I have my phone programmed with the info I or others need. I have a good medical coverage that will airlift or ambulate me out. I make sure I know who is a little up on medical on the ride or who has the medipac.
On long trips I carry a heavy painkiller injection, pain tabs, some good anti-inflammatory tabs, re-hydrate and water.
Other than that I really don't want it to be too organised. It gets complicated and expensive.
If shit happens, well then, I made my informed choices.
Having said that, having been involved in the adventure business a long time ago, I learnt some things. On a Bash there are some who are ignorant of the dangers - (noob pillions and noob riders) and for them some forewarning should be given.
I believe that there is a legal precedent called, "duty of care" or a
delict. E.g. If I invited people to come join me on a paddle to a river of known high graded difficulty and they are obviously noobs with little or no experience or the right equipment and I know this and they come short, then I can be legally challenged under the duty of care. The law comes from the concept of good neighborliness.
Even though I charged nothing for the trip, I may find civil proceedings against me through them or their dependents.
From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DelictThe South African Legal System also uses the law of delict as opposed to torts. The South African common law elaborates a set of general principles in terms of which liability for loss is allocated. This should be seen in contrast to the Anglo American common law approach which has distinct tort actions, each with their own peculiar elements which require satisfaction before an action is founded. The delictual elements that have to be satisfied before a claimant can be successful are:
Conduct - which may consist of either a commission (positive action) or an omission (the failure to take required action), though liability for an omission will arise only where there is a duty to act.
Wrongfulness - the conduct complained of must be legally reprehensible. This is usually assessed with reference to the legal convictions of the community.
Fault - save in limited cases where liability is 'strict' (i.e. where neither intention nor negligence is required for liability) once the wrongfulness of the conduct is established, it is necessary to establish whether the person being sued acted intentionally or negligently, either of which is sufficient for liability to attach.
Damage - finally the conduct must have resulted in some form of loss or harm to the claimant in order for them to have a claim. This damage can take the form of patrimonial loss (a reduction in a person's financial position, such as is the case where the claimant incurred medical expenses) or non-patrimonial damages (damages that cannot be related to a person's financial estate, but compensation for something like pain and suffering.)
Causation - the conduct that the claimant complains of must have caused damage, in this regard both factual causation and legal causation are assessed. The purpose of legal causation is to limit the scope of factual causation, if the consequence of the action is too remote to have been foreseen by an objective, reasonable person the defendant will escape liability.
It is possible that a single set of facts may give rise to both a contractual and a delictual claim.
Public policy considerations are evident in the setting of the limits to each of the requirements.
So on future bashes to avoid being seen as negligent or a bad neighbour so to speak, a fair, advertised, balanced warning of the dangers involved and appropriate ways to reduce ones exposure to should be enough.
Indemnities.... An interesting side point is that you can have people sign many and lengthy indemnities, but they will mean nothing if negligence can be proved. An indemnity does not indemnify the dependents against negligence on the part of the operator. At most, an indemnity is a informational about the dangers of participating.
Maybe the legal eagles can correct me?
Topic: Medical Facilities at Bashes (Read 4057 times)
