My apologies, I must have it wrong.

Many years ago it was my duty to see the beginners and corporate outings onto the ice with the usual prep. The RCCC has a formula that I was to follow, but it never worked, everyone was bored stiff and cold within minutes. I eventually developed my own formula and had them curling within fifteen minutes, and very happy and safe doing so. The essence was to explain what happened on the ice, how to fall safely and look after each other, and of course to simply use the bowls delivery with one foot remaining  in the hack.

During this period Irene Hird did a road show for the RCCC and asked for our comments, which we gave, and she too then introduced the bowls delivery into her RCCC formula. Even now the fact remains that these new curlers want to play a bit and have fun, without which they'll never be seen again. The RCCC formula does not make this likely, because there is simply too much too soon. Some RCCC coaches know this and try other ways, but on the whole the RCCC formula does not really work for new "casual" curlers. My colleagues all confirm this.

So, back to the thread, David will no doubt not be required to deal with new curlers, and when he is asked to will no doubt develop a formula that works for him and hopefully them. His job is that of Club Pro, dealing largely with more experienced curlers on a one-to-one basis. I do not see why the RCCC coaches should be upset about this, his job is a long way away from the RCCC formula for coaching beginners. My job too was a long way away from the RCCC formula that simply did not work for my situations.

As for insurance, there was once a lady who slipped and sprained an ankle, and soon proceeded to sue Macdonald Hotels for thousands because the ice was slippery. I believe someone pointed out to her that her shoes were more slippery than the ice, and the case never progressed from there. A gentleman fell once and seriously clunked his head on the ice, fortunately we were there to keep him calm and warm until the ambulance arrived. He was fine and returned the next day to thank us for our professionalism, which was nice, and I spent a day repairing the bloody hole his head had left on sheet D. Insurance was never an issue in either case, or any other case. As Invicta points out:

The insurance card is used by RCCC on occasion to get their own way, don't listen. Like all businesses ice rinks will be covered by public liability and the usual employers indemnity. So if DM is an employee as stated rest assured its not a problem.

One important point worth mentioning: If there is a clear notice on the door to the curling rink that spells out the dangers and warns curlers that they play at their own risk, the whole situation becomes a lot simpler. Add to this a quick prep session also containing the warning and insurance becomes almost obsolete. Even so, be advised that the coaching education provided by the RCCC will educate you about all the things that you can no longer do, such as touching children.

Having discussed this matter of falling on ice with many experienced lawyers who deal with this stuff, you are probably right under some circumstances. BUT. In order for the case to hold any substance, the claimant will have to prove negligence of some kind by the rink, such as faulty ice temperature, unwarranted obstacles on the surface and so on. This is why I never had any hesitation in closing the rink during plant failures, dripping ceilings or any other possible danger.

The disclaimer and the pep talk add a considerable degree of strength to the rink's case of "due diligence". If you are saying that any customer "sustaining injury on the ice whilst skating or curling" can lodge a claim, forget it. If this were true, close all ice rinks now.

I get it, guilty until proved innocent. Is this British law we're talking about? Please warn Dave to cancel his contract, he could be in deep trouble here!