We have staff who organise charity events. I have been asked about health & safety regarding challenge events such as the 3 peaks walk. I believe that as the fundraising is for the company charity and organised by employees for other employees that health & safety must be properly considered.
Has anyone else had to deal with this type of request and/or could refer me to appropriate guidance?

I tend to agree with Ray. Also, the organisation arranging the event will generally have H&S procedures in place, and entrants often (but not always) have a H&S briefing of some sort prior to the event commencing.

It ain't whta you do it's the way that you do it!

I think it matters little what you call the event it is the degree of control - I'm with Chas on this. Try putting the following cases into any popular online search engine:

Uren v MoD; Member of air forces paralysed after accident at "Family Fun Day"

Reynolds v Strutt & Parker: Employee injured in a cycling accident - not wearing helmet

My view is that both cases illustrate that whether one thinks there is H&S "law" applying there is no doubt that there exists a duty of care to participants in 99% of cases. That can be discharged by hazard/risk identification, assessment and control..!

Phil

Hmm, as I suspected...

Both cases cited earlier are civil law cases and not criminal law. Civil law has a social utility purpose and much different purpose than criminal law. I stand by my earlier posting, you can risk assess if you like, but in the unlikely event something goes wrong a sagacious lawyer will still try find fault, either from a ill conceived RA or the lack of one.

But as safety professionals are we not in the business of ensuring that activities and events take place (and are enjoyed) with minimal or acceptable levels of risk?'

Phil, the above statement is a contradiction, although I think I know what you are trying to convey. The degree of risk is an interesting question. As a rule I do not try to eliminate ALL risks, but to control significant risks. Some risks are acceptable whilst others are tolerable - semantics perhaps.

The problem with citing case law as an example, it is at the extreme end of the business - tantamount to scaremongering. A Duty of Care exists in many walks of life, however it is contextual and must satisfy the criterion as laid down in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2. Case law is really a worst case scenario.

The courts are very sympathetic to personal injuries because it is essentially a no blame process, at least based on those with the deepest pockets will - ie insurance companies. It is my view that as h&s professionals we should encourage people to take part in events and not to be seen meddling in trivial risks which people accept willingly. A heads-up maybe, but nothing too formal unless the activity is particularly risky - like bungee jumping off Canary Wharf Tower!

Hutchinson - If by ‘Three Peaks Walk’, you mean events in which people attempt to walk/trot/run up and down Ben Nevis, Scafell Pike and Snowdon, respectively the highest mountains in Scotland, England and Wales WITHIN 24 hours, I would echo the opposition to such events from people and organisations in mountaineering and fellwalking circles, mainly on safety-related grounds. It’s daft and foolhardy for participants, especially those with limited mountain experience, to negotiate the notably difficult rocky terrain on the way to and from Scafell Pike and often in the dark. Also, participants will be under pressure to complete the event within 24 hours and get their sponsorship money for whatever charity is being supported. Therefore, most will feel compelled to keep moving fast while on the mountains and thus be at greater risk of accidents and injuries, even in the face of adverse weather conditions. I understand that mountain rescue teams (all comprising local volunteers remember!) in the areas involved oppose such events because of the significant number of incidents they have had to deal with involving such participants over the years.

In addition, a significant proportion of the 24 hours involves two journeys by coach/minibus between 1) Glen Nevis in Scotland and either Borrowdale or Wasdale in Cumbria and 2) between Cumbria and usually Pen y Pass in North Wales. In order to enable participants to have as much time as feasible for negotiating the mountains I think it likely that the vehicle drivers will be or feel under pressure to complete the journeys as fast as possible. This could include going unduly fast on motorways and also on prolonged bendy stretches of roads, e.g. in Borrowdale. In addition, such events are highly inconsiderate to the people who live at Seathwaite or Wasdale in Cumbria because of the disturbance caused by groups of participants passing their farms and houses during the night.

Therefore, if any forum user is asked about a Three Peaks challenge event, please ask if it involves the above named mountains within a time limit of 24 hours. If the answer is yes, please then advise strongly against it for the above reasons. Also, please don’t sponsor anyone who seeks sponsorship for such a stupid event. Even though you might offend the aspiring participant, your refusal with reasons might make them and perhaps others think a bit more about the factors involved.

p.s. Note that the mountains of Penyghent, Whernside and Ingleborough in North Yorkshire are also known as ‘The Three Peaks’ and sometimes used for walking competitions and sponsorship events. For various reasons, including the fact that such events can be completed well within daylight hours, I’ve no problem with competently organised events involving the Yorkshire Three Peaks.

From the North East Hiil Running Association's "Hill Running Safety Rules & Assessment":

1. COMPETITORS must be aware of possible weather conditions ranging from; the very hot to the very cold and good visibility to poor visibility.
2. COMPETITORS should be aware of their level of fitness and only take part if fit enough to do so. Inexperienced runners should reconnoitre the route before race day. They may alternatively decide to run in partnership with a more experienced partner having sufficient skills to navigate in unfamiliar terrain.
3. COMPETITORS should be aware of the ground conditions and have developed in training runs appropriate skills to traverse hilly, moorland and forest terrain. For example muddy uphill or down hills, scree slopes, rocky ground, deep heather or low heather moors, stream crossings, boggy ground or other wet terrain, dense vegetation such as bracken or bramble, grassy slopes, ground covered in ice, snow or frost, rutted and flooded ground.
4. COMPETITORS must be aware of weather conditions such as snow, frost, ice, rain, hail, mist, hot sun, wind, gales and how to combat these with appropriate clothing and footwear. For example in severe cold full body cover that is windproof must be worn. In sunny conditions a sun blocker should be applied to exposed skin.
5. COMPETITORS must carry a map and compass unless they are very familiar with the competition area, in which case the organiser may make an exception. The route description must be studied carefully and any changes on the day given due consideration as part of preparing for the event.
6. COMPETITORS must take great care at road crossings. They are unusual in N.E.H.R.A events but do occur from time to time. Equally when the path/route goes near a cliff edge then it is up to competitors to exercise great care and not traverse too close to the edge particularly in high winds and stormy or icy conditions.
7. COMPETITORS must rehydrate through the intake of fluids wherever necessary. It is not advisable to run for long periods if you are becoming dehydrated.
8. COMPETITORS must be aware of the unique features of different areas. For example pay attention to notices and features such as pits, old mine works, ongoing forestry work, other events using the area such as rally cars, motorbikes, mountain bikes, horses, hang gliders, gliders, hunts and so on.

I think it's interesting that the info posted by farmsafety appears to place the responsibility on the competitor with no reference to what actions the organisor should undertake (i.e. supply of information, marshals, first aid, etc). I'm hoping that this is just the info aimed at those taking part and that there's an assessment section for the organisor.

In terms of whether it's a work event or social event if my memory serves me right any activity that is organised using work email is considered to be a work activity. This is more of an HR area but I'm certain that there have been cases where things have gone wrong in a works 'do' that have ended up in tribuneral because of the use of works email. Maybe one for the legal beagles out there to confirm.

In view of my strong opinions at #11 about challenge events involving the national "Three Peaks" I was intrigued last summer to see a regional press article with a heading along the lines of "secondary pupils conquer British Three Peaks for charity". However, it was pleasing to read from the article that the school group involved took three days 3 days, i.e. one day per peak, thus virtually eliminating all the problems and risks associated with the time pressure and speed elements of trying to do all three peaks within 24 hours. Furthermore, the teachers and pupils involved had commendably had a programme of training walks during the months beforehand in order to improve and test their fitness and ability to cope with different weather conditions, etc.

Another thought in relation to national Three Peak challenges which ascend Snowdon from Pen y Pass is that participants have a considerable and perhaps unfair advantage through starting at an altitude which is a third of Snowdon's height!