would you let someone use your shop?

[PAC1]

Jake

I just struggle to see how anyone would explain to the judge that you invited someone you know is a novice to come and use your sharp and dangerous machinery and then get them to sign a piece of paper saying either not to use those sharp and dangerous machines or that they know what they are doing, and that document would somehow keep that person safe as required by OLA 1957 and absolve you of liability?

 

[Jake]

Why? As a business you would be in trouble because of UCTA, but there is no provision in UCTA or the OLAs which prevents exclusions of liability for non-business occupiers. The OLA57 expressly permits it:

An occupier of premises owes the same duty, the 'common duty of care', to all his visitors, except in so far as he is free to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor or visitors by agreement or otherwise.

.

 

[Richard Findley]

I don't see why you can't do a few projects together, I mean does he have any experience?

Hmmm, I think that there is a difference between doing a few projects together and letting someone use your workshop. The first I would do, the second I wouldn't.

Cheers,

Richard

 

[Richard Findley]

Also, just a slightly related story....

A guy that used to work for my dad removed 3 fingers on the Wadkin LS Router. He was using company wood, in company time to make a project for himself. Ironically it was a picture frame for his woodwork machinery exam certificate. All fences and guarding were provided for a qualified person to set the machine up as necessary. He didn't set it up right and paid for it!! The lawyer said dad had done nothing wrong but didn't have a leg to stand on. That was over 10 years ago.

Richard

 

[Finial]

A guy that used to work for my dad removed 3 fingers on the Wadkin LS Router. He was using company wood, in company time to make a project for himself. Ironically it was a picture frame for his woodwork machinery exam certificate. All fences and guarding were provided for a qualified person to set the machine up as necessary. He didn't set it up right and paid for it!! The lawyer said dad had done nothing wrong but didn't have a leg to stand on.

Richard

It's not enough just to provide the fences and guards for an employee, there has to be a reasonable amount of instruction, information, training and supervision too. And make sure non-qualified people didn't use the machine. But if he was making something for himself it's not clear that he was 'at work' at the time.
Had he got the certificate at the time or was he practising for it?

 

[PAC1]

Jake

I know what the Act says in particular you could have quoted sub section (5). But my point was a very specific situation as asked in this thread. I just cannot see the court saying it was reasonable to invite a novice to come and learn to use machinery and the novice takes full responsibility.

 

[woodbloke]

Some excellent legal stuff here from Jake as always, it just seems to me that when money changes hands, events in the 'shop take on whole new and different perspective - Rob

 

[big soft moose]

Jake

I know what the Act says in particular you could have quoted sub section (5). But my point was a very specific situation as asked in this thread. I just cannot see the court saying it was reasonable to invite a novice to come and learn to use machinery and the novice takes full responsibility.

I'm fairly sure jake's right about this - so long as you arent taking money from the novice then so long as he signs a disclaimer you are fine. in the scenario tommo outlined you arent "inviting him" to come and learn from you, you are allowing him to use your shop at his own risk

one thing that would worry me tho is your duty of care as relates to defective machinery. Supose (as mentioned on another recent thread) a router cutter shatters and he gets cut (or worse gets a bit in the eye), while he has accepted reasonable risks , wouldnt a court still hold that he had a reasonable expectation that the machinery would not be defective ?

 

[Jake]

But my point was a very specific situation as asked in this thread. I just cannot see the court saying it was reasonable to invite a novice to come and learn to use machinery and the novice takes full responsibility.

The reasonableness requirement is the extent of your (otherwise) liability under the OLA, but there is nothing stopping you from excluding even that by agreement. There's no requirement for agreements to be reasonable (apart from UCTA) - and a Court couldn't just ignore such an exclusion except by reference to UCTA, which doesn't apply unless its a business.

At a guess you are probably more used to dealing with this in a business context, so UCTA applies, and you can't escape the reasonableness requirement through an exclusion clause?

That's why I didn't mention s5 OLA - because the absence of a duty of care would be difficult to show in your example.

Yes, Rob, businesses attract risk exposure, hence public liability/employee insurance etc. The extent to which one needs to worry about it in practice depends on the extent and type of business of course...

 

[big soft moose]

a bit off topic but as we are talking about liability....

this came up on another forum i go on.

regarding giving advice on here (or any other board) , If for example you give me advice about how to use a circular saw (without giving a disclaimer about the risks of following your advice) - and i subsequently injure myself do you have any liability ?

I tend to think that you wouldnt but just thought i'd check what our legal freinds think.

 

[Jake]

There's no theoretical reason why not - the elements would have to be proven like any other case of negligence. If they could prove that: you knew they were going to rely on your advice, and the advice was flawed in an unreasonable way, and they did rely on your advice, and it did cause their accident, and the accident caused them loss... then yes.

There, that's silenced the internet for a bit.

