UKC

Working on a guidebook at the moment - about cycling as it happens - and the issue of liability has come up. It seems most guidebooks put some sort of disclaimer at the front of the guide (climbing is dangerous, do so at your own peril, author not responsible...) but I'm wondering if anyone has every heard of a case in which a guidebook author has been found liable?

I was also wondering how this applies to access. What would be the consequence if a guide included an area or approach without permission?

In reply to Dave Flanagan:


As well as addressing safety issues, climbing guidebooks generally include an access-related disclaimer: "The inclusion of a crag in this book does not imply a right to climb on it", or something very similar.

In reply to Dave Flanagan:
Hi Dave

There has been a very pertinent case in 2015 following a tragic canoe accident. I will email you the details.

In this case the court found in favour of the guidebook publisher who was being held liable by a bereaved spouse for an error in the book which had resulted in the death of her husband.

Alan

In reply to Dave Flanagan:

Perhaps the resident legal experts will comment, but I'm pretty sure such disclaimers would offer absolutely no legal protection. If a court thinks you have a duty of care, nothing you put in print will persuade them otherwise, I'd have thought.

In reply to planetmarshall:

I suppose an example of guide book negligence might be to grossly under grade a route thus encouraging someone who was quite incapable of climbing it to attempt it, get into difficulty and fall off injuring or killing them self?

In reply to Trangia:

Or you could argue grossly over-grading some routes and encouraging a false sense of security. I think grades are likely irrelevant. The real issue is Volenti non fit injura:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volenti_non_fit_injuria

In reply to Offwidth:
I assume this is the case Alan refers to, which doesn't seem to hinge on volenti.
http://nashpersonalinjury.co.uk/the-duty-of-care-owed-by-the-author-of-a-gu...

Wiki suggests the bar for a volenti defence is rather high - see the first requirement, which would seem to be broken if a guidebook has an error. Would be interesting to hear lawyers' views.

In reply to MG:

A lawyer will have whatever opinion you pay them to give and is anyway irrelevant, it is the judges opinion that counts.

In reply to MG:

That is the case. I have a 38 page PDF document on the case, but the summary there is good.

The most relevant bit is.

Merely publishing the guidebook, found the Judge, did not create a relationship of proximity, neither was it relevant that the Defendant was the governing body for the sport and that Mr Wall was a member of a canoeing club affiliated to the Defendant. Mr Wall was not engaged in a paddle arranged by the Defendant or under the supervision, control or instruction of the Defendant. Simply publishing the guidebook did not mean that the Defendant assumed responsibility in respect of Mr Wall’s safety.

The Court went on to say that, had the Claimant’s argument been successful, it would mean every publisher of every guidebook in the world on whatever topic or subject matter would assume an unlimited legal responsibility for the action and omission of anyone who read their guidebook at anytime after the publication of the guidebook.


Alan

In reply to planetmarshall:


There's definitely legal precedent for phrasebook authors being prosecuted for translation errors resulting in a breach of the peace.

youtube.com/watch?v=G6D1YI-41ao&

In reply to jimtitt:


A decent lawyer would tell you what the judge's decision is likely to be.

In reply to jimtitt:


That's not so. A lawyer should tell you if they think you have a crap case. They must do their best to defend you but can only do so within the confines of what is legal. They cannot lie on your behalf.

In reply to Trangia:


And what about being economical with the truth ?
Lawyers are very good at omitting anything which doesn't help their sides view.
The claim that this is down to "relevance" is a pretty poor excuse for what the layman would call downright fiddling.

In reply to fred99:

We're not talking about a court case here, but obtaining an informed legal view on the situation, rather than speculation. The court case above gives some pointers.

In reply to MG:

I wasn't referring to this particular OP, but replying to Trangia, who seemed to me to be implying that Lawyers are wonderful people who always give the full truth and are never ever wrong.

In reply to jimtitt:

Some lawyers might be that easy to buy, but as lawyers are a regulated profession, most will be keen not to be struck off for either lieing, or negligence. If a lawyer brings a case without merit, their clients can bring a negligence case against the lawyers in question.

In reply to Oliver Houston:


I am with Jim on this one.

I note you use the words " some " " most " and "can ". Also I agree with you on this.

There are a significant number of lawyers in prison. Total or blind trust is ill advised.

Having said that, all the solicitors I have used have been honest and professional, thankfully.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

That seems a very wise and far-seeing judgement. You've got to draw the line somewhere and it seems that this Judge drew it in the right place.


Mick

In reply to Oliver Houston:


Sure, the Approved Regulator is the Law Society who have an "independent" body to do the regulation.
If lawyers could give definitive advice then there would never be a court case, one would say "you´ ll win" and the other "you´ ll lose". However we all know one lawyer will take your money to sue a guide book author and another will take money to defend the author, in the end it is a judge who decides whose opinion was right.

In reply to jimtitt:


Jim, I don't think that is fair to lawyers if you will forgive me saying so, just as it is unfair to say that all climbers are reckless or all (hmm, searching for an innocuous example) dentists have halitosis... There are crooked or ignorant lawyers, but they are a small minority as in every profession.

A lawyer will advise about the law, and the client can accept or reject that advice. A good lawyer would have said to the client in this case "this is unknown territory because this particular point has not been decided before. You may win or lose. There is a serious risk that you will lose and if you do here's the sort of figure it will cost you." If the client then decides to go ahead, the lawyer will do his or her best, offering the judge every available argument, looking at legal principle and at analogous cases, without lying (because the vast majority of lawyers are no more likely to tell lies than you are) and without offering rubbish legal arguments (because they will look a fool if they do). But the lawyer's job, having given advice, is to follow the client's instructions; this client chose to give it a go and that was her choice. That does not make her lawyer a crook. We might even be glad that they gave it a shot, since the climbing community benefits from the legal precedent.

I'd say the outcome of that case was predictable, spot on correct, but not inevitable. Disclaimers *are* useful; ; they remind climbers that they climb at their own risk and perhaps more importantly they tell the judge (not all judges are climbers) that climbers know that they climb at their own risk.

In reply to BusyLizzie:

That's​ a very clear and understandable exposition. Makes me think you might be a lawyer.

In reply to fred99:

....like jumping off the Valkyrie belay ledge