RYA Instructors. Are you covered?

[apward]

Scenario:

A previous trainee of yours is involved in an incident at sea on a boat they charter.

They are accused of being liable for the incident, however, they claim that the action they took that lead to the cause of the incident, was exactly the action that they had been trained to take, by their RYA instructor on the practical course they attended only the week before.

They make a claim against you the instructor. Does your current insurance cover you to fight the claim? Are you sure. My investigations this week with numerous sailing school insurance brokers suggests you might not be.

Perhaps you don't need to be covered for this risk? I'd be interested to hear RYA instructors views.

 

[Talulah]

When doing the instructors training course this scenario was explained to us. There is instructors insurance to cover this scenario through Haven Knox.

 

[apward]

My investigation has revealed that perhaps 'ALL' RYA instructors should take out this 'Professional Indemnity' insurance cover. But do they?

 

[Talulah]

My investigation has revealed that perhaps 'ALL' RYA instructors should take out this 'Professional Indemnity' insurance cover. But do they?

Do you know of any such incidents? If not it sounds like you're trying to drum up insurance business where perhaps there isn't a problem.
Is there any reason why you are carrying out this investigation?

 

[apward]

Is there any reason why you are carrying out this investigation?

Yep. I have a reason to buy in the services of professional instructors. And like professionals in other fields, I assumed they would have protection against this risk. Seems not.

As you say. Perhaps the risk is minimal therefore instructors dont choose to cover it. I guess, it would be the trainees word against the instructors, unless the claimant had other trainees from their course to back up their claim.

Perhaps I'm worrying about nothing.

 

[RobbieW]

As a responsible employer you could look at insuring your contractors for this and other risks. You could also make appropriate insurance a condition of employment. You should at least point out to your contractors the risk you believe you have uncovered.

 

[planteater]

Perhaps the risk is minimal therefore instructors dont choose to cover it.

If the risk is minimal then the insurance would cost peanuts. No reason to cut corners.

 

[little_roundtop]

...they claim that the action they took that lead to the cause of the incident, was exactly the action that they had been trained to take, by their RYA instructor on the practical course they attended only the week before...

I would think you'd find it very difficult to prove that all the actions you took leading up to the incident were exactly those you had been taught.

 

[Talulah]

When doing the instructors training course this scenario was explained to us. There is instructors insurance to cover this scenario through Haven Knox.

I said Haven Knox. It may actually be Heath Lambert.

 

[Talulah]

Yep. I have a reason to buy in the services of professional instructors.

Tuition for your Highlander 28 maybe?

I don't know of any instructors who have actually purchased this insurance. When I looked into it I couldn't find out what exactly the insurance covered. As I remember it the fee was pretty small but a lot of instructors only teach on a very few number of occasions each year making it quite high per actual client. Couple this with the actual risk involved there are much better things to spend your money on.

 

[Resolution]

Get a grip on life?

For pity's sake, whatever happened to personal responsibility? If you ask the lawyers and insurance underwriters OF COURSE they will say you run a risk and of course you should pay them to safeguard yourself. Net result: they have your money regardless. Can all those of us who are not lawyers or underwriters do anything about this? Yes, we can ignore them and get on with the real world.

 

[apward]

I don't know of any instructors who have actually purchased this insurance.

I suspect that if the scenario was to be played out at a school. Then the first claim would be against the training company that the instructor was working for. So presumably school policies cover this risk.

 

[Talulah]

I suspect that if the scenario was to be played out at a school. Then the first claim would be against the training company that the instructor was working for. So presumably school policies cover this risk.

I'm not a legal expert but here is my tuppence worth...
When the boat owner crashes their boat they would have to prove that they used the method exactly as taught by the instructor. When taught the method did the instructor crash the boat? If not then something was different and ipso facto no case. You would have to go further and show causation. You would have to show that if you had not used the instructors method then you wouldn't have crashed the boat.
If the instructor was working for a school then the owner could sue the school. Strict liability applies. The school would have to show the instructor had gone rogue and they had not known he had gone rogue at the time.

 

[Momac]

So
If you take driving lessons (in a car).
Pass your test.
Drive as you have been taught.
But then have an accident, which is your fault.
Would you hold your driving instructor or the driving test examiner liable?

 

[apward]

So
If you take driving lessons (in a car).
Pass your test.
Drive as you have been taught.
But then have an accident, which is your fault.
Would you hold your driving instructor or the driving test examiner liable?

Nice analogy. But if there is NO independent test, as is the case of many RYA courses, then it should read:

If you take driving lessons (in a car).
Drive as you have been taught.
But then have an accident, which is your fault.
Would you hold your driving instructor liable?

 

[apward]

OK. OK I think I have it!

If you take lessons in how to run 100 metre in 10.57 secs
Then, next week, run 100 metres as you have been taught
And fail to achieve 10.57 secs
Do you blame your instructor?

Of course not. You might have taken the lesson. And you know how to run 10.57 secs but you simply can't perform it.

And even if you were tested at the end of the lesson where you did run 10.57 secs that's only proof of competence on the day, not proof that you'll be competent tomorrow.

So the instructors defence is: Always have evidence that you taught the 10.57 sec lesson in the way the IAAF stipulated.

And the sprinting schools defence is: here's what we told the instructor to teach and how we told him to teach it.
----------------

That's it. I think we're done.

 

[Simondjuk]

I'm not a legal expert but here is my tuppence worth...
When the boat owner crashes their boat they would have to prove that they used the method exactly as taught by the instructor. When taught the method did the instructor crash the boat? If not then something was different and ipso facto no case. You would have to go further and show causation. You would have to show that if you had not used the instructors method then you wouldn't have crashed the boat.
If the instructor was working for a school then the owner could sue the school. Strict liability applies. The school would have to show the instructor had gone rogue and they had not known he had gone rogue at the time.

This is exactly the reply I had in mind after reading the opening post.

 

[DanBurrill]

I'm in the process of getting professional indemnity insurance for myself (as a marine surveyor, not a sailing instructor). I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that in order to make a claim for negligence, it is first necessary to prove that the defendant (in this case the instructor) owed the plaintiff a duty of care. Whilst it may be easy to show that they owe such a duty to their pupils, extending that to a third party is not necessarily an easy thing to do.

Even if somebody could satisfy a court that such a duty existed, they would then need to prove that the instructor had been negligent - in other words their actions had fallen below the standard of other instructors with similar qualifications and experience. (Incidentally, this means that a claim could be unsuccessful even if the instructor had taught their pupil to do something totally incorrectly and the pupil had done exactly what they'd been taught, providing most other instructors would have done the same.)

 

[maxi77]

To be honest whilst in the realms of possibility the scenario posed by the OP may actually be possible, if the instructor follows the proscribed RYA syllabus then his defence would be just that and if there was a claim it would be against the RYA. Interestingly in this area I was for a period an approved RYA measurer and included in my registration fee was indemnity insurance.

I think it is always possible to invent these hypothetical situations but reality is they do not exist, or the probability of them existing is very very small. Rather than such PI insurnace I would be much more interested in the quality of instruction, if good then the risk is in reality not significant and the insurance is waste of every ones money.

 

[Pete R]

I'd be interested to hear RYA instructors views.

I do not think a claim could/would ever be made under your scenario. It is just too many steps removed from the Instructor being involved.

On a separate note there are Professional Skippers Insurance Policies that provide cover whilst teaching/skippering and delivering.