Lyme Bay and Tort Law - Case Study Example

Lyme Bay and Tort Law The paper deals with the discussion of the role a public plays in the consideration of corporate manslaughter. The resonance case of the Lyme Bay is considered further on with regards to the influence of public organizations and legal regulations in the field of tort law. Moreover, the issues of public safety and children’s health preservation are taken into account in terms of these regulations after 90s till nowadays. With respect to the role public concerns play in the modern context of outdoor businesses, recent developments in the UK legal system are correlated with tort law principles and regulations. Thesis statement: The Lyme Bay disaster is an exceptional case because it shows that tort law can act as an effective deterrent. With respect to public, civil and tort law aspect and civil rights of the members of the UK society, further on we will consider a great involvement and a role, which can be oerformed by public at the governmental and local levels. Introduction The case of teenager deaths of canoeing in the Lyme Bay in March 1993 should be considered in the context of tort law. There are different aspects of the case, which should not have occurred at all. The canoeing activity should have been reconsidered under stricter regulations. St. Albans Centre lacked of a proper supervision of canoeing activity. Therefore, the individual from the company was accused of four teenagers’ deaths. The involvement and mutual cooperation of parental, educational, health and social organizations resulted in legal regulations changes in the field of outdoors businesses. Background of the case study On March 22nd 1993 the canoeing party was organized by teachers and pupils and they were under supervision of two instructors from the St Albans Centre. They were intended to reach Lyme Regis by lunchtime. The raft was far away from teachers and students and they were protected by life jackets. Only at 18:40 the rest of party members were rescued by helicopter1. Consequently, this case is an appeal for the publicity to better regulate safety of outdoor activities for pupils. The coastguard was accused of oversight of their rescue activities and there was a need to better develop rescue operations on the coast. The main emphasis is made on outdoor education, which has been provided by the charitable organizations and authorities. Tort law implications In terms of tort law there are different prospects on this study. On the one hand, participants of Lyme Bay accident were under protected. On the other hand, their deeds and actions were neglected by the employees, who were not informed on time. Thus, in order to give an unprejudiced evaluation of the situation, it is relevant to focus on safety standards of recreation regulations of 90s. The ACAC Code of Practice is one of the most essential steps in the area of recreational sphere protection. Both the implications of statutory regulations and self-regulations were much concerned2. There was a need for an effective research and survey in the field of health and safety protection in the area of recreation activities. The role of public was essential, because people had a chance to have an access to required information about the relevant inspections. Lyme Bay accident was a starting point for considerations taken by the Departments for Education (DFE) about safety and protection of teachers and pupils at schools3. Explicit regulations at the governmental level taken by the government are also considered to be safety and protection laws determinants for further implementation at the local level. Moreover, it was found out that it is relevant to "place Education Authorities across the country in an invidious and untenable position" and there is a need for existence of monitoring organizations recording serious violations of activity centers4. Otherwise the public concerns of parents would be dubious with respect to pupils’ safety at school. The role of public concern and its explication in the tort law led to positive changes in the regulations of public safety of recreation activities. For example, parents of those teenagers, who died in the Lyme Bay accident appealed for the development of statutory regulation. They were looking for help and support in MPs and Secretary of State for Education John Patten5. A great role and assistance was played by the national press. The governmental oversight of holiday centers resulted in deaths of four teenagers. Therefore, the parents of thousands of pupils were afraid of under protection of their children. There was a long-lasting reaction of the government, which concluded that there was no need for statutory regulations. It was more concerned on the development of two year inspection programme, safety guidance issuing and statutory regulation was unnecessary, in accordance with the governmental claims6. The activity centres were much concerned about self-regulations. Such measures as supervision, authoritative control and intervention were necessary. Of course, such incongruence between the self-regulations of the centres and the absence of the necessity to provide statutory regulations were strictly criticized by the publicity. A great involvement of different public organizations, such as the Association of County Councils, the National Union of Teachers, The Townswomans Guild and many others were claiming children required a greater level of care then the rest of the society. In accordance with the statistics, recreational centers needed improvements, but in the least part of the cases. Tourist Boards proved that they needed set rules of regulations. Changes in regulation of outdoor businesses The statutory regulations and accreditation of centers was not a guarantee of the fact that the accident in Lyme Bay would never occur. There is a certain degree of risks in the recreational sector. When young people are engaged in such kind of activities, there is an evident degree of risk and this fact cannot be denied. Still, it is relevant to take necessary measures at different levels. Parents, schools and organizations should take care of pupils’ protection in active recreation occupations7. Tort law in the context of the Lyme Bay was the basis for licensing principles development. The safety standards of certain activities resulted in the developed Regulations in March 1996. A new authority, also known as the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority, occurred. It was operating under the guidance of the HSC. Every member of the community could become an inspector within this organization. The government officials and outdoor inspectors were connected in terms of this organization. Different ethical implications and different structures and principles were included in the principles and regulations of the Licensing. The implementation of different principles and regulations could be interpreted as different principles of guidance and it was necessary. Starting from 90s public organizations appealed for a change in Regulations. There was a need not for a limited nature of regulations, but for the development of a multi-sided statutory safety inspection scheme. In 1999 the Schools Minister, Jacqui Smith underlined that "in order to provide an assurance that pupils can take part in adventure activities safely." The financial burden is often unbearable for recreational activity providers. The best outcome of the Regulations development can be