Damage to cars at shoots

Help Support :

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Rosso

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
2,041
Location
Rossoville Ashford Middx
Read in Bollox post about damage to cars at shooting grounds.

My mate recently had his Audi Q5 damaged at a very well known clay shoot.

Full clay hit it right in middle of roof, causing shattering damage and scratches over roof.

He was told his was the only car damaged. But we later found out other cars were damaged at the same shoot.

Disclaimer was quoted, gist of it :- vehicle left at own risk.

Just wondered how common this is.

 
Shoot trap. Clay goes away from cars. Job done :)

 
They say there was. Prob is now. May be some where. I never saw any but they insist there is / are disclaimers.

It's between him and them not much I can do. He is more than capable of having a row.

Different shoot I was up on a tower shooting down got hit with a complete clay from another stand hard in right shoulder, good job I'm a lefty or gun would have been smashed. Who would have paid for that.

 
Edit previous post

Clay also goes away from people.

On a serious note does anyone ever carry out a risk assessment at these sporting shoots. Tell your friend to ask them to produce there RAMS.

shooting grounds presumably are businesses and therefore have a duty of care to there staff there customers and general public and one would assume customers property. Having a sign up may not cut it these days.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Or park further away......... The number of times i see people (in 4x4's)  trying to park in the stands as they can't be arsed to walk 50 yards...

One shoot its like a competition to see who can get closest tot he top of the bank..... I park at the bottom.....

 
He's doing all that. Part of his day job.

What annoys me is that we already moved the car once as clays were dropping near it.

Then it got damaged anyway.

Whole roof has to be repainted.

He's not going back.

Kind of thinking how would I like it if it was my car.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Or park further away......... The number of times i see people (in 4x4's)  trying to park in the stands as they can't be arsed to walk 50 yards...

One shoot its like a competition to see who can get closest tot he top of the bank..... I park at the bottom.....
This shoot host big comps and we always park where we're supposed to as we did this time.

Cannot park anywhere else.

 
Rosso,

My "day job" is paintwork on cars for a very high end manufacturer and i also run a paintwork detailing business of my own. Before your friend goes and gets his roof painted get someone who knows what there doing to take a look and see if the scratches can be polished out using a machine polisher and various grades of sanding paper and compound polishes.

You would be surprised at the depth of some of the paintwork damage that can be saved without the need for spraying. 

Certainly worth investigating prior to forking out for paintwork. Below is an example of some scratches i recently did on a Black Land Cruiser for a customer.

The Damage

post-1124-0-55512000-1419951901.jpg


post-1124-0-29188800-1419951902.jpg


Sanded prior to Polishing

post-1124-0-66874500-1419951903.jpg


Polished Panel prior to clean up and wax

post-1124-0-07653700-1419951903.jpg


 

Attachments

  • LH Qtr Scratch.jpg
    LH Qtr Scratch.jpg
    81.1 KB · Views: 0
  • LHF Door Scratch.jpg
    LHF Door Scratch.jpg
    83.1 KB · Views: 0
  • Scratches Polished.jpg
    Scratches Polished.jpg
    197.8 KB · Views: 0
  • Scratches Sanded.jpg
    Scratches Sanded.jpg
    119.7 KB · Views: 0
Were there signs up stating cars left at owners risk etc.
why would that matter? if I put a sign up saying I'm going to shove both barrels up someones backside and pull the trigger would it make it ok? it's to do with "foreseeable risk" severity V's Likelihood cars parked in car park, clays being thrown in a direction towards a car park in unpredictable wind I would say should be seen as it's quite likely a car would be hit!

 
why would that matter? if I put a sign up saying I'm going to shove both barrels up someones backside and pull the trigger would it make it ok? it's to do with "foreseeable risk" severity V's Likelihood cars parked in car park, clays being thrown in a direction towards a car park in unpredictable wind I would say should be seen as it's quite likely a car would be hit!
Exactly evoracer.

You cannot protect yourself from poor risk assessment just by putting a sign up. If that were the case none of us would bother assessing risk we would just have a sign pack instead of a HS pack.

 
Exactly evoracer.

You cannot protect yourself from poor risk assessment just by putting a sign up. If that were the case none of us would bother assessing risk we would just have a sign pack instead of a HS pack.
trust me some days I wish we didn't have to write RA/MS my life would be far easier! but I suppose they've paid my bills for a few years now!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
why would that matter? if I put a sign up saying I'm going to shove both barrels up someones backside and pull the trigger would it make it ok? it's to do with "foreseeable risk" severity V's Likelihood cars parked in car park, clays being thrown in a direction towards a car park in unpredictable wind I would say should be seen as it's quite likely a car would be hit!

