Avoiding compensation claims

[Sonar]

Just to throw a spanner in here.

Every employer has a duty of care to employees and to protect the public.

Health and safety act work at.

[Sonar]

You as operators could produce a generic risk and method statement for every event.
the size of a telephone directory.
The chances are nobody will ever want to see it or read it.
a paper copy on board and a paper copy in your place of business and a copy on the computer that can be updated as and when things change or indeed another risk comes to light.


However one small accident however...small

And the HSE... Solicitors ....The courts everybody will be going through it with a fine tooth comb
trying to find even the smallest detail to lay blame at somebody's door and then of course
compensation. claims all round.
For the sake of covering yourself in paper you could save everything and lose nothing.
and best of all producing such a document to an insurance company will show your on the ball and may reduce insurance premiums.
Who knows write a bit and save a bit of hard earned cash.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by 250kts

It strikes me yet again, that this forum has a wealth of expertise and talent.

In order to protect both customers and the operators, could "we" come up with a specimin document that gives protection for both. Whilst I am sure operators have their own documents, we wont always see it from either the expert legal side or necessarily the customers.

I/we are not after something for nothing, I just think that from the sensible comments made so far and the diverse backgrounds of the members, a top class document could be produced that could be a shinning light for the industry.

OK, so now shoot me down ....

Steve

Steve, I'm not sure if there is a trade body who might be interested in pulling together such a thing? Such a document could then be presented as industry best practice - rather than a bunch of guys who thought it was a good idea. Failing that - do it yourself, and you can become the example everyone else looks up to.

The aim must surely be to avoid the accident rather than avoid the litigation. The route to reducing your (insurers) liability in litigation is by showing you did everything reasonably possible to reduce and manage the risk of injury.

If I was in your/C2's shoes I'd consider adding pictures of how to sit correctly on the seat, together with bullet points about do / don't etc. As well as highlighting medical conditions of concern on a form which collects peoples details (the marketing side of my brain would also want to capture their email addresses etc for future promotions!).

I'm not sure if you do this on one form per person, or one per trip. If it is one per trip then it is probably impossible to give 12 people reasonable time to digest and ask questions about the content - say 1-2 minutes per person, that could be nearly 25 minutes before you've even covered lifejackets etc.

Personally I'm much less likely to walk away from something like this after I have paid my money. Not sure where you do your safety briefings but if they are on the pontoon or on-board that may be too late for many people to bother telling you about their dodgy back, pregnancy, pace maker etc... Unfortunately whilst it might scare away some customers I think this really needs to be up front - before your get their payment, albeit probably with a further option for a refund if you/they decide it is not appropriate closer to boarding.

Presumably fat heart-disease-ridden asthmatics can participate in some "styles" of rib trip safely (e.g. Sea Safari in good weather), but not in the thrill ride style events. You may need to distinguish the difference between them.

[Sonar]

It's a very complicated affair safety and the law.

However with the right paper work your protected in all events.

As for how to sit in the rib maybe a small laminated card of instructions under each seat.
takes a few seconds to look at replace and away you go.

The forms for injury and acceptance can be given out and signed before payment either on the day as passing trade or online bookings is made ..

Left onshore in a safe place that can be accessed by those whom need the information
Safety is not as easy as it used to be as were all now a claim society .
Be safe or sorry.

Fin

Robert

[Steve_B]

Thanks Guys

As those that have been out with us might vouch, we have cards in the front of every seat that shows not only pictures and text of how to sit correctly, but also life jacket and life raft instructions.

What I fear, is the bits I have missed not through lack of thought, but what I dont know.

Steve

[Poly]

Robert - you've obviously been on too many courses in the building trade:

Originally Posted by Sonar

It's a very complicated affair safety and the law.

Not really - identify the risk, mitigate the risk, monitor and record what you are doing. Its actually extremely simple. Ask any HSE inspector and they'll tell you - the complexity in paperwork comes from consultants making money out of the industry.

However with the right paper work your protected in all events.

its not about the paperwork - what matters is the content/substance/attitude. Paperwork doesn't avoid accidents.

Originally Posted by 250kts

As those that have been out with us might vouch, we have cards in the front of every seat that shows not only pictures and text of how to sit correctly, but also life jacket and life raft instructions.

I saw Andre mention that in a recent post and it seemed like a good idea. But once I'm sitting in the seat reading the card am I likely to get back off? Its great to reinforce the point though.

[Sonar]

All tricky stuff.
then there's the DDA stuff
Disabled Disability Act.?

Yep I have to keep on doing the courses.

As you said paperwork does NOT prevent accidents.
But shows you will have a known plan in the event.

[chewy]

Originally Posted by Polwart

Paperwork doesn't avoid accidents.

It doesn't but it covers your backside if you do have an accident.

