in loco parentis is the guiding principle here.

Not really

I don't believe it's possible to be put into the position of being 'in loco parentis' involuntarily - say by simply being on the scene when a child is in trouble.

It more applies when you have more formally taken over the responsibilities of a parent, perhaps by leading a trip, or looking after a friends or relatives child in a more organised way.

in loco parentis is the guiding principle here.

Disagree.

Parens patriae "Parent of the country or nation"

"State intervenes when parents cannot or will not take responsibility."

---

in loco parentis is the guiding principle here.

Disagree.

Parens patriae "Parent of the country or nation"

"State intervenes when parents cannot or will not take responsibility."

Surely not really the case in the example of a child walking towards a busy road or open shaft as being discussed here?

I can't imagine the State moving quick enough to assist......:confused:

Simple duty of care and reasonableness would be the principles involved if the reluctance of a stranger to assist a child in danger ever got to court I would suggest?

I'm pretty confident that in a simple scenario where you just happen to be around when a child is in danger there is no legal duty to assist or rescue in current UK law.

The situation changes if you have a relationship or responsibility to that person such as leading them or being their parent, or if you have created the danger, say by digging the hole in the first place or encouraging them in their actions.

Of course hopefully most of us would help.....

Backs away slowly.....:lol::lol::lol:

in loco parentis is the guiding principle here.

Disagree.

Parens patriae "Parent of the country or nation"

"State intervenes when parents cannot or will not take responsibility."

Surely not really the case in the example of a child walking towards a busy road or open shaft as being discussed here?

Ah no, I was pointing out to droid that his use of the phrase in loco parentis was incorrect when referring to any of the above as it refers to a situation where a person or body has an inferred or explicit legal responsibility "in the place of parents"....my old boarding school, for example. :lol:

Neither term applies to this issue. Instead, common decency applies. To most of us anyway ::)

---

Backs away slowly.....

.....down an un-guarded shaft. With John doing nothing more than shouting a warning..... :lol:

---

Backs away slowly.....

.....down an un-guarded shaft. With John doing nothing more than shouting a warning..... :lol:

BASTAAAAaaaaaaaarrrrrrddddddd......*splat*

As 'sinker' has already pointed out, 'in loco parentis' would not apply in such a case.

'in loco parentis' applies when a person is acting as a parent. The literal meaning is 'in the place of a parent'
For example, I am a qualified badminton coach. If I'm taking a session of juniors, then I am acting 'in loco parentis', and am as responsible as the parent would normally be for the child's safety and well-being.

In a case such as this, the principle of 'duty of care' would apply. For example, making a fence that a person would have to deliberately climb over (and making it difficult to do so), and putting warning signs up, would usually satisfy any legal requirement. Though that exact level of requirement would vary, depending on the popularity of the area with the general public, the accessibility of the site, if dangers were obviously visible, etc.

It's one of those cases that would need to be risk assessed by the landowner on it's merits. If (for example) the site was alongside a well-used path, level and dry walkway straight in, with an open stope to the sky 40 yards in providing plenty of light and 'tempting' people to explore, then it could well be said that a complete caging off of the access would be required. If, on the other hand, there was 2 feet of water issuing from the same access, then a simple wooden fence and a couple of warning signs may well be judged adequate.

---

Our shaft top restoration project on NT access land originally had a fence around a deep crater, which had sufficed for decades, as it was pretty rotten by the time we started. The fence was low enough for anyone to climb over at any time and fall to their deaths. However, I don't know of any incident that occurred up there in the decades since the top collapsed, and I haven't heard of any since it was designated access land. It may be that an open gaping hole was sufficient to put even the daftest walker off. But it also served as a 'legal' boundary for us, that if folks crossed they were on their own, as we had signs posted saying that.

As we backfilled the crater, part of the fence became redundant, as it was effectively getting buried in the new hillock, so we dismantled that section. That effectively removed our 'boundary', though the shaft top itself is locked until we're finished. But we've still had no incidents - so far. I think gravity in this one does the talking - the hill is so steep it puts off some from even going there, and the hole is so black and huge it puts off the rest.

Has anyone been down the Cot Valley recently, has anything further been done?

When I last visited there was roadpins and barrier over the upper footpath and on one entrance to Hermon.

I hope the gate it brigade has not been visiting 😞