Liability question - others using facilities on property

Chet Zar

Hey guys,

Just a quick question I'm curious about. Let's say I invite friends round to my house for a gym workout in my new home gym (or invite anyone else). If there was an incident where someone ended up hurt (e.g. a weight falls on someone, or there is a loose fitting that goes unspotted...), could I be held liable?

Same goes for say if I agreed to rent out a spare room to someone to pay the bills, and something happened (e.g. a roof collapses). What would the position be in these scenarios?

Strawberry Fields

wow you've a gym in your house, Ben Dunne is that you?? occupiers liability heh?

Strawberry Fields

they should take reasonable care for their own safety unless you negligently cause damage.

Chet Zar

godeas16 wrote: »

wow you've a gym in your house, Ben Dunne is that you?? occupiers liability heh?

Em...yeah...you got me! Em cough bendunne.com cough....

godeas16 wrote: »

they should take reasonable care for their own safety unless you negligently cause damage.

So loose fitting, dumbbell breaks toe, 100 quid doctor's visit - I'm very confident I had everything secured and set up properly, like anyone would - not liable?

I guess that makes sense. Unless I didn't bother inserting a critical bolt, or left weights strewn all over the floor, I doubt anyone could be liable.

Milk & Honey

Chet Zar wrote: »

Hey guys,

Just a quick question I'm curious about. Let's say I invite friends round to my house for a gym workout in my new home gym (or invite anyone else). If there was an incident where someone ended up hurt (e.g. a weight falls on someone, or there is a loose fitting that goes unspotted...), could I be held liable?

Same goes for say if I agreed to rent out a spare room to someone to pay the bills, and something happened (e.g. a roof collapses). What would the position be in these scenarios?

You would be liable in negligence. that is why there is public liability on your house insurance. You should make sure you have a good insurance broker and get a good policy.

Chet Zar

Milk & Honey wrote: »

You would be liable in negligence. that is why there is public liability on your house insurance. You should make sure you have a good insurance broker and get a good policy.

I'm sure there is a definition of negligence a click away - but I guess it has to be something that is clearly down to carelessness on the part of someone?

I'm guessing the difference between negligence and just an accident is clearly not taking steps to make sure a place isn't unsafe versus somebody just dropping something from their hand?

This is all purely hypothetical by the way - I'm just interested in legal stuff

Milk & Honey

Chet Zar wrote: »

I'm sure there is a definition of negligence a click away - but I guess it has to be something that is clearly down to carelessness on the part of someone?

I'm guessing the difference between negligence and just an accident is clearly not taking steps to make sure a place isn't unsafe versus somebody just dropping something from their hand?

This is all purely hypothetical by the way - I'm just interested in legal stuff

Accidents don't happen, they are caused. Shops get sued every day of the week by people who have tripped over something on the floor.

Chet Zar

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Accidents don't happen, they are caused. Shops get sued every day of the week by people who have tripped over something on the floor.

But these two scenarios are clearly different:

1) Person A is in the gym and pops their shoulder doing an exercise. They have to go to the doctor and it costs 60 quid.

2) Person B is in the gym and trips over a weight left by another member on the floor, trip to the doctor or more needed.

In scenario 1, obviously there can be no liability I'm sure - unless the weight machine was faulty or something.

In scenario 2, the gym can be held liable I'm sure. If the claimant is awarded damages, what happens with the gym? I take it their insurer pays out - but does their monthly premium go up? Would it go up by much?

mitzicat

Milk & Honey wrote: »

You would be liable in negligence. that is why there is public liability on your house insurance. You should make sure you have a good insurance broker and get a good policy.

You're not automatically liable due to negligence. The first and strongest defence against negligence is that you simply were not negligent and you fulfilled the duty of care owed to your guest.

There's also a defence of contributory negligence - was your friend horsing around/drunk/not paying attention to what he was doing b/c he was listening to music. Any of these factors limits your liability for his injury.

There's also the fact that lifting weights is a risky venture and more likely to cause injury and he would have known this. The higher the prima facie risk, the lower your liability.

If he does sue you, however, your insurance provider will likely settle, as it's not worth the cost of fighting it in court. If the loose weight is a manufacturers defect, the insurance company may then sue the manufacturer to recoup their costs of the payout to your friend.

