How do I join your club??

[Winnie]

No shit!!!! Jonathan knows that...

[Bloodyaussie]

@ BA you should always state in writing that you or the Forum have no
liability for any trip organized by you or even Stropp if a trip in WA.
Only takes one person with no 4x4 experience to tag along and wreck their vehicle,
or flood their motor and seek compensation, I would be getting forms printed.
You say it wont happen but one day it will, I've seen it happen elsewhere in Vic

Firstly thanjs for pointing out the obvious. .. that drives me nuts!!!

And 2nd I am not printing shit... you dont make 3 mates going out for a drive or ride sign f%=king documents before they leave the house.... I am sick of protecting the weak.. many of us have suffered damage on trips we have been on and some even while recovering others and no one with any intelligence would think to sue..

I normally do post up before any novice meet but its been so long since I have done one and our normal trips dont warrant it because we are all mates who know what it is all about.

I have hosted and helped out heaps of novices and had nothing but praise from these guys....!!!!!!!

[Clunk]

No shit!!!! Jonathan knows that...

Firstly thanjs for pointing out the obvious. .. that drives me nuts!!!

And 2nd I am not printing shit... you dont make 3 mates going out for a drive or ride sign f%=king documents before they leave the house.... I am sick of protecting the weak.. many of us have suffered damage on trips we have been on and some even while recovering others and no one with any intelligence would think to sue..

I normally do post up before any novice meet but its been so long since I have done one and our normal trips dont warrant it because we are all mates who know what it is all about.

I have hosted and helped out heaps of novices and had nothing but praise from these guys....!!!!!!!

Keep your wigs on chaps, no need to get tetchy

[Bloodyaussie]

Keep your wigs on chaps, no need to get tetchy

I'll give you techy right up the bot bot with my special techy tool!!!!!!

[mudski]

Which reminds me I need to get my two solicitors notices out for blowing a tyre on my first trip a couple of years back and then destroying a clutch at Tallarook. What about the bush pinstripes? Can I claim on them too?

[the evil twin]

@ BA you should always state in writing that you or the Forum have no
liability for any trip organized by you or even Stropp if a trip in WA.
Only takes one person with no 4x4 experience to tag along and wreck their vehicle,
or flood their motor and seek compensation, I would be getting forms printed.
You say it wont happen but one day it will, I've seen it happen elsewhere in Vic

The problem with that approach is that you have then formally identified that there is an organised structure and that the activity involves risks.
99% of liability waivers aren't worth a pinch of poo in protection and exist purely so the insurers have a starting point for their machinations.
Sadly, there is no "easy way" around rrsholes and legalities these days when you involve 3rd parties.

[SonOf]

The problem with that approach is that you have then formally identified that there is an organised structure and that the activity involves risks.
99% of liability waivers aren't worth a pinch of poo in protection and exist purely so the insurers have a starting point for their machinations.
Sadly, there is no "easy way" around rrsholes and legalities these days when you involve 3rd parties.

Sadly Evil is only too correct but the same is now applying for not advising people that there is an inherent risk. I work in the industry and it is a mine field of legal loop holes and gambits.

What to most of us on here is common sense or lust plain logical is going by the by these days. We are becoming a very litigious country with people looking to blame their stupidity etc on someone else and take no personal responsibility

A recent Supreme court ruling as noted below is a prime example. (sorry this is a bit long)

The State of Queensland requires commercial tour operators to show a video to visitors to Fraser Island which include warnings about the danger of diving into swimming places. Signs on Fraser Island warn visitors of the risk of diving into Lake Wabby and other popular swimming places.

In light of those warnings, many visitors to Lake Wabby enjoy running down the sand dune and jumping, feet first, into the lake. However, this activity also poses risks, including the risk of tripping or slipping on the sand in such a way that the intended feet first jump turns into an unexpected, awkward and dangerous dive into the water. Is that risk 'obvious' or should the State of Queensland warn visitors of the risk, just as it warns visitors of the risk of diving?

State of Queensland v Evan Kelly required a consideration of that very scenario. At first instance, McMeekin J concluded that the State of Queensland had breached its duty of care to Kelly, a visitor to the island, by failing to warn him of that specific risk. In particular, he found that:

* the risk of injury was not an 'obvious risk' as defined by s13 of the CLA;
* the State of Queensland had breached its duty of care by failing to provide adequate and specific warnings about the danger of running down the dunes by way of the safety video and signs; and
* the plaintiff's loss and damage ought to be reduced by 15 percent to account for his contributory negligence.

Court of Appeal

The State of Queensland appealed the decision on the basis that the trial judge:

* erred in finding that the risk of injury was not an 'obvious risk'; and
* made an insufficient reduction of damages for contributory negligence.

The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the trial judge was correct in concluding that the risk of injury that materialised was not an 'obvious risk'.

