An interesting sidethought - the Smallcleugh SSSI designation at Nenthead includes some of the actual mine underground. Some caves are also SSSIs as a whole.

---

I'd have to say that volenti non fit injuria is pretty much unenforeceable in the current climate of ambulance-chasing and no-win, no-fee

---

In the event that no living 'owner' can be traced, the local authority can force the landowner to remedy a problem under the 1936 Public Health Act.
Sorry to sound so full of it but sadly, I had to study all this cr*p to get a manager's certificate!

I'd have to say that volenti non fit injuria is pretty much unenforeceable in the current climate of ambulance-chasing and no-win, no-fee

Certainly in employment cases it is extremely difficult to use as a defense as anyone employed is nowadays regarded as being at work at least in part due to the necessity to earn an income and so won't have completely voluntarily accepted any risk they come across. Although it's still possible to use if any injury can be shown to be as a result of an employee failing to comply with a statutory requirement against the employers instructions.

Occupiers liability will be more relevant to mine exploring type activities with or without the landowners consent, I'd say volenti is still very much a valid useable defense, Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003) being the precedent.

I have sometimes wondered what the legal position is with respect to someone coming to grief under one person's land having entered with permission through an entrance on another person's land...

Interesting. However I reckon the landowner would be on pretty safe ground ( ::) )

In the event that no living 'owner' can be traced, the local authority can force the landowner to remedy a problem under the 1936 Public Health Act.
Sorry to sound so full of it but sadly, I had to study all this cr*p to get a manager's certificate!

Main reason that Bonds now exist ,for reclamation,in the event Mine owners go Bankrupt or just Abandon the site.
In the case of Coalmines anyway.

I'd have to say that volenti non fit injuria is pretty much unenforeceable in the current climate of ambulance-chasing and no-win, no-fee

Certainly in employment cases it is extremely difficult to use as a defense as anyone employed is nowadays regarded as being at work at least in part due to the necessity to earn an income and so won't have completely voluntarily accepted any risk they come across. Although it's still possible to use if any injury can be shown to be as a result of an employee failing to comply with a statutory requirement against the employers instructions.

Occupiers liability will be more relevant to mine exploring type activities with or without the landowners consent, I'd say volenti is still very much a valid useable defense, Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003) being the precedent.

I have sometimes wondered what the legal position is with respect to someone coming to grief under one person's land having entered with permission through an entrance on another person's land...

Interesting. However I reckon the landowner would be on pretty safe ground ( ::) )

quite apart from anything else, HSE legislation imposes specific obligations in respect of guards on machinery, atmospheric sampling etc which specifically over-ride volenti to prevent it being offered as a defence, and also allow disregard by an employee as grounds for dismissal under certain circumstances.

but see also cases by which persons have been injured whilst trespassing- or even breaking in - and claimed damages.

---

quite apart from anything else, HSE legislation imposes specific obligations in respect of guards on machinery, atmospheric sampling etc which specifically over-ride volenti to prevent it being offered as a defence, and also allow disregard by an employee as grounds for dismissal under certain circumstances.

but see also cases by which persons have been injured whilst trespassing- or even breaking in - and claimed damages.

Indeed, removal of a guard from a machine and subsequent injury would be defendable by volante only under very limited circumstances. It's removal would have to be an isolated incident, if removal is habitual then injury becomes forseeable. Removal of the guard will be for some reason, usually to make a task easier or quicker and thus it will be implied that there was some incentive or pressure to do so or that the equipment was not right for the task. The employee will not be exposed to the risk entirely voluntarily as he is there as a result of his need to earn a living. If subject only to his free will he would probably be down the pub or possibly doing something safer like exploring old mines 😉 . Contributory negligence is a much more likely and useable defence although of course the blame is inevitably shared and no outright win is possible.

If say he does some work for himself at lunchtime without anyones knowledge as a one off, uses the machine for an unusual task for which he removes the guard then perhaps volenti is still useable. It is entirely of his own free will the employer cannot forsee it.

In the case of trespassers and even these breaking in then yes the 1984 occupiers liability act gives the landowner a duty of care to them if he is aware of the danger, could reasonably expect them to be exposed to it and could reasonably be expected to offer some protection. However no such duty is owed to those who willingly accept the risk (Tomlinson v Congleton again).

So say your field with an entrance, perhaps a shaft in it is a popular shortcut to the pub even if not a right of way, or even perhaps has something in it someone might like to pinch. Said miscreant stumbles into your unprotected shaft in the dark whilst up to no good then (unfortunately perhaps) you will be liable. He could not possibly have voluntarily accepted the risk as he didn't know it existed.

