Trencher wrote:
My reasoning would be that in order to be burdened with a duty of care, a person would have to imply that they are an instructor. Paid or volunteer, every instructor assumes a duty of care and maybe found liable if they have failed to meet the professional standards when something goes wrong. However, someone just giving unqualified advice does not assume that responsibilty. It seems to me that the resposibility of the host company remains the same unless they knew the advise given would cause some danger. How could they ever know that.
In fact, isn't this simmilar to the "Good Samaritan" situation ? Where if you help someone in distress, you should not be held liable for your good intentions. Without this protection we would all have to drive by accidents where we might have saved a life.
Trencher
That's all a bit confused, liability and duty of care aren't the same thing, for both different standards exist in different countries in different environments.
Between the two snow ploughers the common law principle of Volenti non fit injuria (latin: to a willing person, no injury is done) would apply with the caveat that actual recent case history rests more up contributed negligence in the UK.
The centre is obliged to lay down and take reasonable measures to enforce reasonable standards to prevent injury, ie
- not allowing people to use the facility who lack experience, for the obvious reasons plus they can then be termed to have given consent and also be covered by Volenti non fit injuria
- not allowing unqualified persons (as defined by the relevant governing body) to instruct or coach
- not allowing people to engage in activities likely to present hazard to others.
If you give a follow me snow plough lesson in the middle of the main slope you're breaking all three.
Incidentally, "Good Samaritan" legally generally means some US laws and has no legal basis in the UK. Instead some common law applies regarding necessity which it's too late at night for me to explain now )