 

[big soft moose]

oh dear - thats the last time i give anyone any advice then ( the context was about sharpening chainsaws and i'm not too worried because my advice was correct and in line with that given by NPTC thus not likely to cause anyone injury if followed)

(perhaps new signatures alround, saying any advice given is taken at your own risk )

actually this does have relevance to the thread because presumambly tombos mate will be reliant on his advice on how to use the machines safely - so presumably that needs to be specifically covered in the disclaimer.

 

[Jake]

oh dear - thats the last time i give anyone any advice then

We are getting very theoretical here, it was a short list of points, but each one is a big hurdle.

( the context was about sharpening chainsaws and i'm not too worried because my advice was correct and in line with that given by NPTC thus not likely to cause anyone injury if followed)

I'm assuming NPTC is a pro code or something, and if so that means the advice is reasonable, so no breach of any duty, so no negligence - if they injure themselves anyway it is their problem.

That's without looking at any of the rest of the elements.

Having said all that, I will volunteer to bring the first dado injury case on a no-win no fee basis 8)

 

[big soft moose]

oh dear - thats the last time i give anyone any advice then

We are getting very theoretical here, it was a short list of points, but each one is a big hurdle.

( the context was about sharpening chainsaws and i'm not too worried because my advice was correct and in line with that given by NPTC thus not likely to cause anyone injury if followed)

I'm assuming NPTC is a pro code or something, and if so that means the advice is reasonable, so no breach of any duty, so no negligence - if they injure themselves anyway it is their problem.

That's without looking at any of the rest of the elements.

Having said all that, I will volunteer to bring the first dado injury case on a no-win no fee basis 8)

NPTC = National profieciency test council. The body that over sees the awarding of certificates in chainsaw competency (and all sorts of other big sharp things). For my sins i'm a qualified nptc instructor assesor for chainsaw use so i'm happy that my advice is both reasonable and accurate.

Like i said i'm not worried personally , It just came up in discussion and I wondered what the legallities were. ( when I'm actually training/assessing i'm covered by my employers liability insurance but obviously that doesnt cover me to give advice in my own time)

 

[PAC1]

Jake / Big softmouse

Big softmouse is getting the point. You are deailing with the dutyof care to a novice not someone who knows the risk and can decide whether to accept it or not.

Jake yes I do deal with big contracts usually but UCTAhad nothing to do with the example raised in this thread as there was no contract.

 

[PAC1]

In relation to a disclaimer it should be accross the forum not on each individual's signature strip

 

[eggflan]

I find it hard to belive that you are all talking about Liability and disclaimers etc , so a friend who has an interest in your hobby wants to set up his own place when he moves , you would be doing him a huge turn by helping him out and showing him your shop and how things work .

The best way to learn is by watching others and getting hands on with some tools , i presume you know the gent well seen as you work with him and im sure he is not a complete moron :roll:

The world has gone mad when you cant have a friend round to your workshop to learn a little about woodwork , unless your workshop is a trading buisness i cant see the problem , what happened to common sense ? if you think he is going to loose a finger or worse then show him where he is going wrong ..

So you invite a friend to your private workshop and he cuts his finger off on a saw, now this friend is an adult and makes his own decision to use the saw so he takes all liability for its use , when you buy a new tool you get a booklet that tells you how to use the machine you dont have to sign something saying that you wont take the manufacturer to court if you hurt yourself :roll:

If your that worried that he will sue you that you need him to sign a bit of paper then dont invite him round , personally i would say to him that you hold no responsibility for his safty and say it at work where someone can hear just tell him its his problem if he hurts himself :shock:

 

[Jake]

Jake / Big softmouse

Big softmouse is getting the point. You are deailing with the dutyof care to a novice not someone who knows the risk and can decide whether to accept it or not.

Nope - you are just switching horses from an occupier's liability to a negligence case, but reasonableness doesn't enter into the issue of exclusion of liability (only its otherwise-creation in the first place, which is irrelevant if you have excluded it) in either case - both are treated as negligence under UCTA and liability for personal injury and death can be excluded as between private individuals.

Jake yes I do deal with big contracts usually but UCTA had nothing to do with the example raised in this thread as there was no contract.

You're still missing the point, the disclaimer would be the contract in itself - the visitor accepting the risk in consideration of being let through the door.

 

[Jake]

I find it hard to belive that you are all talking about Liability and disclaimers etc

It's all a little academic maybe, but the thing that would make me hesitate is the possibility of a career-ending injury like losing a number of fingers or something. You might not be able to intervene in tiome to stop it. In a situation where your friend's family's whole life is at stake, you might well find yourself more exposed than you think you are. It's easy to say 'I'd never sue anyone', but if you are about to lose your job, your house, etc etc, priorities change.

As a private individual though, I would check my insurance policy before worrying about it any further.

If it doesn't cover, I'm not sure I would regard the risk as negligible enough to ignore (thus transferring the risk on to my family, my house) rather than just ask the friend to sign up to something he would agree should be the case anyway (at that stage) - officious and mildly embarassing as it might be.

 

[Jake]

In relation to a disclaimer it should be accross the forum not on each individual's signature strip

Doesn't that rather depend on who is trying to protect themselves - site owner or poster?