title: no.

 

As I have never badly injured myself and to be honest if I did it would probably be my own fault.

 

However it is nice to know a site has the insurance to cover it should any issues exist.

 

One big reason a lot of sites as well also make sure to maintain PLI is that it is a UKARA requirement that the site has third party PLI along with being registered to the database, so it is a double win for a site, even if it does cost a fair bit.

 

'FireKnife'

Link to post
Share on other sites

PLI is designed to cover you / the player if injury is caused to you while on site (be it before ,during or after game) 

 

A marshal who is not paid is also a player (which is why you would have to claim damages against him yourself , although good luck with that if for example full face protection was advised and you didnt wear it)

 

Insurance waivers are not worth anything at all ! You cannot waive your right to claim on insurance if the second party/ site has insurance to cover the incident

 

PLI is there to cover players , however you must be adhering to all site rules to stand a chance of making a claim .

 

If a player injures you and they were doing something against site rules stated in the safety briefing , you would have a case against the player who injured you , not the site .

 

The sites I have played at and also managed in years past have all been quite happy to call ambulance if required and to be honest that is pretty much the extent to what first aiders can do these days .

 

If I went to a site that refused to call an ambulance for a serious injury I would certainly not be going there again and would leave right away 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurance waivers are not worth anything at all ! You cannot waive your right to claim on insurance if the second party/ site has insurance to cover the incident

 

 

Your not signing  Insurance waivers because as  said before they  have no weight in the eyes of the law.

 

Your signing to say you understand the Health and Safety aspects....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a friend whos son broke their arm at school and even though it was obviously broken they still refused to call a ambulance.

During the investigation into the reason for the delay three reasons were as to why the school failed to call a ambulance and one of them was because of the worrie of increasing the finacial burnden the school was perceived to be suffering.

 

This took place approximately eight years ago.

Here we go, the "my friend" story. I've also got a friend who's child broke their arm but they never complained till a routine check up. The parent didn't know how and when it happened, so the hospital were suspicious.

 

One incident, does not make all schools act the same. Also, if the arm was broken, the school wouldn't have been sued for ringing an ambulance, would they. So that contradicts what you pointed out. Schools have been sued for negligence, when taken to court (have a google and you'll see).

Link to post
Share on other sites

One incident, does not make all schools act the same. Also, if the arm was broken, the school wouldn't have been sued for ringing an ambulance, would they. So that contradicts what you pointed out. Schools have been sued for negligence, when taken to court (have a google and you'll see).

 

Did I say all Schools act the same?

 

If they had called for a Ambulance to attend then they would not of been negligent so no they would not of been sued and found to be negligent as ther WERE.

I will ask my Friend if they would mind me disclosing some more details and then I will post you the google link

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has a "friend" story. You've missed the point. I asked a couple of times for proof, that a school would not ring an ambulance, through fair of being sued. Now, you mentioned a incident that a child broke thier arm and the school was sued for negligence. But my question wasn't about that. It was, what school has a policy in place, that says it will not ring an ambulance.

 

Edit:- in post number 4 on page 1, you did say "a bit like schools".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on I am getting confused?

 

Either:

 

1. We have two members that know each other and like going on forums arguing the same point over and over.

 

2. This is a coincidence.

 

3. Zero In has started letting members out on day release.

 

It just seems that we things going round and round again. I hope it is all just coincidence but something doesn't seem right.

 

'FireKnife'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has a "friend" story. You've missed the point. I asked a couple of times for proof, that a school would not ring an ambulance, through fair of being sued. Now, you mentioned a incident that a child broke thier arm and the school was sued for negligence. But my question wasn't about that. It was, what school has a policy in place, that says it will not ring an ambulance.

 

Edit:- in post number 4 on page 1, you did say "a bit like schools".

 

http://news.sky.com/story/766640/asthma-death-boy-was-neglected-by-school

 

 

During the three week hearing jurors heard that teachers at Offerton were unaware of the school's policy that they should call an ambulance if a pupil had an asthma attack and did not improve within 10 minutes.

 

 

The failed to impliment the policy.

 

 

"The fact that no-one called an ambulance during the hours that Sam was suffering from a prolonged asthma attack is truly astounding and very troubling for all parents."

 

 

Not the case i am refering to but I will say that my friends Child had a long standing medical condition that the school were fully aware of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm not on zero's forums. Is a similar thread, on there also?

 

Edit:- That story is a shocking read. But I digress, it's still not proof that more than one school has a policy of not ringing an ambulance. If anything it says they do have a policy to ring an ambulance.

 

So, just to recap, this is not about schools that have neglected students. I was pointing out what you said in post 4 page 1 of your thread. I asked for proof, but none are forth coming, so I take it you have no proof that schools will not ring an ambulance. Lots of proof of negligence but that's not proof of policy, that a school won't ring an ambulance.

 

So schools that fail to ring and get sued (rightly so).But, nothing about having a policy that says they shouldn't (as in they won't ring, not that they failed to ring).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm not on zero's forums. Is a similar thread, on there also?

 

PM me and I will explain.

 

Just so you know, the Swerve on Zero In is my evil twin.  I suggest you have nothing to do with him, no good will come of it.

 

Ah yes I recall him, said you owed me a £20 :P.

 

Ignore my one on Zero In too, he is too serious.

 

'FireKnife'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.