Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:32 am
Wingnut, there are differences even in the law of torts (civil law) apart from any criminal laws or administrative laws and this is why our club had a legal firm write our waivers as a condition of entry. However, you cannot contract out of negligence or a duty of care.
Any signage must be conspicuous, no contract can be unconscionable or If damage was foreseeable, and you owe a duty of care, and if damage occurred you are in deep poo. The question in law is, if you did not know, but should you have ought to have known? In other words, the law of negligence covers not only an act but an omission or failure to act when you should have.
Sports like the AFL have changed their concussion rules for this very reason to mitigate against legal action. Good sense prevails because prevention is better than the cure and their Workcover premiums are reduced. All football clubs I was associated with had insurance for the players. They rely on insurance to pay that liability. The liability exists, it does not go away. Medical evidence is overwhelming these days and directors ought toknow now.
Consenting players maybe bluffed out of their rights when things go wrong when somebody says, "But you signed up to it". That means jack shit in a case of negligence because you can't contract out of it and if you turn a blind eye and things go wrong its more trouble. It is easier to have conditions of entry to a venue that may offer some mitigation. Consent may be deemed to demonstrate a mitigation and so remedy maybe reduced because they consented to the rules of the sport but it does not remove penalty altogether for wrong doing. These sports have strict rules to minimise risk when EVERYONE participating consents to do it. Not everyone in a rifle club consents to excessive noise.
Let's take this further, under consumer law, the ultimate consumer has full protection and the case that linked that to negligence was Grant v Australian Knitting Mills where a bloke got a rash and dermatitis from his undies yet everyone else did not suffer like him from buying the same undies. So many things these days go through an approval process based on medical research. Would people who worked in an asbestos mine give consent today when today's facts reveal detriment to health which was denied for years like smoking? Fee paying members and visitors are eligible for protection just like protection from smoke drift or excessive noise. People playing these sports maybe aware of the danger just like a jockey etc or a racing car driver where they ALL contract to participate in the sport like a smoker's corner. The majority don't use muzzle brakes. On a rifle range not all people expect to have their ears damaged by a few. It is not the norm. It is the tail wagging the dog! Our law protects many people from themselves. Its illegal to surf trains because most understand the risk. Excessive noise from muzzle brakes is the thin edge of the wedge and is a marketing tool and not a performance one and it can do damage from exposure. Are the majority now expected to wear fire-proof suits, because basic earmuffs are insufficient and conversation behind the firing point is now interrupted which is part of the enjoyment of the day for many.
Heaven help some official that goes outside the club rules or and damage occurs and there is no insurance. That occurs from slack work practice and lack of supervision. Heard of vicarious liability? That will apply to those responsible for people overseeing work who should have foreseen issues and not ignored them. In Victoria, we now have a case where under the new manslaughter laws, a manger of a trucking business has been charged for the negligent action when one of his drivers (who also broke the criminal law and killed four police by smashing through them with his truck) ignored his responsibility. Can't say that was an accident or act Act of God to get him off the hook although he is contesting the case.
You break our insurance rules for public liability and guess who pays? Not the insurer! Plenty of no win no fee lawyers out there and you can get dragged through the courts. Reality.
The thing about civil law is, judges will follow precedent until the circumstances change when damage results. In other words they can make new law. They are very often persuaded by medical and other expert evidence. It doesn't have to be in statute form. Under the principal of negligence (Rylands v Flecher), you keep anything of danger at your own peril. That outcome was determined by judge made law and was not statute law. If the danger translates to damage that becomes your peril. Mind you, you can go on both civil and criminal wrongs. A lot of the criminal law in statute form is a codification of the civil law. Civil judgements are based on the balance of probabilities and not reasonable doubt in the criminal law. That is the difference when looking at the broad concept of wrongs. Judges have the last say too when when it comes to statutory interpretation either through taking the statute literally or changing the decision if there is an issue identified through the exercise of the golden rule or the mischief rule. The statute law authorizes many a regulator. Regulators have refined many rules so there is little means these days to prove they were acting beyond their power particularly when it comes to environment and protection and noise which has its roots in the tort of nuisance.
One aspect of the tort of nuisance is that it deals with noise when there is an expectation of quiet enjoyment. That expectation does not extend to excessive noise which muzzle brakes bring to a rifle range and not a hunting scenario.
Legislation has watered down limited liability companies so that directors shareholder/members are now subject to penalty as is the case for incorporated rifle clubs. There are many visitors to whom we owe a greater level of care who are ignorant of a rifle range being an inherently dangerous place. So our activities are at our own peril. We also have neighbours to contend with. No man is an island. We may be born free but everywhere we are in chains. Public thinking dominates what we do.
OH&S does apply to workplaces , club members and visitors and particularly when working supervising as Range Officers and scorers not just the shooters where they are exposed to excessive noise. But where does the vicarious liability lie when workers stuff up? Another reality, back with the leaders of the club.
As they say, ignorance is no excuse under the law! People might call this red tape, but it how our society is governed.
