M
Mike Murray
Guest
And I thought we had problems with ridiculous liability actions in the US.
--
Mike Murray
"Snoopy" <te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n'> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 9th August 2003, Christchurch, New Zealand
>
> Astrid Anderson, director of the 'LeRace' cycling event over a challenging 100km winding hill
> course over two hill ranges between Christchurch City and Akaroa was today found guilty of a
> 'criminal negligence' charge. The event catered for a wide range of cyclists, from
> 'semi-professional racing cyclists' right down to 'weekend wheelers'. The charge was laid followed
> the death of an inexperienced cyclist who had crossed over the centre line of the road, while
> starting to overtake two other cyclists on a downhill section. The cyclist collided with an
> oncoming car, with fatal results.
>
> Competitors had signed a waver to the effect that they were competing at their own risk. However,
> while this waver can legally cover civil litigation, it cannot exhonerate the race director if the
> police decide to bring a criminal charge against him/her.
>
> The charge was brought by the police because there was doubt that the literature of the event
> clearly indicated that a section of the course called the 'summit road', where the accident
> occurred, was not closed.
>
> Both the pre-race literature, and briefing, made reference to a 'road closure' on the 'summit
> road' to weed out so called 'sneaky cyclists' who had not paid to enter the event. This 'road
> closure' was in fact a check point to stop support vehicles and unentered cyclists from following
> event cyclists over the road. The road was not closed to other traffic. Nevertheless 'road
> closure' was the legally correct term for this check point, according to local council
> regulations.
>
> Equally importantly for the case there were two completely separate 'summit roads' (the legally
> correct name for both roads was the same), corresponding to each of the two hill ranges crossed.
> The accident occurred on the second 'summit road' where there was no check point.
>
> The police alleged that the inclusion of the phrase 'road closure on the summit road' both in ther
> pre-race literature and the pre-race briefing was confusing. They further went on to say that the
> race director had identified 'competitors not getting the right information' as a hazard correctly
> identified in the health and safety plan for the event. This health and safety plan was written
> and signed off by the race director. Finally the police identified that 'there is a culture within
> bike racing of using all of the road' when a road is closed, and by not making the information of
> the road closure clear (there were no 'road open' signs placed along the route) the event
> organizer had contributed to the death of the competitor.
>
> The defence contended that the competitor had died as a result of their own carelessness or even
> recklessness by attempting a passing maneuvre where there was insufficient visibility.
> Furthermore the defence contended that the written pre-race information was not misleading when
> read in context. The phrase 'road closure' occurred only in the section of the pre race pamphlet
> under the sub header of 'sneaky cyclists'. The one sentence that used the words 'road closure',
> had an adjunct phrase linked by a dash that made this contextual meaning perfectly clear.
> Furthermore the defence produced evidence that the dead competitor had seen at least three
> vehicles (one of which was a logging truck) come out of the summit road before they entered it.
> The defence also produced evidence that the dead competitor would have passed a milk tanker and
> possibly two or three additional vehicles between the start of the summit road and the accident
> site. The contention here was that even if the competitor had misread the instructions and
> believed the road to be closed the presence of occasional vehicles on the road would have
> dispelled this myth. The defence also contended that other phrases used in the pre-race
> documentation ('read these instructions carefully', 'keep left' and 'obey the road rules at all
> times') should have meant that any reasonable competitor should not have placed their bicycle on
> the road in a position of risk. The defence furthermore contended that 'road open' signs were not
> required because 'the road is always open'.
>
> Further details are available at these links
>
> http://www.lerace.co.nz/
>
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2622998a10,00.html
>
> Comments anyone?
>
> SNOOPY
>
>
> --
> Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details
>
> --
--
Mike Murray
"Snoopy" <te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n'> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 9th August 2003, Christchurch, New Zealand
>
> Astrid Anderson, director of the 'LeRace' cycling event over a challenging 100km winding hill
> course over two hill ranges between Christchurch City and Akaroa was today found guilty of a
> 'criminal negligence' charge. The event catered for a wide range of cyclists, from
> 'semi-professional racing cyclists' right down to 'weekend wheelers'. The charge was laid followed
> the death of an inexperienced cyclist who had crossed over the centre line of the road, while
> starting to overtake two other cyclists on a downhill section. The cyclist collided with an
> oncoming car, with fatal results.
>
> Competitors had signed a waver to the effect that they were competing at their own risk. However,
> while this waver can legally cover civil litigation, it cannot exhonerate the race director if the
> police decide to bring a criminal charge against him/her.
>
> The charge was brought by the police because there was doubt that the literature of the event
> clearly indicated that a section of the course called the 'summit road', where the accident
> occurred, was not closed.
>
> Both the pre-race literature, and briefing, made reference to a 'road closure' on the 'summit
> road' to weed out so called 'sneaky cyclists' who had not paid to enter the event. This 'road
> closure' was in fact a check point to stop support vehicles and unentered cyclists from following
> event cyclists over the road. The road was not closed to other traffic. Nevertheless 'road
> closure' was the legally correct term for this check point, according to local council
> regulations.
>
> Equally importantly for the case there were two completely separate 'summit roads' (the legally
> correct name for both roads was the same), corresponding to each of the two hill ranges crossed.
> The accident occurred on the second 'summit road' where there was no check point.
>
> The police alleged that the inclusion of the phrase 'road closure on the summit road' both in ther
> pre-race literature and the pre-race briefing was confusing. They further went on to say that the
> race director had identified 'competitors not getting the right information' as a hazard correctly
> identified in the health and safety plan for the event. This health and safety plan was written
> and signed off by the race director. Finally the police identified that 'there is a culture within
> bike racing of using all of the road' when a road is closed, and by not making the information of
> the road closure clear (there were no 'road open' signs placed along the route) the event
> organizer had contributed to the death of the competitor.
>
> The defence contended that the competitor had died as a result of their own carelessness or even
> recklessness by attempting a passing maneuvre where there was insufficient visibility.
> Furthermore the defence contended that the written pre-race information was not misleading when
> read in context. The phrase 'road closure' occurred only in the section of the pre race pamphlet
> under the sub header of 'sneaky cyclists'. The one sentence that used the words 'road closure',
> had an adjunct phrase linked by a dash that made this contextual meaning perfectly clear.
> Furthermore the defence produced evidence that the dead competitor had seen at least three
> vehicles (one of which was a logging truck) come out of the summit road before they entered it.
> The defence also produced evidence that the dead competitor would have passed a milk tanker and
> possibly two or three additional vehicles between the start of the summit road and the accident
> site. The contention here was that even if the competitor had misread the instructions and
> believed the road to be closed the presence of occasional vehicles on the road would have
> dispelled this myth. The defence also contended that other phrases used in the pre-race
> documentation ('read these instructions carefully', 'keep left' and 'obey the road rules at all
> times') should have meant that any reasonable competitor should not have placed their bicycle on
> the road in a position of risk. The defence furthermore contended that 'road open' signs were not
> required because 'the road is always open'.
>
> Further details are available at these links
>
> http://www.lerace.co.nz/
>
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2622998a10,00.html
>
> Comments anyone?
>
> SNOOPY
>
>
> --
> Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details
>
> --