If you pinned them down long enough to give you an official ruling on the matter. That's been the problem. We have no idea what your odds are of being found liable for causing people to die of CoViD. Or whether "come to this event at your own risk" is enough to indemnify yourself. I thought the legality of the charity football match played in Sunderland last year might be tested in court, but no. Proving where a person caught CoViD seems to be the obstacle, even if you hold an event and then 100 excess cases occur among attendees.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 4:10 pmOf course you would, my point was that the Government would say that was entirely your own decision
(Chess) Life Returning To Normal
-
- Posts: 1058
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Re: (Chess) Life Returning To Normal
Donate to Sabrina's fundraiser at https://gofund.me/aeae42c7 to support victims of sexual abuse in the chess world.
Northumberland webmaster, Jesmond CC something-or-other. Views mine. Definitely below the Goodall Line.
Northumberland webmaster, Jesmond CC something-or-other. Views mine. Definitely below the Goodall Line.
-
- Posts: 3575
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
- Location: Awbridge, Hampshire
Re: (Chess) Life Returning To Normal
If it doubling every 2 days, it means we can be confident this will all be over in no more than 52 days from whenever that started.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 4:49 pm[Is it part of this doubling assumption that, if 50% of the population have the virus on the Nth day, the other 50% will inevitably catch it on day N+1 ?
-
- Posts: 5262
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
- Location: Millom, Cumbria
Re: (Chess) Life Returning To Normal
Well its already pretty clear its *not* doubling every two days, so.....
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: (Chess) Life Returning To Normal
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it is, and "cases" aren't going up that fast because people don't want to risk having their holidays ruined by getting tested.Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 6:16 pmWell its already pretty clear its *not* doubling every two days, so.....
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 1954
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: (Chess) Life Returning To Normal
Briefly ,as Lawrence has posted in the 4NCL section, Weekend 2 of the 4NCL (January 15th/16th) has been postponed.
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:37 pm
Re: (Chess) Life Returning To Normal
Actually we do know the latter: it isn't. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, section 2. The risk may not be great, but it isn't zero.Chris Goodall wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 5:05 pmWe have no idea what your odds are of being found liable for causing people to die of CoViD. Or whether "come to this event at your own risk" is enough to indemnify yourself.
-
- Posts: 21350
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: (Chess) Life Returning To Normal
The following weekend is the 4NCL Congress in Harrogate. 90 entries so far.Neil Graham wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 6:58 pmBriefly ,as Lawrence has posted in the 4NCL section, Weekend 2 of the 4NCL (January 15th/16th) has been postponed.
Back in July, the Leamington Congress was able to go ahead with restricted numbers despite notionally still being during a period of semi lockdown.
-
- Posts: 1932
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm
Re: (Chess) Life Returning To Normal
Jacques, in that respect, what do you see as the legal difference between organising a chess tournament where someone can be proved to have caught Covid and opening a shop/supermarket where the same thing (and let's here assume the customer buys something so that a contract exists!) happens. Isn't it implicit, if one goes shopping, that one does so at own's own risk? In asking, I'm taking as read that in both cases sensible precautions were taken but, alas, were inadequate in one case.Jacques Parry wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 7:10 pmActually we do know the latter: it isn't. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, section 2. The risk may not be great, but it isn't zero.Chris Goodall wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 5:05 pmWe have no idea what your odds are of being found liable for causing people to die of CoViD. Or whether "come to this event at your own risk" is enough to indemnify yourself.
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:37 pm
Re: (Chess) Life Returning To Normal
If sensible precautions are taken there is no negligence, and therefore no risk of liability for negligence. The risk (in both cases) is of being held liable on the basis that you didn't take sensible precautions. If you are found to have been negligent, you can't wriggle out of it by pointing to something in the small print.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 7:31 pmJacques, in that respect, what do you see as the legal difference between organising a chess tournament where someone can be proved to have caught Covid and opening a shop/supermarket where the same thing (and let's here assume the customer buys something so that a contract exists!) happens. Isn't it implicit, if one goes shopping, that one does so at own's own risk? In asking, I'm taking as read that in both cases sensible precautions were taken but, alas, were inadequate in one case.
-
- Posts: 1058
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Re: (Chess) Life Returning To Normal
If no-one knows what precautions are sensible, is it reasonable to think that a judge would be looking at, for example, whether the advice "you should continue to wear a mask" was in force at the time?Jacques Parry wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 7:38 pmThe risk (in both cases) is of being held liable on the basis that you didn't take sensible precautions. If you are found to have been negligent, you can't wriggle out of it by pointing to something in the small print.
