disco

Hi Guys

What i'm after is a form or ideas of what you guys use which will protect a land owner from being in trouble if he lets us use his property for taking off and landing with regard to him being sued or something if we crash.

Lots of ideas welcome.

Thanks

Dean

__________________
Beware the flying Horny Commander....Wah ha haar....

lparsons

Hi,

We have a disclaimer that was drawn up for us by a solicitor friend, but I don't know how much protection it would give you, if any. This is it anyway. It needs to be signed and dated. Hope this helps.

Lloyd

It should be understood that entrants upon the property known as ………….. ……………….. in connection with any event involving aviation subject themselves to dangers and in particular dangers from:
(a) Propellers, propeller blades and rotor blades, whether or not in motion;
(b) Objects falling or becoming detached from aircraft (however described) including but not limited to:
i) objects dropped from aircraft as a part of organized competition;
ii) objects (including parts of the aircraft) becoming detached from such aircraft whether such aircraft is stationary, upon the ground or airborne;
(c) Combustible materials and in particular avgas, petroleum, and oil are stored on the property for the use of aircraft, may be carried on board aircraft whether as fuel, lubrication or otherwise and are liable to ignite and/or explode.
(d) Tie-downs, aircraft parts, airport lights, cone markers form a part of the Airstrip and are significant obstacles over which one may fall or trip;
With this in mind the owners of the property advise that if you attend such an event that you clearly understand that you do so at your own risk and that they [name] will not be liable for any loss or damage, whether arising in contract, tort or otherwise, sustained by you[name] or any other person which may be sustained in connection with this activity or any activity associated therewith. Such loss or damage may include, but is not limited to, loss or damage caused by the negligence or wilful act or default of the owners or others, whether consequential or otherwise and whether or not such loss or damage is reasonably foreseeable. And you acknowledge that there is no reliance upon any representations or warranties as to suitability or safety or the state of the runway or any other facility.
The owners accept no responsibility for any loss or damage howsoever caused and whether to property or for any death or injury to any person or persons.
The risks outlined above are not and cannot be regarded as exhaustive and if you choose to come to ……………….. for any reason whatsoever or at any time whatsoever and whether as an invitee or in any other capacity whatsoever then you must make your own evaluation of therisk.
Upon receipt of this notification you are deemed to have fully understood its contents and acknowledged this disclaimer

niquenaque

Hmmm,

A point of law on this one, which may well void the agreement, which is of itself a contract:

If the contract includes "loss or damage caused by the negligence or wilful act or default of the owners or others" it may be void on the grounds of it being 'wilful', as this implies an intent to cause harm which is an assault or criminal act by extension, the risk of this is that the inclusion of 'wilful' makes it void.

The fact of it is that if a person enters onto a property where such activities are being conducted they are putting themselves at risk, but that risk should never come about as a product of another person's intent to harm them, that is ab-initio illegal in common law and this will over-ride any contract. If a contract prevailed over common law then we could technically get someone's agreement to shoot them and do so, fatally wounding them, which is murder.. I can't see anyone writing a disclaimer to defeat this.

I think the impetus should be to advise any person entering the property that in doing so they are at risk of injury from any number of things and that they should leave the property if they are of the cognisance that they could be injured.

There is more - when I get to it.

Cheers,

Nic.

lparsons

I think it would have to be proved that the 'wilful act' was with the intent to cause damage. What we had in mind was the for instance of flour drops or something of the kind, where the intent was to take part in a competition, but not to cause damage.

Having said that, I think the idea of the disclaimer is to do something rather than trust to luck completely, but we all know that a clever lawyer can cause havoc if they try. Hopefully our public risk policy, which recognizes that we have an airstrip, will be more help.

Lloyd