Insurance Scheme?
Monday, June 2nd, 2008
‘We have a comprehensive insurance scheme (BMG).’ Really!
Try claiming on it!
After BMG client, Mr P. Pope, failed to obtain compensation for his injuries in 1994(he had beeen allowed to place all of his own protection by his guide/climbing instructor and in the ensuing fall injuring himself seriously he should not have been allowed to hit the ground from the second pitch of a muli-pitch climb), an article in High Magazine - “A Triumph for Common Sense,” by Steven Venables, stated: that the American ‘need’ for compensation had been stopped from entering the climbing scene in Britain.’ Really! He went on to write – she went on (Diana Cotton QC): “you must acknowledge and accept the risks you take and not expect to off-laod your responsibility on others.” Continuing to the heart of the matter, she said: “I believe that Mr pope thought that having paid or a guide, he was entitled to have his safety guranteed. Since he fell and was injured the guide must have been at fault To engage in what even he regarded as a high risk sport in that frame of mind was foolish.” The verdict of just one woman.
It is more than probable that she was not aware of the fact that, at the time of Mr Pope’s accident the BMG were advertising: ‘We have a comprehensive insurance scheme’, – the same advert offering – guarantees… And yet, another court-case was already pending against another BMG guide, that case had been in progress for many years in fact since 1990 (1990 -1997)(Hedley v Cuthbertson). For the first three years, the widow of a BMG client, Gerry Hedley could get no co-operation from the French police / authorities (the information that she and her lawyer required from Chamonix arrived three years and four weeks later). This pushed (probably quite deliberately) her over the three year cut-off point under British law.
Mr G. Hedley was dragged from the North Face of the Tour Ronde in July 1990; trying in vain to arrest his BMG guides fall, he was catapulted from the mountain to his avoidable death (the guide survived). Seven years later, his widow and their young son (who Mr Hedley never saw) were finally compensated, even then, an appeal against the judgement in Mrs Hedley’s favour – was considered. A letter printed in High Magazine actually admonished the BMG for not standing together to spoil the widows just claim. Fortunetaly, she was able to claim through her young son.
Mr Gerry Hedley, is desribed by the American National Art Gallery as one of the worlds leading experts on art restoration at the time of his death (New York Times).
Mountain clients, are entitled to compensation, that in these two cases, it went to litigation is not the clients fault. We have a comprehensive insurance scheme was/is an enticement; another supposed safeguard for potential BMG mountain clients. The claim in fact, was bogus – a word that the BMG likes to use in its dirty tricks against what it perceives, to be their competition…
It is interesting to note, that in each avoidable fatal accident to BMG mountain clients, the guide has invariably (bar two) survived.
In responce to the Venables article: ‘A Triumph for Common Sense.’, The following ‘letter’ was published.
‘A Guiding Principle.’ John Gillman, ‘Letters’, High Magazine, May 1996
‘Dear sir, As a climber and as a solicitor currently involved in a High Court Action against a British Guide (Hedley v Cuthbertson 1990-1997) arising out of a fatal mountaineering accident, I read Steven Venables’s article entitled ‘A Triumph for Common Sense’ in the March issue (of High) with more than a passing interest. I certainly share Steven Venables’s contempt for the kind of mentality that assumes that someone can always be blamed for one’s own misfortunes. I also strongly believe that every individual should have some responsibility for his own destiny. However, it seems to me that Steven Venables is using good arguments to make a bad point. The implication of his article is that because climbing is an inherently dangerous activity we must all accept whatever misfortune befalls us without recourse to the law. Of course the vast majority of mountaineering accidents are precisely that; namely accidents where any attempt to point a finger of blame at an individual would be quite wrong.