Strawberry Fields

Dude put a sign up in your "gym" in your house and point it out to entrants that there are risks.

Chet Zar

mitzicat wrote: »

You're not automatically liable due to negligence. The first and strongest defence against negligence is that you simply were not negligent and you fulfilled the duty of care owed to your guest.

There's also a defence of contributory negligence - was your friend horsing around/drunk/not paying attention to what he was doing b/c he was listening to music. Any of these factors limits your liability for his injury.

There's also the fact that lifting weights is a risky venture and more likely to cause injury and he would have known this. The higher the prima facie risk, the lower your liability.

If he does sue you, however, your insurance provider will likely settle, as it's not worth the cost of fighting it in court. If the loose weight is a manufacturers defect, the insurance company may then sue the manufacturer to recoup their costs of the payout to your friend.

Exactly...not a legal person, but I can't see how someone could be automatically negligent - there has to be consideration of the circumstances/intent surely.

Chet Zar

godeas16 wrote: »

Dude put a sign up in your "gym" in your house and point it out to entrants that there are risks.

Ahh no, I'm just interested in the law/legal topics, and have always wondered how this kind of stuff works!

Peregrinus

Chet Zar wrote: »

So loose fitting, dumbbell breaks toe, 100 quid doctor's visit - I'm very confident I had everything secured and set up properly, like anyone would - not liable?

You may be confident that you set everything up properly, but the fact is that the dumbbell was loose. Which suggests that (a) your confidence was misplaced, or (b) after setting everything up property you left the equipment unsupervised, giving someone else the opportunity to bugger it up, and you didn't check the equipment before letting your friends use is.

Everything depends on the evidence - your injured friend might admit that he tried to adjust the equipment immediately before using it - but the starting position is that equipment which you owned, controlled and were responsible for was defective, and injury resulted. That's not a good position to start from.

This is partly about allocation of risk. You, as the occupier of the premises and owner of the equipment, are in practical terms in a much better position to make sure that everything is as it should be when the equipment is used, so the responsibility for this is allocated to you.

Milk & Honey

mitzicat wrote: »

You're not automatically liable due to negligence. The first and strongest defence against negligence is that you simply were not negligent and you fulfilled the duty of care owed to your guest.

That is a circular argument.Either someone is negligent if they are not. If they are they are liable. In not negligent they are not liable.
The real issue is that a householder bringing in people into the house to engage in an activity exposes himself to a claim for negligence if injury occurs.

Even if there is a defence it has to be argued in court. A time consuming and costly exercise to say the least.

Milk & Honey

godeas16 wrote: »

Dude put a sign up in your "gym" in your house and point it out to entrants that there are risks.

Absolutely useless from a legal point of view if there is a negligence claim.

jblack

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Absolutely useless from a legal point of view if there is a negligence claim.

Incorrect, informing a guest of the nature of risk they are exposing themselves by engaging in a particular activity may place the guest under volenti non fit injuria. Subject to usual restrictions of reasonableness etc.

A disclaimer on the other hand will be useless - cannot disclaim for death and personal injury etc.

Chet Zar

Peregrinus wrote: »

You may be confident that you set everything up properly, but the fact is that the dumbbell was loose. Which suggests that (a) your confidence was misplaced, or (b) after setting everything up property you left the equipment unsupervised, giving someone else the opportunity to bugger it up, and you didn't check the equipment before letting your friends use is.

Everything depends on the evidence - your injured friend might admit that he tried to adjust the equipment immediately before using it - but the starting position is that equipment which you owned, controlled and were responsible for was defective, and injury resulted. That's not a good position to start from.

This is partly about allocation of risk. You, as the occupier of the premises and owner of the equipment, are in practical terms in a much better position to make sure that everything is as it should be when the equipment is used, so the responsibility for this is allocated to you.

I'd agree with all that. If something is loose, then it's really only down to me.

In the case however that someone over-exerts themselves with a weight or something, and something falls, etc, then there couldn't be a claim for negligence that would be upheld surely.

I guess it comes down to - if you as the property owner have taken all reasonable steps to make everything as safe as possible and secure all fittings, etc - and advised the user as to the risks via signs, agreements, etc - then there surely can't be much chance of a liability claim succeeding.

