Who is liable when doing safety patrols?

[Stage1V8]

I posted this on the weekends forum:

The big grins were half the fun and the other half was the 8% RTD's they were guzzling (except for the driver)
They were totally under the influence
Was the most greasy i have ever seen it
I saw that hill from the bottom.....bloody hell
We could hardly walk up it.
Great new tracks. Can't wait to map them out in my mind.
Cheers,

Now that you mention it I was surprised how many empties there were lying on the track edges all around the park. Drinking and 4 wheeling seems to be part of the game for many these days. There is no attempt to prevent it from management and as patrollers we clubbies have no authority to enforce rules (not that I'd want to get into a bust-up with a bunch of drunken louts in the middle of a forest).

Sooo, what happens when someone injures their self and the 4WD community end up in the press because they were all drunk and in the park? Who is liable, the park management or the patrollees?

Most clubs have a ``no alcohol on runs'' rule in which no booze is to consumed until a run is finished. Last weekend I did the club patrol at Woodhill for the first time this year and was surprised at how many empties had accumulated on the track edges over the summer. I thought there was a rule at the park of no alcohol but this is not enforced by management and when queried the only response was that it was up to the patrols to pick up the empties (a rubbish sack will be provided).

It seems inevitable that at some point an accident will occur and the intoxicated passengers or driver will be injured. Police will get involved and finger pointing will start. Who then is liable for not having maintained a sufficient level of safety, the park management or the safety patrollers?

It seems to me that management has transferred at least some of their responsibilities to the patrollers, and to some extent they are accountable, especially during recoveries. But are they accountable for injuries that occur if, say, the driver or their passengers were drunk (e.g. a drunk passenger gets in the way of a broken and flying winch cable)?

[lincooln]

I have always thought that 4wding and drinking should never gho together, Even more so than driving. If your a passenger and have been drinking you should not get out of the vehicle at all while in the park.

But people are ignorant these days leaving rubbish around etc. Half the reason I don't go there all that often. Just winds me the hell up.

I will think of a better post when I calm down a bit

But really its up to management. Patrollers are only volunteers. Not park staff

[ActyonMan]

Motorsport and alcohol (and other drugs) shouldn't go together.
Morons who can't have fun without drinking alcoholic drinks should be politely and then rudely told to go away from participating in a motorsport.

The only truly enforceable solution is to get the area declared an alcohol free zone by the local council with a bylaw. The police can then enforce this.

Management can issue trespass notices against those breaking the rules and the police can enforce these.

Volunteers should never put themselves or bbe asked to put themselves in a position of danger.

Who is liable: The dickheads breaking the rules, the management who choose not the enforce the rules.

ActyonMan
Proud to be a Cantabrian

[Stage1V8]

Motorsport and alcohol (and other drugs) shouldn't go together.
Morons who can't have fun without drinking alcoholic drinks should be politely and then rudely told to go away from participating in a motorsport.

The only truly enforceable solution is to get the area declared an alcohol free zone by the local council with a bylaw. The police can then enforce this.

Management can issue trespass notices against those breaking the rules and the police can enforce these.

Volunteers should never put themselves or bbe asked to put themselves in a position of danger.

Who is liable: The dickheads breaking the rules, the management who choose not the enforce the rules.

Yes, absolutely there is no place for alcohol in motor sport or motor recreation. However if management are not taking active part in prohibition and someone is injured then that liability shifts to those who are taking an active part, the volunteers. Since it is private land they can say that they were allowed to take it in and consume it, therefore any resulting effects rest with those whose charge it is to take care of the park and those that are in it at the time. This is like in a bar if someone is too intoxicated and hurts their self the bar owner or manager can both be held to be liable for allowing them to become too intoxicated in the first place. It was that allowance that led to their being injured.

But then, I do not believe it is the role of the volunteers to police alcohol prohibitions in the park. That job rests with management, but it is not being done.

[DieselBoy]

That behaviour is present where ever you go these days unfortunatly.

You only have to go up Thompsons track or Maratoto on a weekend to find truck loads of drunken idiots throwing their shit every where.

They aren't always impressed when you pile the collection of bottles you gathered on your way up, into their truck when you come accross them stuck somewhere

[albundy]

Classic DB, fing classic.

[Filthy4x4]

I think even just a simple rule of no alcohol, followed by a sign at the entrance and vehicle checks should be a minimum.

Theres always going to be people sneaking it in but if found they should be tresspassed with no refund.

It ruins it for everyone else, I saw a few glass bottles on the tracks that it you werent watching could cause a puncture.

[lincooln]

actually at Woodhill there are quite a few rules that aren't enforced. Like no dogs, there is a recovery fee, forms should be signed, etc.