But is Steven Venables really suggesting that if there is a genuine case of an innocent party being seriously injured or killed as a result of another climber’s clear negligence that it is wrong in principle to go to Law? The question is particularly pertinent in the commercial guiding situation. One of the things that the guide is specifically paid for is his or her professional competence. If a guide is incompetent and negligent and that negligence causes serious personal injury or death, why on earth should the climbers or the climber’s family not seek compensation? If one is ‘injured’ in such a situation, seeking compensation is not a denial of responsibility for your destiny. Would Steven Venables suggest that someone who is knocked down on a zebra crossing by a speeding driver and seriously injured is denying responsibility for their destiny by seeking compensation?’
Would Steven Venables deny a family from claiming; seeking compensation for damage caused by a hospitals mistake; Cerebral Palsy, or Autism to their new born baby. Having a baby has many risks and many babies die at birth (my own son lived for 31 years with severe Cerebral Palsy I never dreampt of seeking compensation).
Of course, climbing is an inherently dangerous activity and that is something that has to be put into the balance in deciding, in an individual case, whether it would be right or wrong to go to Law. But to suggest as Steven Venables does, that it is wrong in principle is, I think, a flawed argument.’
Litigation could; might be the reason that Mrs Alford, the owner of 57 acres of Dartmoor on which stands, Vixen Tor, has banned access to her land. Ramblers and climbers have had free access to the moorland area for many years, walkers meerly passing through and admiring the specticle that is Vixen Tor, climbers, lingering longer to attack the few, short climbs on offer. Concern that climbers could hurt; injure or even kill themselves in an age where falling-off is apprently now encouraged, could be one of the reason’s for the ban. In an age of litigation along with new, irresponsible climbing ethics Mrs Alfords own insurance has most probably been increased. Mrs Alford is now also aware, that members of the British Mountaineering Council have abused open access to the environment by deliberately damaging, by drilling and placing expansion bolts (against the wishes of the vast majority of British climbers), in cliffs and crags from Lands End to the Highlands of Scotland. This includes SSI – sites of scientific interest…
Adding weight to Mrs Alford’s argument, regarding possible litigation claims against her, during a recent (24 September, 2005) mass (forty – out of 4 million hillgoers turned up) demonstration on her property against her closure of Vixen Tor, the demonstartors declined to wear protective; climbing equipment (the wearing of head protection would have added weight to their erronious claim to be sensible climbers) when they scaled to the tor (on her property) to have lunch…
Not satisfied with turning unquarried rock into Sport Climbing venues, they have chosen to damage further the Cornish and Devon(climbing) environment even on private property… Why should Mrs Alford have to take addition insurance just because of the selfish antic’s of a few.
There is Another, a New kind of Comprehensive Insurance Sheme
BMC launches online Expert Witness Register…
The British Mountaineering has created another inititve: The Expert (BMG) Witness Register. This scheme (scam) is so that the legal profession can find expert witness for cases (invarably against BMG guides) involving, hill walking, abseiling, outdoor and indoor climbing – outdoor pursuits including mountaineering. Each candidate has undertaken BMC expert witness training and has met – rigorous selection criteria including (of course) the most appropriate qualification of them all – being a member of the – British Mountaineering Council…
The legal profession can now, for the first time, call upon the Register which acts as a ‘guide’. So there you have it. BMG expert witnesses on hand; being called upon to add their qualified support to other BMGuides who may find themselves embroiled in future court-case’s.
The picture below shows exectly how Mr Hedley was left on that fateful day – belayed to the North Face of the Tour Ronde in 1990. The belayer in the picture, is fastened to just – a single ice screw. Another accident waiting to happed. Unlike the picture, there are no comfortable belay stances on the Tour Ronde. As seen in this picture, two ice axes have been left ‘out of” the belay – as happened, in 1990.
The picture left accompanied an article entitled: ‘Protect and Survive’ in High Magazine (the official magazine of the BMC) about a ‘safety’ seminar at Plas-y-Brenin in – 1989 – just one year prior to the Tour Ronde fatal acident.
Category : Insurance
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Comments are closed.