Donate to Sabrina's fundraiser at https://gofund.me/aeae42c7 to support victims of sexual abuse in the chess world.
Northumberland webmaster, Jesmond CC something-or-other. Views mine. Definitely below the Goodall Line.
Northumberland webmaster, Jesmond CC something-or-other. Views mine. Definitely below the Goodall Line.
-
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:18 pm
Re: (Chess) Life Returning To Normal
Are there any actual cases anywhere (in the UK) where this has come up so far? This is not at all unique to chess tournaments and, if it is going to happen, I imagine someone suing semi-broke chess organisers is not going to be the first example.Chris Goodall wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 8:12 pmIf no-one knows what precautions are sensible, is it reasonable to think that a judge would be looking at, for example, whether the advice "you should continue to wear a mask" was in force at the time?Jacques Parry wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 7:38 pmThe risk (in both cases) is of being held liable on the basis that you didn't take sensible precautions. If you are found to have been negligent, you can't wriggle out of it by pointing to something in the small print.
-
- Posts: 1932
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm
Re: (Chess) Life Returning To Normal
Yes, the point I was trying to make (and Jacques has kindly confirmed this) was that chess organisers were far from being in a unique position and, as far as I could see, were in a similar situation to (for example) the manager of a high street shop. I think I'd just differ from Jacques slightly in considering it's a tort issue rather than a question of contract law - although that wouldn't make me feel any happier if I were the person being sued.Joseph Conlon wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:53 pmAre there any actual cases anywhere (in the UK) where this has come up so far? This is not at all unique to chess tournaments and, if it is going to happen, I imagine someone suing semi-broke chess organisers is not going to be the first example.Chris Goodall wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 8:12 pmIf no-one knows what precautions are sensible, is it reasonable to think that a judge would be looking at, for example, whether the advice "you should continue to wear a mask" was in force at the time?Jacques Parry wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 7:38 pmThe risk (in both cases) is of being held liable on the basis that you didn't take sensible precautions. If you are found to have been negligent, you can't wriggle out of it by pointing to something in the small print.
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: (Chess) Life Returning To Normal
Nail on head. The idea is of course completely stupid.Joseph Conlon wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:53 pmAre there any actual cases anywhere (in the UK) where this has come up so far? This is not at all unique to chess tournaments and, if it is going to happen, I imagine someone suing semi-broke chess organisers is not going to be the first example.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:55 pm
- Location: Holmfirth
Re: (Chess) Life Returning To Normal
We are at the mercy of the Government of the day. Irrespective of the party, they have a habit of throwing people the the wolves (lawyers). I think that proof of liability is very difficult, when considering transport, work and any social contact prior to a chess event. There is also the principle of individual responsibility, which can be made explicit within the T&C of events.
Tomorrow I will be at my local club adult session and introduce my son (a junior) to the adults for the first time, with enormous pride. I cannot control those unknowingly with COVID there but kids need to socialise. Lockdown was horrendous for them and COVID had minimal impacts on all of my 3. Social restrictions did not have minor implications however.
Tomorrow I will be at my local club adult session and introduce my son (a junior) to the adults for the first time, with enormous pride. I cannot control those unknowingly with COVID there but kids need to socialise. Lockdown was horrendous for them and COVID had minimal impacts on all of my 3. Social restrictions did not have minor implications however.
HDCA President
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:37 pm
Re: (Chess) Life Returning To Normal
I'm sure it would be highly relevant whether government guidance was observed, yes. That includes guidance (if there is any) about whether such events should take place at all.Chris Goodall wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 8:12 pmIf no-one knows what precautions are sensible, is it reasonable to think that a judge would be looking at, for example, whether the advice "you should continue to wear a mask" was in force at the time?
I didn't say whether the basis of liability would be tortious or contractual: liability for negligence could be either. But I don't believe it affects the position either way.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 11:41 pmYes, the point I was trying to make (and Jacques has kindly confirmed this) was that chess organisers were far from being in a unique position and, as far as I could see, were in a similar situation to (for example) the manager of a high street shop. I think I'd just differ from Jacques slightly in considering it's a tort issue rather than a question of contract law - although that wouldn't make me feel any happier if I were the person being sued.
I agree that chess organisers are unlikely to be sued, and even less likely to be successfully sued. But they shouldn't suppose that saying "come at your own risk" eliminates the possibility.