If you have the paper work to be working in a specific area on a site and your working safely and someone else injures you and they have a permit its their fault.
If your in that area and the same accident occurs because of the other persons neglect and you didn't have the correct paper work it would be your fault because you shouldn't have been there.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by chewy

It doesn't but it covers your backside if you do have an accident.

yes point was its too easy to focus on having the right bits of paper rather than on avoiding the accident in the first place. In reality the paperwork will only CYA if it is suitable and sufficient anyway - which means understanding the problem and risk!

If you have the paper work to be working in a specific area on a site and your working safely and someone else injures you and they have a permit its their fault.

little consolation if you're the one in hospital!

If your in that area and the same accident occurs because of the other persons neglect and you didn't have the correct paper work it would be your fault because you shouldn't have been there.

Only if they didn't know you were there / at risk - otherwise whilst you're in the wrong for being somewhere you shouldn't they are not faultless.

The permit-to-work system is the system it happens to be a paper based way of controlling the risk - but it is not about paper - its about control. its also generally not appropriate to small RIB ride operations!

[chewy]

What I'm getting at is that even if you understand the risks and the precautions to take these need to be outlined in a Risk Assesment and how your going to reduce the risk.
If I was running a RIB ride business I'd have a risk assesment for each run off. This would be simple to fill in regards sea state, wind force, where you would be operating, it would also have a generic section stating the potential hazards.
Once completed everyone who boarded the boat would have a safety brief and sign the RA.

Regards been the one in hospital, I'd much rather have a bit of paper saying I had the right to work where I was. Granted you may still get injured but you can then claim against your company.

[PeterM]

I'm going to dive in based on what I do & my experience of RIBs & Insurance & people being sued / insurers paying or not paying any claims.

Good points made by all really. Key things I see to consider ;

Risk - as has been said you can mitigate , but not remove risk from going out in any boat - but need to be taking ' reasonable' steps to mitigate it & this will vary from one day to the next, one boat to the next, and one location to another.

While the world most comprehensive Risk assessment . Method statement, wrapping up in cotton wool will help defend your position it will all come down to a judge (who may or may not know anything about boats/ribs etc) taking a view on how he/she should be applying the law. Of course this is based on the worst case where someone is trying to blame/ sue you. The value of signed declarations by customer etc at this stage become arguable depending on the case. They can show you have considered the risk & done everything you can, or a judge may view you have considered it & then failed to mitigate it as far as ' reasonable' ! - i.e. with a list of 'conditions' as per someone's form - is the list definitive ? Or if by missing out some random thing can you be deemed as not doing everything 'reasonable' ? - (this is not a criticism in any way but some change to wording along the lines of conditions such as, including , but not limited to ……could widen the bounds of what you are asking)

I have seen cases where judgments get overturned on appeal, or at higher levels of the system( where Judges have a better understanding/ more experience of the law)alas - not always overturned the right way ! I can let people have the outline of these if they are interested.

Luckily at this stage everyone has paid a hefty (unfortunately for everyone's bottom line !) insurance premium to ensure that it all gets paid for by someone else - hence the insurers themselves are the ultimate risk mitigation for this stuff.

I'll admit commercial marine is not in any way a specialism of mine but the principals that apply are very very similar in nearly all cases of liability.

Pete

[chewy]

Alot of time the statement "as far as reasonably practical" is used, ie if you have done all you can to reduce the risk that is reasonably practical.
Alot of this is to do with cost and how much the risk is reduced. Obviously shock mitigation seating would help prevent injury but is it reasonably practical to take your boat out of service and have the additional expense of fitting the seats, not really but on a new build it may be considered.

[PeterM]

Originally Posted by chewy

Alot of time the statement "as far as reasonably practical" is used, ie if you have done all you can to reduce the risk that is reasonably practical.
Alot of this is to do with cost and how much the risk is reduced. Obviously shock mitigation seating would help prevent injury but is it reasonably practical to take your boat out of service and have the additional expense of fitting the seats, not really but on a new build it may be considered.

Good point Chewy - Luckily the law has stated that in any decision the court has to asses ;

'not only the liklehood that someone may be injured and the seriousness of the injury that may occur, but also the social value of the activety which gives rise to the risk and the costs of the preventative measures'.

So the cost of Ullmans for each seat on a RIB would be considered ! ( hopefully as way OTT ! )

[Poly]

Originally Posted by chewy

Alot of time the statement "as far as reasonably practical" is used, ie if you have done all you can to reduce the risk that is reasonably practical.
Alot of this is to do with cost and how much the risk is reduced. Obviously shock mitigation seating would help prevent injury but is it reasonably practical to take your boat out of service and have the additional expense of fitting the seats, not really but on a new build it may be considered.

