Sailing with young people - insurance ..?

[Bosun Higgs]

I think you'll find its a little more complex than that:


From the NSPCC website which was the first one I found to quote:

"The age of criminal responsibility is the age at which, in the eyes of the law, a child is capable of committing a crime and therefore old enough to stand trial and be convicted of a criminal offence.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years and in Scotland it is 12 years."

See also: http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/

The complexity is that a child age 10 in England and Wales is considered mature enough to know right from wrong and be criminally responsible for their actions, this doesn't mean that the skipper of a boat doesn't have a duty of care towards anyone on his/her boat.

But the bottom line is: Be sensible. Give proper briefs and show that you are a responsible and careful skipper and you will be fine. To the OP - take some adult youth leaders with you and tell them to help keep order. My experience of sailing with young people is that they are so over awed by the whole experience (and being given some responsibility for the boat) that behaviour is rarely a problem.

What you are quoting there is all about criminal behavious amongst youngsters and nothing about an adults respoinsibility for supervising youngsters in their care. The following quote if from a council website but it broadly confirms what a lawyer once explained to me:

a) An adult must supervise children under the age of 8 years at all times. A child of this age should not be responsible for her own supervision or care or the supervision or care of others.
b) Children aged 8 years to 12 years can take some agreed responsibility for themselves for time limited periods set by foster carers in respect of outside play. It is desirable that arrangements are approved and will depend on the level of the child’s maturity. They should not look after another child of any age.
c) Children and young people aged 12 years to 16 years can take agreed responsibility for themselves. They should not supervise another child of any age unless this is for very time limited periods and with agreement at a planning meeting. The decision will be based on the length of time the young person has lived in the foster family and on the maturity of the young person.
d) Young adults aged 16 and over can be prosecuted if a child in their care is exposed to danger or neglected.

Now the site I used was all about foster care and not care and supervision in an outdoor sports situation where you would have extra duties of care as the expert to even other full grown adults. So the detail will be a bit different. But you can see how the care / supervision is graded by the age of the child

 

[Seajet]

I have known several people, some from these forums, who used to take groups of youngsters out for the odd ' experience trip ' but now feel it too risky, for insurance and CRB type reasons.

On the other hand, it's not all paranoid; I was once in a nearby marina when we were irritated by what appeared to be 14 or so year olds pratting about in a tender with an outboard.

When we complained to the bloke on the boat they were from, he explained they were ' deprived ' or something, as if that makes it OK.

We were in the pub later when he trooped in with these kids and bought them beers, though they were obviously under age; he was the only adult and I was not at all sure of his motives...

 

[Lakesailor]

Ahem. We notice "organised" groups at the council owned facilities that seem not to have to conform with the usual regulations.

Could be entirely above board, but very bloody annoying.

 

[john_morris_uk]

What you are quoting there is all about criminal behavious amongst youngsters and nothing about an adults respoinsibility for supervising youngsters in their care. The following quote if from a council website but it broadly confirms what a lawyer once explained to me:

a) An adult must supervise children under the age of 8 years at all times. A child of this age should not be responsible for her own supervision or care or the supervision or care of others.
b) Children aged 8 years to 12 years can take some agreed responsibility for themselves for time limited periods set by foster carers in respect of outside play. It is desirable that arrangements are approved and will depend on the level of the child’s maturity. They should not look after another child of any age.
c) Children and young people aged 12 years to 16 years can take agreed responsibility for themselves. They should not supervise another child of any age unless this is for very time limited periods and with agreement at a planning meeting. The decision will be based on the length of time the young person has lived in the foster family and on the maturity of the young person.
d) Young adults aged 16 and over can be prosecuted if a child in their care is exposed to danger or neglected.

Now the site I used was all about foster care and not care and supervision in an outdoor sports situation where you would have extra duties of care as the expert to even other full grown adults. So the detail will be a bit different. But you can see how the care / supervision is graded by the age of the child

I have been away and didn't realise you had replied to this thread. However I can't find anything in your post that contradicts anything I said so I am not sure what point you are making?

Its all akin to using 'health and safety' as an excuse for not doing things. Much of the time, its just an excuse as there was no risk assessment that suggested the activity shouldn't go ahead, but someone can't be bothered and uses 'health and safety' as an excuse.

Hence I return to my previous premise. Don't get paranoid about things; just be careful and use some common sense so that if anything (God forbid) did go wrong, you can show you have taken reasonable care of the people on your boat.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

Common sense and the law dont mix John. You are undoubtedly right in the sense that the risk is tiny but the event could be cataclysmic. A brain damaged youngster could easily cost you 5 million ( have a look at recent cases) and you can be sure that in such a case the insurance company would look at your actions in the finest detail to see if you were covered or not. So really the risk is a tiny chance of being financially wiped out.

In short it depends on how much of a chancer you are and how important it is to you to take kids out.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Common sense and the law dont mix John. You are undoubtedly right in the sense that the risk is tiny but the event could be cataclysmic. A brain damaged youngster could easily cost you 5 million ( have a look at recent cases) and you can be sure that in such a case the insurance company would look at your actions in the finest detail to see if you were covered or not. So really the risk is a tiny chance of being financially wiped out.

In short it depends on how much of a chancer you are and how important it is to you to take kids out.

Sorry but I think that is completely unreasonable scaremongering. I discussed this with a barrister friend and it was he who used the phrase 'common sense' when approaching this subject.

The nightmare scenario is what you have insurance for. I don't think there should be any sense of 'chancing it'. Make sure that you are insured and you are not operating commercially and you take reasonable care of those on your boat. Otherwise you will have to explain how its different to taking friends or family out fir a sail... Or the next thing people are going to suggest is that we should never take friends sailing, or friends of our children sailing...?

 

[mjcoon]

Sorry but I think that is completely unreasonable scaremongering. I discussed this with a barrister friend and it was he who used the phrase 'common sense' when approaching this subject.

To be only slightly cynical, arguing about the meaning and applicability of such phrases is a lawyer's bread and butter!

Mike.

 

[mainsail1]

I agree. There was a time when I knew what common sense meant.

To be only slightly cynical, arguing about the meaning and applicability of such phrases is a lawyer's bread and butter!

Mike.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

I discussed this with a barrister friend and it was he who used the phrase 'common sense' when approaching this subject.

From many practical experiences of trying to get a straight answer out of barristers at the Inns of Court, you would get an altogether different view from your pal if he was representing you in a real case. And thats before you get to defining what is reasonable care and what isnt to the satisfaction of a judge who may well have never been on a boat or had kids.

Anyway, this is all an academic argument. You will no doubt do what you think sensible and I will do the same.

 

[john_morris_uk]

From many practical experiences of trying to get a straight answer out of barristers at the Inns of Court, you would get an altogether different view from your pal if he was representing you in a real case. And thats before you get to defining what is reasonable care and what isnt to the satisfaction of a judge who may well have never been on a boat or had kids.

Anyway, this is all an academic argument. You will no doubt do what you think sensible and I will do the same.

That's fair enough. I'm probably a little biased as I used to be a relief skipper for a sail training charity taking young people to sea and this is compounded by a loathing for the risk averse culture that seems to be growing (or promoted) in some parts of society.