Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National Ride Leader and Netrider liability

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Guest, Jul 11, 2005.

  1. While y'all are so willing to share opinions :roll: , I thought I't be a good time to ask the following.

    I understand the argument that goes:

    Hi, I’m going for a ride with my friends; leaving from here; at such and such a time. And this is not an organised ride nor is it sanction by NetRider. Those who chose a dangerous sport such as motorcycle riding are fully aware of the risk they take when performing their hobby at their own voilition. Even if they happen to leave at the same time as others and go in the same direction.

    However I would guess that once a ride is placed on the official Netrider Calendar as an “event” by a moderator then Netrider is responsible for any duty of care for that defined ride.

    What do you think? :?
  2. It's an interesting question covered on the forum before I think - check the search function it may reveal some answers.
  3. Dan I checked thouroughly before I posted.

    No answers!
  4. I guess that many of the events are occurring on public roads and you have to take responsibility for you own actions to a large degree.
    There are guidelines as to how to conduct oneself in the context of a group ride posted elsewhere on the site.
  5. Yeah, thanks Dan ... No answer though.

    And since that time the moderators are putting every thing that even whiffs of a ride on the calendar.

    So the question has kind of a new added dimension.
  6. I would say that the Netrider Calender is there simply as it's meant to do.. connect riders. What riders chose to do on that ride is up to them....you are liable for your own actions :)
  7. This is applicable to NSW only, I don't know VIC states laws. I'm also not a lawyer.

    Public liability laws recently got changed, where if an adult is doing an activity which has an obvious and inherent degree of risk, they can not sue for damages, if the worst happens. A child can still sue for damages as under the law, they don't no better.

    It would take a great deal of persuading to persuade a court that motorcycling has no risk :)

    2 recent cases for example.

    A guy was playing skirmish with his mates. It started to rain. The instructor said, we can stop or go on. But it is more risky if we go on. They continued, guy fell and broke his arm. He tried to sue the skimirsh place. Lost the case because of the inherent risk + the warning. He had to pay all court costs of the defendant.

    Woman went horse riding. Fell off and broke her leg & suffered a concussion. She sued on the basis of ill fitting safety equipment. She lost because the helmet had fitted correctly (slipped in the accident) + horse riding has an inherent degree of risk.
  8. Indeed, reforms to tort law in NSW has only had one effect; to rob false AND GENUINE claimants for loss and damage, and entrench the power and wealth of the insurance companies.
    If you are injured on the way to work, for example, you are no longer covered for that injury because Worker's Compensation only kicks in when you actually are on-site at work.
    Sad days for workers in one of the Labor states, eh?
  9. I would have thought the question is - is Netrider a sue-able entity?
    It's has membership (and fees, although that could be argued), but no executive committee as clubs and associations are required to have. It is, in a sense, wholly owned by its administration.
    It doesn't "sanction" events in the formal sense, but it does so informally.
    It could be argued that all netrider does is provide a forum for exchange of information. The conduct of its members outside of their forum activity is surely nothing to do with Netrider.
    Am I right in thinking that the Victorian government is still the lone voice blocking reforms to public liability legislation? (they were certainly accused of it a while ago).
    In a sane society we wouldn't even need to discuss this. :roll:
  10. I think you're right Titus, Netrider would have to be a properly incorporated organisation with elected officers, AGMs and stuff.......
  11. I taught people went for rides to ride, not to think who are they gonna sue first if they have an accident. If that's the case, we might be better riding everyone on their own, just for peace of mind!!!

    Questions like these will shutdown this great site!!!
  12. I could be wrong, but I don't think the original post was couched in those terms or anything like them, I took it just as a hypothetical question.
    I doubt if any of us would even entertain the possibility of suing Netrider if we had an accident on a ride; speaking for myself, if I fall off it's going to be my fault, and I would have to take responsibility for it. (Unless you knocked me off trying to pass me, in which case, expect a call from my lawyers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
  13. Like I said, we shouldn't have to think about it.
    But it's better to have the answers to these questions before the situation arises. That way the problem can be circumvented before it happens.
    I can't imagine a rider here trying it on but you don't know what relatives might do.
  14. No, it isn't sue-able as it isn't incorporated under any of the four relevant acts - the Corporations Act, the Co-operatives Act, the Associations Incorporation Act or the The Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act. As such, there is no "body corporate" that could defend the action. Sadly, that means that liability, in the event of a claim, is directed at the members. One purpose of incorporation is to limit liability to the assets of the organisation (with some exceptions related to the obligations of directors). Unincorporated entities do not have that protection.

    And it would be better if the issue of whether Netrider sanctions events is never tested in court, because the members would also have to find the funds to defend the claim. Public liability insurance generally includes a component to cover the costs of defending an action, but such insurance is not available to unincorporated bodies.
  15. Could that not be a good thing, as individuals have fewer responsibilities than incorporated entities?

    As individuals, or a group? And if a group, if was not defended, what then? No body as such to take action against, so would it just be the individuals involved, or the entire membership?
    I admit I have no idea. Just curious.
  16. How do the insurance companies get rich? By slugging people for more money, ergo lower liability cost, loiwer premiums. The changes have allowed many groups that had to close due to insurance concerns to actually re-open, and those that were hanging on by a thread have got a little more breathing room.

    They're all labor states. What this has to do with labor is beyond me. The government changed laws in THE MOST LITIGIUOS PLACE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, yes thats right, prior to the changes NSW was the most gungho place for people suing people anywhere in the entire world, so as to allow companies to lower public liability premiums, which happened, and allow clubs and events to continue operating. I think thats a good thing.
  17. From an objective point of view, i highly doubt either a ride "organiser" or netrider could be held responsible for any accidents. From a subjective point of view I think the same is true. I think as long as your riding on the road, regardless of for what reason, you are responsible unless someone else actually causes you to crash. Putting an event in a calendar does not admit any duty of care.
  18. Next motorsport event you go to, turn over the ticket, Motor Racing is dangerous, yadda, yadda, yadda.

    We're all required to sign an indemnity to work as an official on the one hand but on the other we are told that legal opinion is that the indemnity isn't worth the paper it's printed on as you cant sign away your common law rights (except when driving/riding a car on the road of course).

    My personal opinion is that if I'm hurt at a motorsport event I have private health insurance to help as well as Medicare to fix me and hopefully cover lost wages if required (mind you after 22 years with the one company I've got near enough to 6 months of sick leave to use).

    If I'm injured by some idiots decision or stupid rule I'm not going down without making a lot of noise, cos I can. (Idiot decision would be driver/rider ignoring yellow flags, senior official telling me to do something excessively dangerous and so on).

    As for ride organising, if you print maps or decide the route to be taken then you are organising it and my non lawyer opinion is you COULD be liable.

    Car & Bike racing has liability cover for the organiser of the events to cover such things.

    I hate sounding like a doom sayer but we seem to be heading further down the USA sue the pants off them mentality the lawyers, who make money from it, are encouraging.

    Car clubs organising a simple car trial/treasure hunt these days have to have liability insurance.

    I know of one Clerk of Course at car events who was talking about taking his name off his marital house just in case one of his decisions results in him being sued, mind you I did say to him I hope the wife doesn't do a runner and take the house to which he replied "It would save on paperwork as she'd get it anyway" :LOL: