Hi All, Thanks to those that helped with a recent query, however, I would welcome any input on the following. A freshwater fishing club has been asked to carry out risk assessments by it's insurance company (public liability, etc). Their argument is that they hire lakes and a section of river and the private membership then pay an annual subscription and as they 'see it' they have no employees. The trustees and committee are voted in at the AGM and all are voluntary. How far does their duty of care extend in your opinion?

Hi Gary , my understanding is Would they not owe a common law duty of care to say 3rd parties , what about a environmental impact /pollution / costs of accidents / If they hire out land or occupier what about uninvited visitors , so would they be duty bound under sec 3 or 4 ? Risk assessments given out by HSM system this would then be regardless of employees or not ? As everyone is our neighbour they would owe at common at the very least .I don't think as they " see it " would be very well thought out .

Thanks MB1, No-one is paid, be it committee or members, so technically no-one is an employee. The club has no tangible assets as all waters are leased on a very short term lease (therefore, as 'users' does this put the onus on landowners and lake owners?) They are a responsible club and have installed lifebelts, however, let's be honest... it's a lake with banks in the country! Any thoughts welcome.

The fishing club and its elected managers owe a duty of care under civil law. Civil law does not require risk assessments. You are free to take whatever risks you want so long as you are prepared to take the consequences (liability of being sued should damage occur due to breach of duty). Insurance companies can ask for whatever they like as a term of the contract - provided it does not fall foul of the Unfair Contracts legislations. If they say the club members all have to wear blue waistecoats so be it. It is for the club to decide if the request is unreasonable to them and look for cover elsewhere, or not.

Is this not covered with section 4 for persons in control of premises? Also the civil liability exclusion was revoked due to being challenged by Europe so you can be sued for failure to undertake a suitable and sufficient assessment or did I dream that one?

Would the club not be classed as occupiers under Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 Occupiers Liability Act 1984 is this the reason for the requested RA

Thanks Sevel and Stevedm! Stevel, I'll get them to have a look into those Act's, in terms of whether they are occupiers? As far as I can ascertain, they lease the fishing rights only, therefore the local shoot for example could also be on the land, farm workers, public walking footpaths. Certainly an area to look into. Stevedm, again, many thanks, I'll ask them to check any terms within their fishing rights lease. Obviously as you state, BHF, Cancer Research staff (and there are others) that work (albeit voluntarily) do fall under the reg's in terms of a safe place to work, etc. as they are deemed 'employees', but I don't think you can really compare the two? I'm not saying they are low risk at all, anything that involves water, uneven banks, mud, snow, ice, etc. will involve potentially a high risk. Given that some of their members also fish overnight, will indulge in a can or ten of alcohol, the risk could be massive and the consquences fatal....but.... Risk aside, it is more a duty of care issue they are seeking. Thanks for all your help so far.