Thread: Liability for safety. . ?

probably you as the owner of the tools.

So. . . best if I don't let him use any of my tools then. . ?
Am I covered by house insurance?
public liability insurance?
Any insurance?
Jedo

NSW work cover laws are vicous! but you have to be realistic, explain the liability with the Mum and the kid and teach him how to safely use the tools IE get them to accept liability if anything happens.

If you have the slightest gut feeling about the lack of morals of the family tell them sorry can't do.

tell him no, if hes gunna be an apprentice hes gunna learn anyway. besides buggering your tools he could hurt himself - liability aside.

I reckon that so long as you maintain a clean safe envoriment and have not modified any tools he uses you'd be ok. be safe - get him to sign a waiver first if u must let him use your gear.

or take them at face value; let him "see" your tools. Only.

I'd be tellng the Mum that her son will be getting proper instruction on safe tool use as part of his apprentishap, and you don't want to lead him astray.
Should keep you in the good books.

These litigation stories that get passed around normally dont include the facts supporting the story.

Let him come over, show him the tools and how they work just like you would your own child if you have one.

A very difficult issue and is governed by state laws which may well be differed in different states.

Generally speaking the homeowner/occupier is responsible if an accident occurs through his negligence.

Not knowing if a person allowed to use your workshop can handle all the tools therein safely, not just those that you specify, would probably be interpreted by a jury as negligent. As a juror I definitely would.

Getting signed waivers to abrogate your liability is against the law and of no effect but that fact would count heavily against you in any court action.

In other words teach and supervise but do not allow unsupervised access.


Peter.

all info taken on board. . .
the lad is welcome over to see the tools, watch a demo. But him and his mum now know that I wouldn't want to lead him astray with any bad infoand that he will get all the good oil from his boss and colleagues at work. Plus - I'm not covered for workcover...

thanks to all
Jedo

I have a similar dilemma with a 13 year old nephew who is dead keen to work in my shed. I was thinking of explaining to him and his parents that it is a very dangerous environment and that he can watch and use a few hand tools under supervision to start with. If he sticks to the hand tools long and diligently enough, we'll look at upgrading his access sometime in the future.

On the issues of litigation there are many considerations to be made.

In the case of the borrowed ladder:

• Was the owner aware of any faults or conditions and if this was the case then a failure of duty of care (DoC) would apply.
• Did the owner of the ladder properly inspect the ladder before use or issue to someone else. Again this is a failure in DoC.
• Did the owner instruct the borrower in the correct procedure for use of the ladder or determine that the user was already trained in the use of the ladder - you guessed it failure in DoC.
• And if all above was carried out and fails to prove there was negligence, was the owner an accredited instructor in providing instruction to the borrower in the use of the ladder.

The industrial laws that apply in most modern countries Australia, New Zealand, USA, UK, Germany etc are generally all based around the same principles in Duty of Care. This is why the laws are so airy fairy and seem to be without content or detailled description. So that they can be applied to an infinite number of variations and somebody be it an individual or corporation can be held responsible for damages.

In your case with the kid next door, it would be almost irrelevant what you did, in the event of an accident involving a serious injury you are liable to be sued. There is no defence that can applied.

Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb

NSW work cover laws are vicous! but you have to be realistic, explain the liability with the Mum and the kid and teach him how to safely use the tools IE get them to accept liability if anything happens.

If you have the slightest gut feeling about the lack of morals of the family tell them sorry can't do.

Please tell me what sort of courses you run... or do you mean coarse, as in not nice and civil ? Sorry, I'm a teacher and a bit of a tease/ taker. No offence, love you posts ! Agree totally about checking out the kind of family - you have to be more and more careful these days, as parents don't think twice about turning on anyone who's "responsible" for their children, forgetting that some situations only develop or get out of control because the children have been badly brought up.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

A very difficult issue and is governed by state laws which may well be differed in different states.

I haven't bothered to search for this case as there isn't enough information to go on. Furthermore, I am not a lawyer, so with that disclaimer...

I doubt that this was a prosecution by a WHS authority. This sounds like a Common Law suit which means that in principle it will probably apply here.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Getting signed waivers to abrogate your liability is against the law and of no effect but that fact would count heavily against you in any court action.

They're ineffective as legal devices. I don't know whether there are negative implications.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

In other words teach and supervise but do not allow unsupervised access.

Frankly, I wouldn't even do that. It isn't worth the risk.

Originally Posted by markharrison

They're ineffective as legal devices. I don't know whether there are negative implications.

The negative implications are in relation to the amount of damages a jury may award in such a case.

If a jury is aware that you knew your liability and tried to twart that by getting waivers I feel certain that the damage award would be much higher than otherwise. It would certainly influence me if I was a juror on such a case.


Peter.