This tiny submarine 2.4 miles under the sea, visiting the relics of RMS Titanic. Can it be found and the crew saved before the air runs out?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Profpointy

Legendary Member
Why would I need case law? Is the term "Tourism" enshrined in law?

I'd rather just go to the dictionary. Here are the first definitions that Google threw up for me:
the commercial organization and operation of holidays and visits to places of interest:
the business of providing services such as transport, places to stay, or entertainment for people who are on holiday
travel for pleasure or business, and the commercial activity of providing and supporting such travel.


So whether it's a package holiday to Torremolinos, a guided art tour of Florence, a guided walk up Snowdon, a guided trip to Svalbard, a trip to Everest base camp, a guided ascent of Everest or a guided visit to the Titanic it's all tourism. They all have risks and dangers.

So you don't believe the "violenti fit injuria" thing applies in this case?
 

Dogtrousers

Kilometre nibbler
So you don't believe the "violenti fit injuria" thing applies in this case?

I've no idea what it means or what its relevance to the meaning of the word tourism is.
 

Mad Doug Biker

Just a damaged guy.
Location
Craggy Island
I've no idea what it means or what its relevance to the meaning of the word tourism is.

'To a willing person, injury is not done' - Quite simply, if you willingly volunteer to do something dangerous or stupid, you then readily run the risk of not being able to make a claim of damage if it goes wrong.

It was mentioned upthread earlier.

Message edited as the 'not having a leg to stand on' bit seemed a bit too simplistic and potentially misleading.
 
Last edited:

Dogtrousers

Kilometre nibbler
'To a willing person, no wrong is done' - Quite simply, if you willingly volunteer to do something dangerous or stupid, you then don't have a leg to stand on if it goes wrong.

It was mentioned upthread earlier.

Which may or may not be relevant to tourist activities, whatever or wherever they may be.
 

Dadam

Über Member
Location
SW Leeds
So you don't believe the "violenti fit injuria" thing applies in this case?

It might do, it might not. Most likely it will be taken into account to some extent but won't be so cut and dried. Any court would apply some sort of reasonable person test. A reasonable person paying a company lots of money for an experience of a lifetime, even with disclaimers, would assume a level of competence and safety precautions from a company offering that service. It's up to the courts to determine what level
 

Bonefish Blues

Banging donk
Location
52 Festive Road
It might do, it might not. Most likely it will be taken into account to some extent but won't be so cut and dried. Any court would apply some sort of reasonable person test. A reasonable person paying a company lots of money for an experience of a lifetime, even with disclaimers, would assume a level of competence and safety precautions from a company offering that service. It's up to the courts to determine what level

It is also highly relevant which jurisdiction it is heard in. Different thresholds apply.
 

Profpointy

Legendary Member
I've no idea what it means or what its relevance to the meaning of the word tourism is.

I wasn't being a smart arse but deliberately used a jargon term (possibly spelled wrong) to make the point the point that the law may be far less clear cut than you claim..

I am not legally qualified, but I have read Clerk and Lindsell on tort (the standard reference book) from cover to cover, so am better informed than most. I think the position is far more nuanced than your post asserts, particularly since you admit to knowing nothing of this important aspect of (English) tort.
 

Dogtrousers

Kilometre nibbler
I wasn't being a smart arse but deliberately used a jargon term (possibly spelled wrong) to make the point the point that the law may be far less clear cut than you claim..

I am not legally qualified, but I have read Clerk and Lindsell on tort (the standard reference book) from cover to cover, so am better informed than most. I think the position is far more nuanced than your post asserts, particularly since you admit to knowing nothing of this important aspect of (English) tort.

I'm not making any claims or assertions about law. I know sod all about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom