![]() |
|
2003-06-11, 01:23
|
#3 |
|
攀岩癌症患者
註冊日期: 2004-02
文章: 551
![]() |
攀岩與法律
The following webpage offers some easy stuff to those who are interested in the US cases/laws related to outdoor activities: http://www.lawquarterly.com/. But please note that the US legal system is in general based on \"common law\", whose doctrines and operation are very different from the so-called \"statute law\" upon which Taiwan\'s legal system is strictly followed (perhaps some civil codes - \"ming fa\" - are exceptions?).
Such difference notwithstanding, I entirely agree with \"upstairs\", that Taiwan\'s climbing community should begin to pay adequate attention to legal isues involved in coaching, guiding, and other related liability issues. It\'s about the right time to do this. This US system is therefore a good reference to begin with. I still cannot type Chinese onto this website. I have heard that OS X would solve this problem (I am using Mac, OS 9), so, please be understood that I am not writing English just to show off. Ta-chi [img]images/forum/smilies/icon_wink.gif[/img] |
|
2003-06-11, 01:23
|
#4 | |||
|
週末攀岩者
註冊日期: 2003-05
文章: 45
![]() |
攀岩與法律
Greate to heard this, hope to see your chinese message. xie-pei[addsig]
__________________
//---------------------------------------------- 事後諸葛亮, 事前豬一樣。 大家都一樣! 叫我 DebugGuy! //---------------------------------------------- |
|||
|
2003-06-11, 01:23
|
#5 | |||
|
攀岩癌症患者
註冊日期: 2004-02
文章: 551
![]() |
攀岩與法律
以上情形,民法第一百九十一條之三有\"危險製造人責任\"之相關規定: 經營一定事業或從事其他工作或活動之人,其工作或活動之性質或其使用之工具或方法有生損害於他人之危險者,對他人之損害應負賠償責任。但損害非由於其工作或活動或其使用之工具或方法所致,或於防止損害之發生已盡相當之注意者,不在此限。 由條文規定可知,危險製造人對於其活動或工作有一定之注意義務,以免造成他人損害.然而一味的只要求危險製造人負責,也是有失公允的,於是乎有但書的規定,使其可以免責;不過是否符合但書規定的\"已盡相當注意\",則可能需要一些證據,例如當時勸阻其不要再往上爬,是否有相關證人等等,這些都是非常重要的 [img]images/forum/smilies/icon_smile.gif[/img] |
|||
|
2003-06-11, 01:23
|
#6 |
|
輕度攀岩者
註冊日期: 2003-05
文章: 77
![]() |
攀岩與法律
Here in the US, participants of climbing (guiding, training, indoor or outdoor) will always be asked to sign a \"Waiver.\" (for those under 18, the parents must sign; it is a piece of paper signed by each and every individual) It basically states that the participants agree to observe the rules and instructions and acknowledge that there is \"inherent danger\" involved in climbing activity. The question is whether or not this \"waiver\" would serve in Taiwan to hedge a climber (especially a not-paid trainer) or a non-profit organization against injury-related legal responsibility?
In practice, most personnel in both commercialized or non-profit climbing activities will demand anyone violating the rules or any safety considerations to leave. This is done even without reinbursement if that activity is paid. For example, I have witnessed in an indoor gym here in Madison, one guy was using a Gri-Gri to belay but he did not hold his \"baking hand\" -- a common habit of Gri Gri users -- and the result was that he was expelled out of the gym after the personnel told him to do so (holding the rope with the braking hand) but he still failed to follow this rule. |
|
2003-06-11, 01:23
|
#7 |
|
輕度攀岩者
註冊日期: 2003-05
文章: 77
![]() |
攀岩與法律
The following question from the previous case is whether or not such a \"demand of leave\" once issued by responsible personnel would serve in Taiwan as a cutoff between the incumbents and the participants in terms of legality? In the US, it is.
I think one of the reasons for this is that in the US, the concept of \"property rights\" is a well established doctrine. If I ask you to leave becuase you have violated the rules set forth by the \"contract,\" (a form of jointly owned property rights -- that is, by your signing the \"waiver\"), then it becomes your burden/responsibility if anything happens to you due to the fact that you have already disclaimed your property rights by breaching the contract. This is just my interpretation, and it can be wrong. But does Taiwan\'s legal system have the similar doctrine like this such that we can prusue in order to have both sides (incumbents and participants) to become more aware of each other\'s responsibility and legal limits? |
|