Any signage must be conspicuous, no contract can be unconscionable or If damage was foreseeable, and you owe a duty of care, and if damage occurred you are in deep poo. The question in law is, if you did not know, but should you have ought to have known? In other words, the law of negligence covers not only an act but an omission or failure to act when you should have.
Sports like the AFL have changed their concussion rules for this very reason to mitigate against legal action. Good sense prevails because prevention is better than the cure and their Workcover premiums are reduced. All football clubs I was associated with had insurance for the players. They rely on insurance to pay that liability. The liability exists, it does not go away. Medical evidence is overwhelming these days and directors ought toknow now.
Consenting players maybe bluffed out of their rights when things go wrong when somebody says, "But you signed up to it". That means jack shit in a case of negligence because you can't contract out of it and if you turn a blind eye and things go wrong its more trouble. It is easier to have conditions of entry to a venue that may offer some mitigation. Consent may be deemed to demonstrate a mitigation and so remedy maybe reduced because they consented to the rules of the sport but it does not remove penalty altogether for wrong doing. These sports have strict rules to minimise risk when EVERYONE participating consents to do it. Not everyone in a rifle club consents to excessive noise.
Let's take this further, under consumer law, the ultimate consumer has full protection and the case that linked that to negligence was Grant v Australian Knitting Mills where a bloke got a rash and dermatitis from his undies yet everyone else did not suffer like him from buying the same undies. So many things these days go through an approval process based on medical research. Would people who worked in an asbestos mine give consent today when today's facts reveal detriment to health which was denied for years like smoking? Fee paying members and visitors are eligible for protection just like protection from smoke drift or excessive noise. People playing these sports maybe aware of the danger just like a jockey etc or a racing car driver where they ALL contract to participate in the sport like a smoker's corner. The majority don't use muzzle brakes. On a rifle range not all people expect to have their ears damaged by a few. It is not the norm. It is the tail wagging the dog! Our law protects many people from themselves. Its illegal to surf trains because most understand the risk. Excessive noise from muzzle brakes is the thin edge of the wedge and is a marketing tool and not a performance one and it can do damage from exposure. Are the majority now expected to wear fire-proof suits, because basic earmuffs are insufficient and conversation behind the firing point is now interrupted which is part of the enjoyment of the day for many.
Heaven help some official that goes outside the club rules or and damage occurs and there is no insurance. That occurs from slack work practice and lack of supervision. Heard of vicarious liability? That will apply to those responsible for people overseeing work who should have foreseen issues and not ignored them. In Victoria, we now have a case where under the new manslaughter laws, a manger of a trucking business has been charged for the negligent action when one of his drivers (who also broke the criminal law and killed four police by smashing through them with his truck) ignored his responsibility. Can't say that was an accident or act Act of God to get him off the hook although he is contesting the case.
You break our insurance rules for public liability and guess who pays? Not the insurer! Plenty of no win no fee lawyers out there and you can get dragged through the courts. Reality.
The thing about civil law is, judges will follow precedent until the circumstances change when damage results. In other words they can make new law. They are very often persuaded by medical and other expert evidence. It doesn't have to be in statute form. Under the principal of negligence (Rylands v Flecher), you keep anything of danger at your own peril. That outcome was determined by judge made law and was not statute law. If the danger translates to damage that becomes your peril. Mind you, you can go on both civil and criminal wrongs. A lot of the criminal law in statute form is a codification of the civil law. Civil judgements are based on the balance of probabilities and not reasonable doubt in the criminal law. That is the difference when looking at the broad concept of wrongs. Judges have the last say too when when it comes to statutory interpretation either through taking the statute literally or changing the decision if there is an issue identified through the exercise of the golden rule or the mischief rule. The statute law authorizes many a regulator. Regulators have refined many rules so there is little means these days to prove they were acting beyond their power particularly when it comes to environment and protection and noise which has its roots in the tort of nuisance.
One aspect of the tort of nuisance is that it deals with noise when there is an expectation of quiet enjoyment. That expectation does not extend to excessive noise which muzzle brakes bring to a rifle range and not a hunting scenario.
Legislation has watered down limited liability companies so that directors shareholder/members are now subject to penalty as is the case for incorporated rifle clubs. There are many visitors to whom we owe a greater level of care who are ignorant of a rifle range being an inherently dangerous place. So our activities are at our own peril. We also have neighbours to contend with. No man is an island. We may be born free but everywhere we are in chains. Public thinking dominates what we do.
OH&S does apply to workplaces , club members and visitors and particularly when working supervising as Range Officers and scorers not just the shooters where they are exposed to excessive noise. But where does the vicarious liability lie when workers stuff up? Another reality, back with the leaders of the club.
As they say, ignorance is no excuse under the law! People might call this red tape, but it how our society is governed.
, but here's a simpler idea, based on similar principles. Its a rectangular tunnel, positioned such that the brake is right in the middle, with the taper of the box back towards the shooter, which will push most of the blast and noise to the front. Options for the material to construct the box are many. Sound deadening could be used on the inside surfaces. Different dimensions could be tested easily and inexpensively.