Seems more like it is there just for the look of being responsible.

[ActyonMan]

actually at Woodhill there are quite a few rules that aren't enforced. Like no dogs, there is a recovery fee, forms should be signed, etc.

Seems more like it is there just for the look of being responsible.

Failure to enforce the rules leave the operators/management very liable if someone is seriously injured or killed.

I would not want to have explain to a coroner why I had rules posted but no enforcement mechanism.

Believe me it happens, in a motorsport event where a death occurs the stewards and event management can find themselves explaining to a coroner why they allowed their rules to be breached or disobeyed.

ActyonMan
Proud to be a Cantabrian

[kbushnz]

I was on patrol on Saturday, when those guys were in. We circulated all day and never met up with them.
It was only noted on exiting the park (5pm) that there seemed to be a wiff of alcohol.
Some weekends we (the patrol) wont even see other users let alone do a recovery.
So cant be everywhere at once.
If some clowns get sloshed and crash before we even know. Not our problem....
I have warned other park users if they litter (bottles etc etc) they are gone or the driver is seen drink driving, there will be a cop waiting for them when they leave. Only had issues with one guy, but he got stuck a few meters later and we left him there to stew for a while so he got the message...
He played nicley after that.
But have to agree with some of the statements said.

[Stage1V8]

If some clowns get sloshed and crash before we even know. Not our problem....

That is what I do not know/would like to know. We are there doing a job (even as volunteers) and I don't know the extent of our responsibilities to the public or management. I suspect that it is not as simple as that (these things never are).

Hopefully I will be able to report back with Roger's answers tomorrow or thereafter and the whole is settled.

I like to do the patrols and support both the clubs and park. Better we have this than nothing!

[aLUX]

This conversation comes up a lot with me and about drink drivers not on 'public roads' or on 'private land'. A test needs to be applied and the question asked, what is a road?

The rest apart from the last line is taken from the NZTA website:

There is often a difference between the common understanding of what a road is, and the wider, legal definition that is used in enforcing the laws that control the use of motor vehicles and the behaviour of drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and other road users.

Statutory definitions of 'road'
Enforcement of the law and the use of motor vehicles
The definition of road that is used for law enforcement purposes, including the enforcement of requirements relating to the use of motor vehicles, has been widened from the traditional view of what is a road.

This statutory definition covers places to which the public have access - whether of right or not. For an example, read the definition of 'road' in the Land Transport Act 1998 (on the Public Access to Legislation Project website). Take particular note of paragraph (d) and the words 'A place to which the public have access, whether as of right or not'.

Another feature, not seen often overseas, is the specific inclusion of a beach as a road. This allows local authorities to set speed limits on beaches, and also allows the New Zealand Police to enforce traffic laws, such as registration requirements, that apply to the on-road use of motor vehicles.

The definition aims to ensure that the public are protected from the misuse of motor vehicles, even in areas where we would not ordinarily expect to find motor vehicles. It is important to note that the definition does not give a right of access to any area covered by it, but rather ensures that the Act, and others like it, applies regardless of any public rights of access and use.

Because of the wide scope of the definition, the courts have developed a number of principles that they apply when considering whether a place is a road. These include that:

'public' means the public in general, and not just a section of the public
it is not enough that the place is physically open to the public - they must be shown to be actually using it.
This assessment is made by the courts on a case-by-case basis and is dependant on the facts of each case. Therefore, it is not possible to give a simple 'yes' or 'no' in answer to the question, 'Is this place a road?'.

I would be willing to put it to the test in court!

[LR90NZ]

As long as the rules and procedures are followed you would not be liable.

I have had a long conversation with Roger Winslade Manager of the Jeep Woodhill 4WD park regarding some of the comments.

First off, the comment about the rubbish collection was more in jest rather than "you will pick it all up". It would be nice if nobody dropped their rubbish but if you do see it on the ground it would be the "tidy Kiwi" thing to pick it up.

Regarding Park users, the responsibility is on the driver of the vehicle to be responsible for his passengers and that includes abstaining from drinking while in the park. The driver signs the forms acknowledging this along with other rules and conditions of use within the park. The Park does have a no drinking policy and people do need to be reminded of this.

The Safety Patrols are the eyes and ears of the Park and have been given instructions to politely deal with situations when they see them and that includes the drinking. Also when it comes to recovery of a vehicle, no matter how stuck, the patrols are issued with acknowledgement forms or indemnity's for the driver/vehicle owner to sign before they attempt the recovery.
Provided the Parks procedures are followed then you as safety patrol volunteers will not have a liability problem and would be covered and have the full support of the Park management.