I suppose that's the policy all gyms operate under? Sort of 'we'll do our part under our obligations to provide a safe training environment, but by signing here you are aware of the inherent risks of exercising in a gym'.

thebiglad

Regardless of whether you are actually or eventually found negligent there should be a concern about the costs if someone actually decides to sue you and an insurance company will not step in to defend you or cover the costs.

Legal costs even in a successful case will be significant.

Peregrinus

Chet Zar wrote: »

In the case however that someone over-exerts themselves with a weight or something, and something falls, etc, then there couldn't be a claim for negligence that would be upheld surely.

I guess it comes down to - if you as the property owner have taken all reasonable steps to make everything as safe as possible and secure all fittings, etc - and advised the user as to the risks via signs, agreements, etc - then there surely can't be much chance of a liability claim succeeding.

I suppose that's the policy all gyms operate under? Sort of 'we'll do our part under our obligations to provide a safe training environment, but by signing here you are aware of the inherent risks of exercising in a gym'.

A gym is going to be held to a higher standard than you. They don't just let you use their equipment; they hold themselves out has having some expertise in knowing how their equipment should be used, in assessing you and advising you what to use and how, in showing you how to use it safely, etc, etc. They will be expected to deploy this expertise,and to do so in a careful and responsible manner. I don't think, as a homeowner who happens to have a bench-press, you're going to be held to the same standards.

Everything depends on the facts. If you give someone who might be expected to be inexperienced or foolish - say, a 14-year old - the free run of your gear, and he injures himself, you may have a problem. If your (adult) friend is using the equipment in a way which the manual says is not recommended and you don't intervene, you may have a problem. And so forth. The bottom line is that the claimant does have to allege that you were negligent, and does have to discharge the evidentiary burden of proof to support that allegation. The mere fact that he was injured is not, in itself, enough to show that you were negligent. But a more detailed exploration of how he was injured may suggest that you were.

jblack

Peregrinus wrote: »

A gym is going to be held to a higher standard than you. They don't just let you use their equipment; they hold themselves out has having some expertise in knowing how their equipment should be used, in assessing you and advising you what to use and how, in showing you how to use it safely, etc, etc. They will be expected to deploy this expertise,and to do so in a careful and responsible manner. I don't think, as a homeowner who happens to have a bench-press, you're going to be held to the same standards.

Everything depends on the facts. If you give someone who might be expected to be inexperienced or foolish - say, a 14-year old - the free run of your gear, and he injures himself, you may have a problem. If your (adult) friend is using the equipment in a way which the manual says is not recommended and you don't intervene, you may have a problem. And so forth. The bottom line is that the claimant does have to allege that you were negligent, and does have to discharge the evidentiary burden of proof to support that allegation. The mere fact that he was injured is not, in itself, enough to show that you were negligent. But a more detailed exploration of how he was injured may suggest that you were.

^Agreed. OP - if you're charging these "mates" even a nominal fee it may raise your DOC threshhold.

Some idea of principles applied can be seen in the horrific case of Grimes v Hawkins.

Kosseegan

Chet Zar wrote: »

I'd agree with all that. If something is loose, then it's really only down to me.

In the case however that someone over-exerts themselves with a weight or something, and something falls, etc, then there couldn't be a claim for negligence that would be upheld surely.

.

How much is it going to cost you to find out for sure?

Chet Zar

Kosseegan wrote: »

How much is it going to cost you to find out for sure?

As I said it's all hypothetical.

However, this kind of stuff always seems to run alongside common sense, in how a court would see it. If someone is going to try and sue someone else, the burden of proof falls on them - and for me it's only going to cost them more money than it's worth unless the proof is evident and it's a pretty clear-cut case of negligence.

I think everyone can agree there is a noted difference between being plain old negligent (leaving items on a floor carelessly etc), and someone not taking sufficient care when carrying out an activity.

Could be wrong though

Kosseegan

Chet Zar wrote: »

As I said it's all hypothetical.

However, this kind of stuff always seems to run alongside common sense, in how a court would see it. If someone is going to try and sue someone else, the burden of proof falls on them - and for me it's only going to cost them more money than it's worth unless the proof is evident and it's a pretty clear-cut case of negligence.

I think everyone can agree there is a noted difference between being plain old negligent (leaving items on a floor carelessly etc), and someone not taking sufficient care when carrying out an activity.

Could be wrong though

If someone sues you will have to defend it. That will cost you money.