One to chew over

Just zis Guy said:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/035/2006035.htm

Too complex to understand immediately, but potentially relevant, a
Bill in parliament whereby:

A court considering a claim in negligence may, in determining whether
the defendant should have taken particular steps to meet the standard
of care (whether by taking precautions against a risk or otherwise),
have regard to whether a requirement to take those steps might-
(a) prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken at all, to a
particular extent or in a particular way, or
(b) discourage persons from undertaking functions in connection with a
desirable activity.

Which, although it's designed to protect doctors, may or may not have
implications for contributory negligence claims. The sharks are
swimming round it as we speak...

That may, of course, be blind optimism.

It would be decidedly interesting if it did get through. Might one
think that a) MP's are not neccessarily aware of the consequences b)
their constituents do not understand how teh abstract will apply to the
specific, and c) the knock on effects could be very valuable for
certain areas of society[1].<fx "jaws theme">

...d

[1] used in the loosest possible sense

Looks as if the main effect will be to allow those responsible for the
safety of others to allow those others to pursue a potentially
dangerous activity without risk of being sued if/when accidents result
(provided proper precautions are taken where applicable) where the
activity has a benefit which outweighs or partly outweighs the risk
(e.g. where a form of exercise can cause injury but is usually good for
the person).

An obvious application is for schools: the clause should allow teachers
to permit potentially hazardous activities such as swimming or of
course cycling without having to run so much risk of being sued if a
pupil is injured despite proper precautions having been taken. It could
also affect a school head's decision on whether to encourage pupils to
cycle to school.

It does not say, but does seem to imply, that some more responsibility
to avoid hazards could be placed upon the supervised person, i.e. it
might be easier for a person acting under another's supervision to be
found to have shown contributory negligence.

It is hard to imagine a case where a cyclist was struck by a motor
vehicle might be affected, as I cannot think of a situation where a
driver might be supervising a cyclist.

Jon

Quoted message said:

It is hard to imagine a case where a cyclist was struck by a motor
vehicle might be affected, as I cannot think of a situation where a
driver might be supervising a cyclist.

Cycling is commonly percieved as beneficial to health of both body and
wallet (ebay junkies notwithstanding). Helemt promotion is commonly
regarded as a disincentive to participate in a beneficial activity.
Requiring a helmet as being neccessary otherwise one is contributorily
negligent when it is obvious to the man in the street[1] that helemts
provide a great benefit when run over by a cement mixer and only a fule
wouldn't were one would be quietly kaiboshed by this law.

...d

[1] who hasn't read more than the BHIT leaflet his kids school sent
home.