Site Banned all C02

[Tactical Pith Helmet]

34 minutes ago, Fatboy40 said:

 

The tears of those no longer able to use CO2 😉

That's a transplant!  😆

 

1 minute ago, colinjallen said:

11) any site storing, issuing or selling pyrotechnics must have a current “Registered Premises Licence” issued under the requirements of the Explosives Act, 1875 and 1923.

The 1875 Act covers the possession of explosion with intent to endanger life or property, the 1923 Act is more concerned with general use and possession of explosives and pressure devices.

 

Both are much amended, e.g. the 1875 Act covers explosives not available when first drafted.  

 

A mate was allowed to keep stocks of nitro powder in his shop (propellant) but not black powder (an explosive) because of the proximity of other businesses.   In another LA area, a local shop is not permitted to keep MKV bangs in a retail unit in a shopping centre.  I think that it's another area of fuzzy legislation much re-codified and much interpreted by many actors.  

[kasaran]

the no running on site clause on the Freefirezone insurance waiver always amused me...

[colinjallen]

19 hours ago, Tactical Pith Helmet said:

That's a transplant!  😆

 

The 1875 Act covers the possession of explosion with intent to endanger life or property, the 1923 Act is more concerned with general use and possession of explosives and pressure devices.

 

Both are much amended, e.g. the 1875 Act covers explosives not available when first drafted.  

 

A mate was allowed to keep stocks of nitro powder in his shop (propellant) but not black powder (an explosive) because of the proximity of other businesses.   In another LA area, a local shop is not permitted to keep MKV bangs in a retail unit in a shopping centre.  I think that it's another area of fuzzy legislation much re-codified and much interpreted by many actors.  

Yes, the Acts themselves were not the issue.  It just led me to wonder how many sites were potentially invalidating their insurance by selling pyro.

[Rogerborg]

3 hours ago, kasaran said:

the no running on site clause on the Freefirezone insurance waiver always amused me...

 

But also: "1. The game is physically and mentally intense and may require extreme exertion to play."

 

But no running.  Do they make you do push-ups before respawning?

 

Why do they call it a waiver?  Tell me they don't have...

 

"Release:

I hereby release, remise and forever discharge from any claims and liabilities whatsoever without limitations that I might have against FREE FIRE ZONE Ltd. and the owners of the property on which the game is being played."

 

It's never not funny that people actually waste their time writing that, or making you read or "agree" to it. 🙄

[Cannonfodder]

I remember playing at a site where they had you sign the same form as the paintballers. I knew this because they hadn't even bothered to change the word paintball to airsoft

[Keldon]

On 04/01/2022 at 14:00, Impulse said:

 

Ah, but what about weirdos like me who use "snipers" and "DMRs" that are 1.1J for no MED shenanigans? 

Then I would think they would allow you to play with such, just that normally DMR/Snipers are of a higher joules. 

[GiantKiwi]

15 hours ago, Rogerborg said:

Why do they call it a waiver?  Tell me they don't have...

 

"Release:

I hereby release, remise and forever discharge from any claims and liabilities whatsoever without limitations that I might have against FREE FIRE ZONE Ltd. and the owners of the property on which the game is being played."

 

It's never not funny that people actually waste their time writing that, or making you read or "agree" to it. 🙄

 

Like a certain large game event that only happens a few times a year with a group of a few hundred people including an essay regarding that? 🙄

Edited January 6, 2022 by GiantKiwi

[Rogerborg]

5 hours ago, GiantKiwi said:

Like a certain large game event that only happens a few times a year with a group of a few hundred people including an essay regarding that? 🙄

 

I'm not sure to what that refers.

 

I do like the parts of their "waiver" that spell out the expectations on the player, that's useful.

 

What makes me chuckle is the bluff that you can waive your statutory right to sue a business over death or injury resulting from their negligence, which is explicitly voided by UCTA 1977 S2 (and equivalent Scotch legislation).  It's bad faith to even try and wiggle out of it.

 

[Shakes fist, yells at cloud]

[JamesAirsofterAgent]

On 05/01/2022 at 21:03, Rogerborg said:

 

But also: "1. The game is physically and mentally intense and may require extreme exertion to play."

 

But no running.  Do they make you do push-ups before respawning?

 

Why do they call it a waiver?  Tell me they don't have...

 

"Release:

I hereby release, remise and forever discharge from any claims and liabilities whatsoever without limitations that I might have against FREE FIRE ZONE Ltd. and the owners of the property on which the game is being played."

 

It's never not funny that people actually waste their time writing that, or making you read or "agree" to it. 🙄

Is this the same for all airsoft sites that make you sign a waiver before a game? It doesn't actually do anything?

[Tommikka]

9 minutes ago, JamesAirsofterAgent said:

Is this the same for all airsoft sites that make you sign a waiver before a game? It doesn't actually do anything?