summarized as the reduction of life-risk levels for pupils engaged in active rest activities. We can summarize these decisions as a positive reaction at the governmental level to the development of public activities, outlined in the civil law as the one of the most relevant rights of the civilians. Manslaughter in corporations The employees at the Lyme Bay informed the managing director about the unsafely practices, which may result in children’s deaths. This means that prosecution of individual’s within the large corporations were better developed after the Lyme Bay tragedy. In November 1994 Peter Kite, the Managing Director of OLL was accused of manslaughter and was sentenced for three years of imprisonment. The fine was 60,000 pounds sterling8. The series of circumstances, a great degree of oversight of instructors resulted in deaths of four teenagers. The parent company and the manager were accused of oversight and violation of safety principles. This case was the first kind of such cases in the UK. The discussions of self-regulations of the outdoor activities were promoted by the UK government after this resonance case. The Activity Centers Acts were acclaimed in 1995 by the AALA. The integrative cooperation between Health and Safety departments and Educational and Employment departments resulted in multi-sided aspects of self-regulation practices. Further development of legislation resulted in the Act (The Adventure Activities (Licensing) Designation order 1996 (SI 1996/771) underlines that Tourism Statutes Ltd are responsible for holidays licensing legislation. Pros and cons of changes in regulations It was considered to be a legal violation, in case holiday organization provides adventure holidays for money with no license. There is a need to implement tort law regulations in sports activities or any other activities, which may be harmful for human health and even lead to deaths. There are the following drawbacks of the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority (AALA). Not all school trips are covered in terms of these regulations. The most of different activities of voluntary organizations are not taken into account in terms of these regulations. Moreover, it should be noted that there are many other outdoor activities, which are not covered by regulations9. A perfect metaphor was found in the online article, which named the Act of Parliament a ‘sledgehammer to crack a nut’. Sports activities are not properly conducted in terms of regulations and acts.10 There is an influence of AALA, which cannot be denied for sure. Safety of outdoors in Britain is assured in terms of regulations of this organization. It should be also noted that the Lyme Bay case is a perfect example of studying fatalities and involving different aspects of key lessons of safety of outdoor activities. Public reactions exert influence on the decisions made by the legal authorities, which provide a strong basis for tort law implementation. There are the following recommendations and regulations of the AALA. There is a need to advance the culture of overprotection and underline the necessity of safety, administration and risk assessments. It is relevant to take into account educational aspects of safety regulations. There are many opponents of AALA regulations, who consider these aspects as too severe and tight ones. Greenaway (1998) outlined that “If we simply rely on providing new experiences and following learning cycles or processing sequences, we may be doing very little to enhance the quality and effectiveness of courses that are intended to provide development” 11. Therefore, tort law regulations opened new prospects for safety regulations of outdoor activities. Loynes in his later developments made an emphasis on educational and vital aspects of the recreation activities12. The resonance case of the Lyme Bay resulted in a proper development of laws and regulations, directed on improvement of sufficient practices of safety developments and avoidance of cases of the corporate manslaughter13. There are two main directions of laws and regulations developments: at public level and at social level. The changes of law are the consequences of public involvement and a proper compliance with tort laws. In case to give a proper analysis to the company, it is interesting to develop certain criteria for identification of the individuals, who should be blamed for manslaughter. In terms of tort law, the community organizations and parental involvement in the process of case study analysis, the development of social and community safety monitoring is essential for the analysis of negative outcomes of the Lyme Bay14. There are recent developments in the field of tort law implementation in the regulation of corporate manslaughter. This is, for example, a Corporate Homicide Bill in the Commons. Conclusion It is very hard to impose accusation on a large company. It is much easier to identify an individual, with whom the whole company can be identified. For example, in terms of Lyme Bay Company, the person to be accused was identified in the face of the CEO, who was imprisoned for three years. Whether his imprisonment can compensate the loss of four children parents, who cannot return their children back to their home? Nevertheless, it is relevant to invent reliable system of punishment for corporate manslaughter on the example of this case. Therefore, we can summarize that different parties involved in the process of the Lyme Bay tragedy have a different degree of guilt. Public concerns and public activities of parents, volunteer and educational campaigns resulted in essential changes in the governmental policies on public safety of outdoor businesses. Moreover, starting from 90s and until now these regulations and new developments are widely recognized in terms of outdoors businesses legislation and legalization. Therefore, tort law can be an effective preventive factor for malpractice in outdoor businesses violating human health and children’s protection. Reference List Beale, S. S. (2009). A Response to the Critics of Corporate Criminal Liability.American Criminal Law Review, 46(4), 1481+. Boys dies in school canoeing accident. Available from: Cartwright, P. (1999). Consumer Protection and the Criminal Law: Law, Theory, and Policy in the UK. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Tort Law. Dix, P. (1995, November/December). Corporate Responsibility for Public Safety.Consumer Policy Review, 5, 200+. Deakin, A., Johnston and B Markesinis, (2003). Tort Law. 5th Ed. Oxford University Press. Dworkin, T. M. (2002). Whistleblowing, MNCs and Peace. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 35(2), 457+. From Lyme Bay to Licensing. Available from: Graham, P. W. (2004). Why Lyme Regis?. 27+. Hogan, R. (2002). The Crux of Risk Management in Outdoor Programs - Minimising the Possibility of Death and Disabling Injury. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 6(2), 71+. Howard, R. F. (2003, August). Swear Allegiance or Die!. Sea Classics, 36, 22+. Lunney, M and Oliphant, K. (2003). Tort Law – Texts, Cases. Oxford University Press, 2nd Ed. Lyme Bay canoe tragedy will be repeated if law changes warn campaigners. Available from: Meder, R. C. (2008, July). Corporate Manslaughter. Risk Management, 55, 60. Woollven, R., Allison, P., & Higgins, P. (2007). Perception and Reception: the Introduction of Licensing of Adventure Activities in Great Britain. The Journal of Experiential Education, 30(1), 1+. Read More