Indeed - but on a RIB Blast - there is often no actual reason for the activity other than to have fun, and to make money for the owner/skipper. It could be argued that the reasonably practical option is either not to run, or not to run in certain weather conditions (e.g only F2 or less) etc. Or say to drive at <20 knots where you can still make a journey, but the risk of shock injury is going to fall significantly. Reasonably practicable does not necessarily mean commercially viable.

Originally Posted by PeterM

'not only the liklehood that someone may be injured and the seriousness of the injury that may occur, but also the social value of the activety which gives rise to the risk and the costs of the preventative measures'.

So the cost of Ullmans for each seat on a RIB would be considered ! ( hopefully as way OTT ! )

would it? firstly I'm not sure you can argue a huge "social value" from RIB trips. There may be some small local economic benefit, there may be individuals or groups who get great social benefits - but in general its just fun and some relatively conservative profits for the owner isn't it? Are Ullmans OTT? Obviously its a big capital cost but ammortised along with the cost of the boat it would add little (£2?) per passenger per trip to the charges. The real question would be whether Ullmans substantially reduce the probability of significant injury when sat on by inexperienced users on a "one off basis". Firstly to get the best out them do they not need set up for the user? Secondly are they not there to deal with repeated shock, on a regular basis rather than a few big bangs for an hour and then nothing for a year? Finally do you still need to be "sitting right" on one, so the biggest risk factor is still not controlled.

[chewy]

Originally Posted by Polwart

Reasonably practicable does not necessarily mean commercially viable.

If its not commerially viable then its not reasonably practical!

[PeterM]

Originally Posted by Polwart

would it? firstly I'm not sure you can argue a huge "social value" from RIB trips. There may be some small local economic benefit, there may be individuals or groups who get great social benefits - but in general its just fun and some relatively conservative profits for the owner isn't it? Are Ullmans OTT? Obviously its a big capital cost but ammortised along with the cost of the boat it would add little (£2?) per passenger per trip to the charges. The real question would be whether Ullmans substantially reduce the probability of significant injury when sat on by inexperienced users on a "one off basis". Firstly to get the best out them do they not need set up for the user? Secondly are they not there to deal with repeated shock, on a regular basis rather than a few big bangs for an hour and then nothing for a year? Finally do you still need to be "sitting right" on one, so the biggest risk factor is still not controlled.

Everything has a social value if you know how to consider it - eg - the appreciation of the local dorset coastline/ history, views of the Thames & famous property on it , appreciation of whales & dolphins. All add 'value' to society. The point is that yes you can stop people doing these things , but at what cost (not financial) to society ?

I think the £2 per passenger per trip 'lost' could make some business unviable - you seem to make the point then argue against it ............

Probably serves me right for trying to put a perspective across based on law and fact . I'll stick to waffle from now on.

[bedajim]

In July there are some new EU rules about vibration etc and taking care of workers etc?

EUROPEAN UNION HUMAN VIBRATION DIRECTIVE

So does that mean that you will have to provide Suspension seats at least for crew if not everyone on board as a duty of care ?
+ start again with risk assessments etc

Jim

[Poly]

Originally Posted by PeterM

Everything has a social value if you know how to consider it - eg - the appreciation of the local dorset coastline/ history, views of the Thames & famous property on it , appreciation of whales & dolphins. All add 'value' to society. The point is that yes you can stop people doing these things , but at what cost (not financial) to society ?

but those are (or could be) relatively safe ways to be a passenger on a RIB. Too choppy / too risky for passengers - you just slow down. Its the RIB thrill ride / blast where this clearly isn't so easy. The whole point it to carry out high G manoeuvres, have an adrenaline rush, jump waves etc. I'm assuming that the "disclaimer" people were being asked to sign further up this thread was for a high speed thrill ride rather than a SeaSafari ?

I think the £2 per passenger per trip 'lost' could make some business unviable - you seem to make the point then argue against it ............

no the point I was trying to make was Ullmans would add relatively little to the cost of the operation (and presumably therefore to tickets) - but that actually I don't think Ullmans would bring a real benefit to typical irregular users.

[chewy]

Originally Posted by Polwart

no the point I was trying to make was Ullmans would add relatively little to the cost of the operation (and presumably therefore to tickets) - but that actually I don't think Ullmans would bring a real benefit to typical irregular users.

Have you seen the price of Ullman seats, pointless buying them if you don't they would be a real benefit.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by chewy

If its not commerially viable then its not reasonably practical!

We might need to agree to disagree - but I am certain that reasonably practical does not always mean commercially viable. Here's what HSE say:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpglance.htm

In particular “‘Reasonably practicable’ is a narrower term than ‘physically possible’ … a computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other, and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them – the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the defendants discharge the onus on them.”

It is the disproportion between the sacrifice and the risk reduction that determines practicality. Permanently disability balanced against say £30k on safety equipment may not be disproportionate. The fact that the £30k might put you out of business is irrelevant - it simply means you need to put your prices up to offer a safe service, or accept that you can't work in that arena.