A badly written waiver is worthless - for example - “Wing and a prayer enterprises are not liable for killing customers and don’t have to consider basic safety such as the bottomless pit”

 

But a properly written waiver is valid such as “Safety conscious enterprises are not responsible for you ripping off all your gear and going full Rambo”

 

 

Rather than the deceptive short name of ‘waiver’ the document is an agreement between the business and the customer that they both understand what is supposed to happen and both will fulfill their respective responsibilities 

[Rogerborg]

4 hours ago, JamesAirsofterAgent said:

Is this the same for all airsoft sites that make you sign a waiver before a game? It doesn't actually do anything?

 

To expand on what @Tommikkasaid, what I think[*] sites should be doing is explaining:

 

1) What to expect. We often see this in the form of "physical exertion" or similar.

2) What duties of care they think the players owe to ourselves and to each other, like wearing eye protection, calling hits and raising a hand, removing mags/clearing guns, and responding to "Man down / cease fire" calls.

3) Setting out the duties of care they think that the site owes to the player.

 

I've yet to see a site really do the 3rd one, and far too many sites seem to think that they can use a waiver to avoid any responsibility with a clause about agreeing not to sue them, for anything, under any circumstances, even when they are negligent with respect to a duty of care.

 

That's specifically prohibited in law, as referenced above and quoted below.  Absolutely in the case of death or personal injury, and with a reasonableness test for loss or damage - for example, if a marshal rageflips and smashes your gun against a tree, they can't then say "Cry harder, you agreed you can't sue us for anything."  We explicitly cannot waive those rights.

 

Quote

2 Negligence liability.

(1) A person cannot by reference to any contract term or to a notice given to persons generally or to particular persons exclude or restrict his liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.

(2) In the case of other loss or damage, a person cannot so exclude or restrict his liability for negligence except in so far as the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

 

 

 

[*] Disclaimer/waiver!  This is based on a couple of days of H&S liability avoidance training several decades ago, this advice comes without warranty, including fitness for any purpose.  

[Tommikka]

I did mean to put up a link as well, but neglected that

https://www.lawdepot.co.uk/law-library/faq/release-or-waiver-agreement-faq-united-kingdom/#.YicXyWSnwWO

 

A ‘waiver’ is legally enforceable - as long as it’s found to be valid in court.  e.g. a well written waiver protects both the site & players, and will stand appropriately in court to prevent or support a case

A less well written ‘waiver’ can be found to be enforceable but parts of it might turn out to not mean what the author thought or certain elements are disregarded 

A badly written ‘waiver’ is just ripped apart in court and has no value at all - the site could end up liable for anything that a player chooses to sue for 

 

 

Note that ‘waivers’ can work in many directions - player A could sue player B, however it may also be that player A sues the site for the consequences of player B and the site has to go after player B afterwards *
 

Will courts always enforce an activity waiver and release?

Generally courts will respect the waiver agreement reached between the parties however in some circumstances a court may be unwilling to enforce a waiver agreement. This is especially the case in situations where they find:

the agreement conflicts with public policy (i.e. parties performing essential services to the public are expected to fulfill their obligations to the public and cannot waive liability by using a release)

the releasee's conduct amounts to gross negligence (i.e. the releasee cannot waive liability for conduct that rises to the level of gross negligence)

the release contains ambiguous language (i.e. the document does not clearly and explicitly communicate the intention of terminating the releasee’s liability)

the releasor is not aware of the release and cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of it (i.e. the waiver clause in the document appears in such a way that it is unlikely to be read by the releasor)

the releasor lacks the capacity to contract away his or her--or another person's-claims (i.e. if the releasor is a minor or the releasor is lacking the mental capacity needed to sign the document)

 

* after a motorcycle accident many years ago my solicitor turned to my passenger and told her that he is listing her damages to the van driver, but unless their insurance just pays out then she would have get another solicitor to sue me for me to sue the van driver

After continually ignoring my solicitor they pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and then the insurance paid out fully —- and it was a much higher bill due to all the repeated solicitor letters - happily I wasn’t paying along the way, and he just kept telling me to not worry about the bill rocking up as the case was solid

[Rogerborg]

2 hours ago, Tommikka said:

the releasee's conduct amounts to gross negligence (i.e. the releasee cannot waive liability for conduct that rises to the level of gross negligence)

 

I'd stress that as being the significant part, and I'd question where "gross" is coming from, since it doesn't appear in the statute and a brief (tee hee) search of https://www.bailii.org/ didn't turn up anything relevant for UTCA 1977 S2 and "gross negligence".

 

The way I view it is that if there's blame there's always a claim.  If there isn't blame (negligence), then it's a moot issue as there's nothing to waive.  Rather a reductive issue.