Roger has mentioned in the past to various patrols to have a word with people who are drinking and remind them that they either hand the alcohol over to be collected when they exit or be escorted immediately from the Park.

But it appears that many have not had the information provided via their Club presidents or representatives who attended the original meetings when the patrols were established or have forgotten as time has passed.
Instead it is generally regarded that the Patrols are a "free' trip into the Park, which is a certain extent they are, however there are guidelines and rules to be followed and they are clearly set out.

Roger and I discussed some ideas on improvements that could be made and he is to investigate and put some of these into action. These include better communication of the rules and conditions with the visitors to the Park and with the Clubs and their members that do the safety patrol.

At the end of the day, no matter where we are, it is up to each and everyone of us to remind other people of their responsibilities when you see something wrong. Be it in the driving style (dangerous honing) poor recovery, or drinking or drug taking.

[jeremy]

Instead it is generally regarded that the Patrols are a "free' trip into the Park, which is a certain extent they are, however there are guidelines and rules to be followed and they are clearly set out.

Does anyone have a record of these guidelines that they can post here - it might help explain who is expected to be responsible for what.

[Stage1V8]

So, what you are saying then is that the volunteers are liable in the event of an accident in which park rules are broken, e.g. there is alcohol involved.

[Ralfie]

So, what you are saying then is that the volunteers are liable in the event of an accident in which park rules are broken, e.g. there is alcohol involved.

I definitely don't think they are saying that. As long as the rules and guidelines for the patrols are followed then you as a patrol volunteer will have no worries about liability and will be fully supported by the organisation.

If a customer of the park is not abiding by the rules then you should politely remind them as in your capacity as the 'safety patrol' person on the day.

[DieselBoy]

So, what you are saying then is that the volunteers are liable in the event of an accident in which park rules are broken, e.g. there is alcohol involved.

I definitely don't think they are saying that. As long as the rules and guidelines for the patrols are followed then you as a patrol volunteer will have no worries about liability and will be fully supported by the organisation.

If a customer of the park is not abiding by the rules then you should politely remind them as in your capacity as the 'safety patrol' person on the day.

.... and if you have reminded them of the park rules, you as a volunteer have done your "job".

No where does it say you are required in "enforce" the rules, so therefore you as a volunteer are not responsible for the continuation of the behavior.

I would expect the park management to be responsible for enforcement??

[Mudde1]

it is not enough that the place is physically open to the public - they must be shown to be actually using it.
This assessment is made by the courts on a case-by-case basis and is dependant on the facts of each case. Therefore, it is not possible to give a simple 'yes' or 'no' in answer to the question, 'Is this place a road?'.

I would be willing to put it to the test in court![/quote]

Is this in relation to EBA offenses? The legal opinion I have is that it matters not if it is a road or not, the offense is excessive breathe alcohol in charge of a motor vehicle. in proving an offense it is not necessary to prove it is a road, simply that they were in charge of a motor vehicle. There are many examples of convictions for EBA against people in private car parks. I personally know a person was in a locked private car park, the motor wasn't even running, but the keys were in the ignition.He was represented by a well known defense lawyer but was still convicted of EBA.

[LR90NZ]

Instead it is generally regarded that the Patrols are a "free' trip into the Park, which is a certain extent they are, however there are guidelines and rules to be followed and they are clearly set out.

Does anyone have a record of these guidelines that they can post here - it might help explain who is expected to be responsible for what.

I don't think its applicable that they should be posted up here. Only relevent to those who actually volunteer.

Anyway there are to be a few changes made so better to wait for the revised guideline to avoid any confusion.

[nikkiwade]

wow thanks for the answers

[GTS]

As far as I understand it the way osh works it dosnt matter weather you are in charge or not if you see someone doing something dangerious (drink driving) or see a dangerious situation and dont act you become liable.Also all people performing safety patrols should be spacificly trained in what they are doing or if they were to cause an incident then they and the management could end up in the shit.just remember if something does happen they will be looking for someone to blame.
The people that dont respect the rules need to learn that they get to use these places as a privilage not a right, weather they are paying or not.

[sibainmud]

All the Patrols now carry packs with liability waivers that we get the punter to sign before we attempt to recover them. I myself have always got them to do this before any type of recovery is done. I give them a full brief on what I'm going to do and give them the choice. Once the paperwork is signed and the method has been agreed with, I'm in charge of everyone's safety and advise on-lookers to stay clear and use the safest means to get the job done.
If we were to be OSH'ed, who would train us? I have done every course known up to advanced recovery techniques, so I'm covering my arse quite well.
Don't know about others.
Cheers,

[Sadam_Husain]