UKC

Does anyone know whether there've been any court cases taken against leaders of hill/lowland walking group leaders (successful or unsuccessful).??

I'm a volunteer walk leader for a national park and we've frequently been told there have been successful cases taken against negligent leaders - not necessarily national parks ones, but I'm thinking of scout group leaders, walking clubs, outdoor centres etc.,, etc.,

Any links, names or info to at least enable me to google the cases.

In reply to Dave Perry:

Not quite an outdoor leader:

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/11528980.Man_charged_with_healt...

In reply to Dave Perry:
Young lad died in manchester hole whilst out with lea centre staff. N Yorks.

Scouts crushed after lighting fire under over hang camping. In peak somewhere I recall.

Probably some ten tors stuff online too.

School group in Yorkshire, 1 or 2 girls washed away during river side walk.

Edit, not sure if roger wilds avalanche incident on aonach mor ever went legal.

Cuthbertson , north face of tour ronde a very long time ago.

In reply to Dave Perry:

Not hillwalking but Lyme Bay springs to mind:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_Bay_canoeing_tragedy

It's probably worth mentioning that despite the Elf'n'Safety gone mad nonsense in the tabloids no one gets sent down for filling in a risk assessment with the wrong colour pen or wearing a Santa hat. You have to be grossly negligent.

In reply to Dave Perry:

Are you worried about litigation? the best way to not fall foul of the law is to not act negligently and the best way to avoid that is to educate yourself what would be classed as negligent through going on a leadership course or CPD course and get yourself insured.

In reply to Ridge:




And be it a good or a bad thing, the "test" which an allegation of gross negligence is put to is pretty high (or low whichever way you want to look at it). The successful cases can best be described as shocking in terms of the standard of care taken.

Be competent, be able to prove that, act reasonably and properly assess the risks and then worry more about what you are doing, rather than the chance of being sued. But I am sure you well know that.

In reply to Dave Perry:

"(5) THE GAPING GHYLL INCIDENT. CRADDOCK V (1) DR J A FARRER, (2) THE SCOUT ASSOCIATION, DATE OF ACCIDENT 25 JULY 1995, INQUEST 24 AUGUST 1995, VERDICT -ACCIDENTAL DEATH, LITIGATION COMMENCED 23 JULY 1998, JUDGEMENT GIVEN BY H H JUDGE APPLETON IN PRESTON, 17 NOVEMBER 2000. SUPPLIED BY JOHN GRANTHAM INSURANCE MANAGER, THE SCOUT ASSOCIATION

A Scout Group had organised a trip to visit the popular show cave at Gaping Ghyll. Some parents had gone along as additional supervising adults.
The party decided to eat their picnic lunch before undertaking the guided tour and walked a short distance up a footpath to some open land. One of the Scouts noticed a small cave opening across a stream and asked the Scout Leader for permission to explore it. The Leader refused permission, pointing out that caves could be dangerous. The Scout then moved away to where his father stood and repeated the request. His father, who had heard the leader's ruling, gave permission, provided his son with a cigarette lighter for illumination and accompanied him into the cave. A short distance inside, the Scout slipped and fell down a "chimney" leading into the main chamber of Gaping Ghyll. He fell 300 feet to his death.
The Father sued the Scout Association. His action was defended but the Judge found in favour of the claimant, stating that, as he was born in a city, he could not have been expected to recognise the dangers. He held that the Scout Leader should have prevented the father from entering the cave with his son and in failing to do so he breached his duty of care.
The Craddocks' older son continued as a member of the same Group for two years after the accident leaving when he reached 18 with his Chief Scout Award. The litigation did not commence until after he left."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmconst/754/754w...

In reply to Dave Perry:

This horribly tragic case resulted in gaol for a teacher.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1442320/Were-not-going-to-die-Mummy-...

I never pass the spot without thinking of the poor lad and his family.

In reply to wercat:


and rightly so. he was wholly responsible (irresponsible?) for what happend that day.

In reply to Dave Perry:

You should be sent to gaol for using the skis in your profile picture.

In reply to Gael Force:
"You should be sent to gaol for using the skis in your profile picture."

Don't worry they eventually fallen apart. But I've a nice pair of new cross-country skis now.....

In reply to Dave Perry:
Some nice links guys, thanks! Any more and I'd be grateful.

Just for a bit of background, I do hold an ML Summer, and I'm a qualified tour guide for what its worth. I've also lead groups on hills many years ago and now lead a few guided walking holidays for a large commercial provider along with voluntary walks for our park.