In deciding whether the risk was 'obvious' and whether there was a breach of duty, the Court of Appeal considered the following:

Whether the warning signs erected by the State of Queensland were relevant in assessing what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances;
Whether there ought to have been more warning signs and the content of the warning signs and video were inadequate because:
* they warned of a risk of injury from 'running and diving' but failed to warn of the risk of simply running down the sand dune;
* they did not effectively communicate the risk of serious injury that materialised; and
* they did not communicate the magnitude of the risk, which was unusually high considering the number of previous serious injuries sustained in that way at Lake Wabby.

Whether the risk was 'obvious' might be influenced by factors including:
* the person's own experience in relation to the activity; in this case, Kelly had run down the sand dune on nine or ten prior occasions without mishap.

The above circumstances justified the trial judge's finding that the risk of injury was not an 'obvious risk' and that the State of Queensland had breached its duty of care.

In relation to contributory negligence, the Court of Appeal concluded that it was open to the trial judge to make a finding on apportionment and a finding of 15 percent was not so unreasonable or unjust as to justify the Court of Appeal substituting a different decision.

[liftlid]

@ BA you should always state in writing that you or the Forum have no
liability for any trip organized by you or even Stropp if a trip in WA.
Only takes one person with no 4x4 experience to tag along and wreck their vehicle,
or flood their motor and seek compensation, I would be getting forms printed.
You say it wont happen but one day it will, I've seen it happen elsewhere in Vic

That's possibly something that needs to be handled when a forum member puts their name down on a post for the particular meetup.
That way it gives the person the ability to back away gracefully and not feel pressured into doing something they are not ready for.
it would also be evidence that they were told of any risks/dangers and given time to decline.
The last thing you want in a tricky situation is somebody who doesn't want to be there.

[Bob]

Sadly Evil is only too correct but the same is now applying for not advising people that there is an inherent risk. I work in the industry and it is a mine field of legal loop holes and gambits.

What to most of us on here is common sense or lust plain logical is going by the by these days. We are becoming a very litigious country with people looking to blame their stupidity etc on someone else and take no personal responsibility

A recent Supreme court ruling as noted below is a prime example. (sorry this is a bit long)

The State of Queensland requires commercial tour operators to show a video to visitors to Fraser Island which include warnings about the danger of diving into swimming places. Signs on Fraser Island warn visitors of the risk of diving into Lake Wabby and other popular swimming places.

In light of those warnings, many visitors to Lake Wabby enjoy running down the sand dune and jumping, feet first, into the lake. However, this activity also poses risks, including the risk of tripping or slipping on the sand in such a way that the intended feet first jump turns into an unexpected, awkward and dangerous dive into the water. Is that risk 'obvious' or should the State of Queensland warn visitors of the risk, just as it warns visitors of the risk of diving?

State of Queensland v Evan Kelly required a consideration of that very scenario. At first instance, McMeekin J concluded that the State of Queensland had breached its duty of care to Kelly, a visitor to the island, by failing to warn him of that specific risk. In particular, he found that:

* the risk of injury was not an 'obvious risk' as defined by s13 of the CLA;
* the State of Queensland had breached its duty of care by failing to provide adequate and specific warnings about the danger of running down the dunes by way of the safety video and signs; and
* the plaintiff's loss and damage ought to be reduced by 15 percent to account for his contributory negligence.

Court of Appeal

The State of Queensland appealed the decision on the basis that the trial judge:

* erred in finding that the risk of injury was not an 'obvious risk'; and
* made an insufficient reduction of damages for contributory negligence.

The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the trial judge was correct in concluding that the risk of injury that materialised was not an 'obvious risk'.

In deciding whether the risk was 'obvious' and whether there was a breach of duty, the Court of Appeal considered the following:

Whether the warning signs erected by the State of Queensland were relevant in assessing what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances;
Whether there ought to have been more warning signs and the content of the warning signs and video were inadequate because:
* they warned of a risk of injury from 'running and diving' but failed to warn of the risk of simply running down the sand dune;
* they did not effectively communicate the risk of serious injury that materialised; and
* they did not communicate the magnitude of the risk, which was unusually high considering the number of previous serious injuries sustained in that way at Lake Wabby.

Whether the risk was 'obvious' might be influenced by factors including:
* the person's own experience in relation to the activity; in this case, Kelly had run down the sand dune on nine or ten prior occasions without mishap.

The above circumstances justified the trial judge's finding that the risk of injury was not an 'obvious risk' and that the State of Queensland had breached its duty of care.

In relation to contributory negligence, the Court of Appeal concluded that it was open to the trial judge to make a finding on apportionment and a finding of 15 percent was not so unreasonable or unjust as to justify the Court of Appeal substituting a different decision.

All members should read the above in Detail

The above just illustrates what a Minefield this is . Unless your Disclaimer takes into account all possibilities you will be liable to damages no
matter whose fault the incident is.

As ET said you cannot obsolve yourself of Public & Private Liability

[Hodge]

Fkn hell. Need a beer after that read.
All I'd like to do is go out do a few tracks get the trol a bit dirty and have a few laughs . too much to ask for ? LOL