do not accept responsibility

joxers25

The playground on an open farm we visited recently had a sign that states that under no circumstances do the management accept any responsibility for any accidents that happen in the playground.

Is this legal?

Is this common in playgrounds?
Is there a difference between public and private playgrounds?

Surely if a child fell and broke something on their equipment they would be responsible regardless of any signs they erect.

puzzled me for a while this one.

Max Power1

the sign has no legal basis.
They are required to have relevant public liability insurance, as a public event, and are of course liable.

seamus

Max Power1 wrote: »

They are required to have relevant public liability insurance, as a public event, and are of course liable.

They are not required to have public liability insurance.

However, you are correct in that the sign has limited application since it cannot release the company from a duty of care in relation to the area.

Any accident within the grounds is not automatically the company's problem and signs like these are usually used to discourage people from filing nuisance or frivilous claims. However, where an accident occurs which can be attributed to a failing of the company, then the sign cannot be used to release them from any claim.

Delancey

I understand however that signs in car parks that state the owners will not be held liable for loss or damage do have a legal basis.
I presume the law differs in relation to damage to property and personal injuries ?

seamus

delancey42 wrote: »

I understand however that signs in car parks that state the owners will not be held liable for loss or damage do have a legal basis.
I presume the law differs in relation to damage to property and personal injuries ?

They're effectively the same sign, I think this came up before. The sign isn't strictly necessary, but it's nice to be able to point at it when someone is ranting and raving about their car having been broken into.

In order for the owner of the property to be liable for losses/damages, you would need to show that the owner had done something wrong which lead to the damage being caused.

So if someone else hits your car in a car park, the car park owner isn't liable - how can they be? However, if they erect a wall (for example), poorly and the wall falls on your vehicle, the car park owner may be liable for the damage.

Likewise if you trip on a badly-laid slab while walking there, the owner may be liable. If you trip over your own foot, the owner is not liable.

The same goes for playgrounds and the like. Public liability insurance is a bit of an odd one. If you as the owner of such an area, get public liability insurance, the odds are very high that any claim against you will be successful (even if you didn't do anything wrong), because claimants are more likely to pursue a claim when you're insured and judges tend to award damages against the person who is insured, even if sometimes they're not to blame.

If you don't have public liability insurance, solicitors tend to discourage claimants from pursuing minor claims against a defendant with limited ability to pay and judges will actually look at blame rather than insurance. However, one serious incident where you're at fault, can cripple your business.

maidhc

seamus wrote: »

However, you are correct in that the sign has limited application since it cannot release the company from a duty of care in relation to the area.

It can however lower the standard of care to which the property occupier will be held obliged to observe.

MagicSean

maidhc wrote: »

It can however lower the standard of care to which the property occupier will be held obliged to observe.

Like a sign that says "mind the step" or "slippery surface"?

Our man in Havana

k_mac wrote: »

Like a sign that says "mind the step" or "slippery surface"?

Yep.

It comes down to reasonable foreseeability. Has the owner done everything to reduce the danger?