But I have no knowledge of any court cases involving 'walking' leaders in the outdoors. Lyme Bay is a well known canoeing case, and I've heard of a few involving 'mountaineering activities', but no walking activity ones.

So the examples you have posted are really useful in countering some of the red tape I'm sometimes faced with at our national park.

Keep them coming in I'll read them all!!!

In reply to Dave Perry:

It's not just stupidity or neglect; simple inexperience is a fact of life. In 1980 before elf 'n safety became fashionable I had a summer job leading groups of walkers in Haute Savoie. I was only 24 and although an experienced Britsh hillwalker I had zero Alpine experience. On the first early-season two day walk we encountered frozen snow and I took a bad decision, which certainly endangered the lives of the entire group. Luckily a woman member of the group realised the danger and protested and I had the humility to change the day's plan, meaning we got down safely.

In reply to Dave Perry:

a walking one from a few years ago.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jan/13/childprotection.schooltrips

another gorge/river one

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=fb3786a6-8980-69...

In reply to Dave Perry:

A scary thread. The majority of these incidents seem to be related to the more adventurous activities.

I did have an incident when we went river swimming as a group in the early 90s and one of my scouts got trapped by a rock. We were using a buddy system as was approved, we had two adults on the bank as lookouts, and the water wasn't deep or particularly dangerous. It could have been a lot worse if we had just all just piled into the water without any procedures in place.

So, make sure all your risk assessments are carried out and you follow what you have put in them. Risk assessments are a PITA, but 9/10 by stopping to think about something first you will spot a hazard.

Lowland walking and hill walking aren't particularly risky to those who have done it for years, but there are hazards that must be pointed out to the 'city folk'.

Don't forget cows! They kill more people than dangerous dogs!

In reply to abbeywall:

That latter case was extraordinary and received a lot of TV coverage here. The child was placed in a situation of having to do exactly the right thing to avoid death, rather than death being a remote possibility. Jumping from nearly 10 metres is quite likely to scare people into not performing the exact manoevre which lets them live.

In reply to August West:

That is an appalling decision.

How exactly was the scout leader supposed to prevent the father and son entering the cave? Physical force ? Any rational judge should have decided that once the father had overruled the leader, and encouraged his son, the boy was no longer the latter's responsibility.

I guess the stories in the link provided were evidence from various outdoor bodies (including the BMC?) of poor and dangerous precedents set by ignorant judges.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Presumably the Scout leader couldn't prove that he had explained the dangers in full to the father.

Sounds like he warned the child and the father overruled. He should have then reiterated to the father the dangers.

In reply to Dave Perry:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jan/13/childprotection.schooltrips

Edit: I see it's been posted above but didn't see it initially on my skim of the thread.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I think it may be down to the difference between civil and criminal cases. In many of the other examples on this thread, the person held responsible has been imprisoned, whereas in this case it appears that the father was suing for negligence. It may be that the judge regarded the father as the main culprit, but that there was some contributory negligence on behalf of the scout leader.

I still think its wrong though, as it puts the leader in a position where he may be liable if he doesn't take an overbearing and intrusive attitude towards another adult.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
If somebody else's son had died there'd be no argument that the scout leader had let an informal adult assistant they'd chosen put a scout in danger.

Hence the court decision but that is my entirely non-legal guess.

It's very tough judgement for the scouts and the scout leader.

I won't say what I think about the father for overruling the scout leader.

In reply to Dave Perry:

I was trying to remember a case where some children disobeyed repeated instructions not to jump into a river, and the teachers were prosecuted.

But google just keeps spitting out a whole load of religious stuff...

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=teachers+children+drowned+disobeyed

Weird...

In reply to Dave Perry:
Late 80s, I think, a commercial guided tour in the Pyrenees. They met unexpected hard snow unusually late in the season, guide had an axe but clients didn't. He walked across as he found it easy, one client got scared, slipped and broke a leg. She sued both company and guide. Guide was acquitted of negligence but company wasn't, as they did not specify an ice axe as necessary gear. I always thought this verdict was the wrong way round, as in most years the group would not have met hard snow on their route and not needed axes, while there were several things the guide could have done and didn't (cut steps for the clients, given them the axe, walked across one by one with them). Maybe the court case was useful though as years later I was in the same situation myself and made sure I did all three of the above.

In reply to elsewhere:

But there's a huge difference between the father and an assistant

The starting point is that the father is responsible for the child. He entrusts his child to the scout leader, who then has a duty of care to take reasonable precautions to keep the child safe. However by overruling the scout leader, and by encouraging the child to explore the cave, he has resumed full responsibility. The SL did not pass on responsibility, it was rescinded by the father.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
It went further. The father also made a claim against the landowner (that's the Dr Farrar cited in the charge quoted above) for not making the shaft entrance 'safe'. That was thrown out.

In reply to Dave Perry:

One of the pertinent cases is that of the boy drowned in 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/3132102.stm

Made more poignant by the fact that he shouldn't actually have been there.

The teacher who pleaded guilty, and was jailed, had lied in his application to the school about his possession of an ML. He had never actually gained that qualification.

In reply to Dave Perry:

And this article - written by Ed Douglas - still has the power to make me well up.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jan/13/childprotection.schooltrips

Johnathon Atwell in 1999.

In reply to Andy Say:

What is frightening about these stories is that the Leaders were ignoring advice and in some circumstances lying about their qualifications.

It's almost unbelievable, but I met many of the 'old boys' who'd 'been doing it for years and never had a problem' and wouldn't be told that their methods were unsafe by the standards of the day.

I've been on hill walking and climbing courses where they'd been failed and then had stand up rows with the instructors/examiners about the rights and wrongs of different methods and procedures.

But that was over 20years ago. I sincerely hope things have changed.

In reply to Andy Say:

Truely harrowing that. I have to say that the culture of well-meaning but wholly inappropriate plans is still present. I lead a group of scouts last year and was given a 'plan' for a day on the Glyders by the 'leader' for the group (some of them had never walked up a mountain before) which included ascending Tryfan via Heather terrace, then on to Glyder Fach and Fawr then on to Ygarn and back down via Devils kitchen. Weather forecast was deteriorating and my thoughts were 'hmm, OK, we'll see'. We got as far as the far south peak where we hunkered the boys into a KISU to have a snack and the group leader said without any sense of irony 'you know, I don't think we'll make it to Y garn'. Needless to say, we didn't. We didn't even make it to the top of Tryfan. it was my decision to turn back on account one of the scouts was getting rather cold and wasn't enjoying it. I dread to think what may have happened if I wasn't there to make the decisions.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Maybe this? http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jul/02/schooltrips.schools

Its sort of funny in retrospect (Morris MacLeod, duty sergeant at Aviemore police station, said: "What they did was rather irresponsible" is a class statement in the circumstances): 39 schoolgirls in binliners complaining to the rescue team that they had 'taken their bloody time'. But it could easily have made the Cairngorms tragedy pale into insignificance.

In reply to Iain Thow:

Not sure about in the 80's but currently, on what is classified as a trek, the leader is allowed to carry an axe for use in an emergency but not the clients. The leader should have course done more to protect his clients in the way that you have mentioned. Hard spring snow slopes are the big worry for IMLs especially on early season treks in the Alps and Pyrenees and we have all had to deal with such situations.

In reply to DancingOnRock:




Generally I think they have. However there are people out there who still think it's up to them, they can take a chance....and as they have been lucky so far then it will be OK this time too.

In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:

You know; I worry about that word 'allowed'. A couple of winters ago I met a guy on Moel Eilio (not exactly 'alpine'!) when it was really glazed with ice and hard snow. Me and my lad were actually wearing crampons to deal with the summit area. He had to descend by hanging on to the fence.

He was working for a company and was recce'ing the hill for his clients who had failed to get up anything in the whole week because of the conditions. When I suggested he might be able to hire crampons locally for the group he responded that he wasn't 'allowed' to do that so he was going to try to bring them up without.

There's playing by the rules and there's common sense.

In reply to Wainers44:

Maybe "quality days in the hills" should also include "a few days where everything went a bit wrong".

I've only had one day that seriously frightened me when 'leading' a group of friends up on the Glyders. Two of them decided they'd be fine walking well ahead of the main group.

They got lost in the mist and their plan was to "Keep walking North until they met the road."!

These were 'experienced adults'.

Luckily we found them.

In reply to Andy Say:

He was presumably a summer ML but taking clients out in conditions where axe and crampons are required is negligent. If he was a winter ML then he should have been ok but perhaps he didn't have any quals. It's one of the problems in the UK where there is no law requiring a guide/leader to be formally qualified. I know that this comment will elicit comments from people who believe that experience supersedes qualifications and whilst I agree to a point, the un-informed member of the public can not separate the two.