Exactly evoracer.
You cannot protect yourself from poor risk assessment just by putting a sign up. If that were the case none of us would bother assessing risk we would just have a sign pack instead of a HS pack.
This is what I meant on the other thread. They can disclaim against other people not connected with the establishment causing damage but if their staff are negligent in what they are doing and cause damage then no matter what their signs say they are culpable and therefore liable.

This would also go for the course setter. If his setting of the traps that released the offending clay was negligent, ie he never considered the risk either at all or to a sufficient degree as befits his experience in doing the job, then the company/business/owner is/are liable.

The crux here is "negligence" and will be the hard bit to prove. You are part way there if you can show that more than one person/vehicle was affected. This shows it was not a freak accident and that something was amiss. Be prepared for the "weather/freak gusts" defence.

Good luck with it. Cost may not be the driving factor here - may make them think in future and stop this happening again - it may be your car next!!

Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk


 
This is what I meant on the other thread. They can disclaim against other people not connected with the establishment causing damage but if their staff are negligent in what they are doing and cause damage then no matter what their signs say they are culpable and therefore liable. This would also go for the course setter. If his setting of the traps that released the offending clay was negligent, ie he never considered the risk either at all or to a sufficient degree as befits his experience in doing the job, then the company/business/owner is/are liable. The crux here is "negligence" and will be the hard bit to prove. You are part way there if you can show that more than one person/vehicle was affected. This shows it was not a freak accident and that something was amiss. Be prepared for the "weather/freak gusts" defence. Good luck with it. Cost may not be the driving factor here - may make them think in future and stop this happening again - it may be your car next!! Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk
I agree with what you're saying, but what should we should bear in mind is under the law and I believe if you threw a clay and it smashed someone up the head causing serious injury (for instance) this would come under health and safety law at which point the law is reversed (guilty until you prove your innocence) and it's down to whoever set up the trap to prove it wasn't thrown negligently.

 

 Extent of occupier’s ordinary dutyE+W+N.I.

(1) An occupier of premises owes the same duty, the “common duty of care”, to all his visitors, except in so far as he is free to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor or visitors by agreement or otherwise.

(2) The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.

(3) The circumstances relevant for the present purpose include the degree of care, and of want of care, which would ordinarily be looked for in such a visitor, so that (for example) in proper cases—

    (a)an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults; and

    (b ) an occupier may expect that a person, in the exercise of his calling, will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so.

(4) In determining whether the occupier of premises has discharged the common duty of care to a visitor, regard is to be had to all the circumstances, so that (for example)—

    (a) where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger of which he had been warned by the occupier, the warning is not to be treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe; and

    (b ) where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty execution of any work of construction, maintenance or repair by an independent contractor employed by the occupier, the occupier is not to be treated without more as answerable for the danger if in all the circumstances he had acted reasonably in entrusting the work to an independent contractor and had taken such steps (if any) as he reasonably ought in order to satisfy himself that the contractor was competent and that the work had been properly done.

(5) The common duty of care does not impose on an occupier any obligation to a visitor in respect of risks willingly accepted as his by the visitor (the question whether a risk was so accepted to be decided on the same principles as in other cases in which one person owes a duty of care to another).

(6) For the purposes of this section, persons who enter premises for any purpose in the exercise of a right conferred by law are to be treated as permitted by the occupier to be there for that purpose, whether they in fact have his permission or not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
trust me some days I wish we didn't have to write RA/MS my life would be far easier! but I suppose they've paid my bills for a few years now!
Me too mate, my whole working day seems to revolve around RAMS and permits and HSE regs etc etc etc. I remember the good old days were you turned up on site did a job then beggered off however we must remember that those halcyon days were full of danger such as asbestos etc.

Oops sorry slight digression.

 
It is quite simple.

A Public Liability is a policy of provable negligence. As an underwriter of many game and clay shoots this is something I would expect to pick up and pay as a legitimate claim.

Risk assessments should have been carried out beforehand and, unless there was something like freak wind conditions on the day, they were clearly inadequate or not completed.

Disclaimers mean "diddly squat" (not an insurance term). We tend to insist on them but know they will not stand up in court if seriously challenged.

If that was my car I would be sending a letter with repair estimates to the shooting ground and asking them to forward it to their insurers.

 

Latest posts

Back
Top