The mine explorer knows the mine is there, enters it willingly and thus accepts the risk voluntarily whether he enters with or without permission. Only if there is some additional factor, perhaps you've tipped hazardous chemicals down it would the
volenti defence be compromised.

**** Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer, the above could all be cr*p ::)

In the event that no living 'owner' can be traced, the local authority can force the landowner to remedy a problem under the 1936 Public Health Act.
Sorry to sound so full of it but sadly, I had to study all this cr*p to get a manager's certificate!

Main reason that Bonds now exist ,for reclamation,in the event Mine owners go Bankrupt or just Abandon the site.
In the case of Coalmines anyway.

Landowners seem rarely if ever to be forced to remedy inherited mine problems. In the case of coal mines the CA and EA step in, and in the case of metal mines the EA steps in (the same applied to their predecessors). This seems to apply regardless of the wealth / income of the landowner - the EA picks up the tab for pollution alleviation from long-abandoned metal mine effluents for example whether the landowner is the Crown Estate or a small farmer. You may know of exceptions to this general observation however.

Bonds certainly existed from at least the late 'forties (my family was active in small mines ownership from that time until the early 1970s) but did they originate in 1947 or in 1938? Does anyone on aditnow know? The bond system certainly worked - some family members conveniently went bankrupt almost every time they abandoned a colliery but their bonds ensured that closure and basic site reclaimation costs were met.

I believe the Main difference between the early years you mention, and Post Privatisation of the Coal Industry,was that up to Privatisation,part of the Royalty payment was also taken as Public Liability,this i believe was used to seal Entrances in the event of abandonment.
Then a Bond had to be placed with the Coal Authority,either an Insurance policy to cover the work needed to seal entrances and landscape,or a Cash deposit,which is around £30,000 at present.

an owner may specifically prohibit the use of plant or equipment for functions not covered by Method Statements and Risk Assessments - indeed if he has any sense, he will do so as a matter of course.

Unauthorised deviations from approved procedures, in the form of bypassing safety procedures, over-loading particular items or operations or introducing conflicts with other activities, are a far greater source of problems than unauthorised use.

Also, as you rightly say, there is the question of the extent to which informed consent may be deemed to have been given. There are numerous cases of casual or part-time workers being injured by - for example - entering machines for cleaning purposes which have not been locked out or isolated correctly, or are in fact still in operation. Volenti has not been submitted as a defence in such cases, because it would clearly be unreasonable to do so.

Another situation would be the existence of pollutants which sshould not be present. I have had experience of chemical overflow from wash-out plants in public sewers, for example -which has no business being there at all.

---

Hey guys! thanks for the replies, lots of info, a bit confusing tho 😮
I live in Scotland, so mabye the laws are different here, i will contact my local council about this. I,m not mega seroius on this idea, but if i could buy a small plot of land off a farmer for £2k or something, cap the shaft, then clear it out with a winch it would be quite a cool little project. I,m not even sure how much the farmer would want for a plot of land around it, but i know he owns it and is responsable for the fencing around it, so if anything, its a pain in the a55 for him. He might be happy for some one just to say i,ll take it off your hands :lol:

If you just want a project why not save the £2k and just volunteer to secure the entrance for the farmer in return for access?

This seems to be the more common course of action.

this was all discussed at length some while ago, and it wasn't a new subject then.

There seem to be a number of basic problems;

1) there really aren't many suitable sites around, and established groups or clubs are involved with most of them

2) most land-owners simply aren't interested at all, and few land-owners have any interest in attracting third parties onto their land for purposes which yield no income or return

3) there is a genuine risk of disturbing things best left alone. I don't mean in the 'Outer Limits' sense, rather in the sense of contaminated water, unstable supports and so forth. I've upset people before by saying this, but I don't care to involve myself in digs because of some of the things I have seen on them over the years.

4) quite a few of the afore-mentioned established groups and individuals understandably lack enthusiasm for involving themselves with enthusiastic newbies with ideas which may well be more-or-less unworkable, unfeasible or having no basis beyond blind enthusiasm and a lack of solid research. If you have been around long enough you do tend to come to the view that such enterprises as exercises in the Law of Unintended Consequences, and like's Mr Murphy's well-known aphorism, results reached through such an approach tend to be undesirable.

To be quite honest, if you are going to say 'I'm not mega-serious about the idea' you are almost certainly not ready tio begin and not sufficiently committed to what such a project would entail.

Involve yourself with an established group, put some time in, learn the basics and some background, meet the people and THEN think about whether it is something you want to involve yourself in

---