In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:

The law, as it stands, requires you to be 'suitably competent'. How you prove that competence in a court of law, after it has gone tits up, is a tricky issue.

In reply to DancingOnRock:




Completely agree. The list of what has been done slips easily into the logbook. The story of the day you did Scafell, Scafell Pike, one of the group started puking, you wandered across the South Ridge of Esk Pike in darkness and used every ounce of Nav cunning in you to get back to Mosedale at very late o clock tends not to get a mention....

Am I allowed to sound like an old fart and say that "epics" should be mandated for those with borderline logbooks??

In reply to Wainers44:

Nope. Not at all.

Actually, thinking about it, I've had a few mini epics. I suppose even being slightly off in mist on Kinder and just catching the top of Geindsbrook could count.

Even trying to find an overgrown path through the back of some farmers field can make a great day out suddenly quite worrying.

These are things that can be explained during a course but until you're starting to get cold and tired and it's getting dark, you just don't appreciate the training or other learning experiences.

In reply to DancingOnRock:





Absolutely...and then stick the real cat amongst the pigeons of having a group of kids with you, all totally depending on your skills, choices, and foresight and suddenly being able to Nav a bit and walk far doesn't really cover it!!

In reply to Wainers44:


With kids, I always took them on routes I knew well. They did the map reading and with a bit of 'steering' thought that they had planned the routes themselves.

It's not a time for you to be testing yourself or having your own quality day in the hills.

Problems usually happen when you're out with your mates and one of them has had no sleep all week due to a work deadline or too many pints the night before.

In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:

Mike

Just for clarity I assume your comment re the leader is allowed to carry an axe but no the group is an Alpine rule/law/common practice and not a UK one?

In reply to Andy Say:

Which brings us back to the original question - any more examples of court cases in the UK regardless of outcome?

In reply to Dave Perry:

I suspect the answer is 'very few'.

Despite the papers and scaremongering.

The majority of incedents you read about are individuals walking in areas completely ill equiped or competent people having genuine accidents.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Couldn't agree more. You must not take any risks with the lives of any person, young or old, who is not qualified to make a judgement of those risks themselves. A terrible incident, I remember it well sadly.

In reply to Chris the Tall: I don't think you can be that cavalier about the judgement. If you were aware that the action was dangerous and you are responsible for a child on a trip then it is your responsibility to prevent that child coming to harm and if that means conflict with the parent then that's what has to happen. If the extent of the danger was fully explained to the father then I doubt he would have argued.

In reply to wercat:


Christ. I started at LRGS the month this article was written. The annual trip to Glenridding for first years continues to this day, as far as I know, but unsurprisingly when we went (~June 2004) activities involving jumping in Glenridding Beck had been quietly dropped.

In reply to Dave Perry:

Do I sense some frustration at idle chit-chat

If by 'court cases' you include the findings of inquests and fatal accident inquiries then :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/7711434/Schoolboy-di...

And of course Stainforth Beck - http://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/sep/09/schools.uk - did go on to court.

At did this - http://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/jun/20/schools.uk2

There is a theme to this thread isn't there. Water!

In reply to Dave Perry:

Yes Dave. I was commenting as an IML in relation to the incident in the Pyrenees. It is a bit of a hot topic at the moment as there is a proposal that IMLs should be able to use axe and crampons to safeguard clients and in some situations issue axe and crampons to clients but this is seen to be encroaching on Guides territory. As a climber and IML I can see both sides and would certainly carry axe and crampons, early season in the Alps but the problems that could arise with clients and crampons are potentially severe. Crossing spring snow patches is a really difficult call especially on standard trekking routes like the TMB but it's all about putting your clients safety first.

In reply to Dave Perry:

Thanks to everyone who took their time to contact me and/or post those links its all been pretty useful - it looks like much of the tripe I/we have to put up with is corporate invented tripe....

Thanks lads and lasses.

In reply to Dave Perry:

I don't know whether this has been mentioned but this case was local to me and went on for some time iirc

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-17776579

In reply to BigBrother:

And the mother eventually lost:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9362579/Advice-of-scou...

And then apparently decided to go after another of the teachers - and lost again:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-22204495

In reply to Martin W:

Thanks Martin.

That is something I've been going to do for a while and look to see how many appeals there were on some of the other reported links.

In reply to summo:

there was a sheriff led fatal accident inquiry of Rogers avalanche so fairly legal.

More recently there was I believe a judge led inquiry into a serious accident on skye.

Worth a call / email to mountain training I'd have thought.