Topsy-Turvy

Liability risk too great to insist skateboarders wear helmets

Does this make sense to you?

For the past season and a half, the staff at the County’s arenas have been required to wear hockey helmets when they operate the ice resurfacing (Zamboni) machines between periods and uses. The same head protection is required for the young fellows who wrangle the nets out of the way of the ice resurfacer.

Yet just a few dozen metres away, children are permitted to skateboard and bike at the County Youth Park without helmets. Experienced adults on ice with helmets, side by side with children of varying skill levels on wheels in a concrete bowl without helmets. This strikes many as odd. Some councillors think it makes no sense at all.

“If I go out and play pick up hockey without a helmet—someone is likely to stop me, right?” said Councillor Ray Best—part question part answer. “Why are we allowing kids to use the County Youth Park without helmets?”

Recreation, Parks and Culture (RPC) Commissioner Barry Braun explained that signs are posted around the park urging users to wear helmets but the County doesn’t have a by-law to make it mandatory— nor is he recommending council enact one. It boils down to insurance liability.

Currently the County pays no additional insurance premiums as a result of adding the skate park to its list of assets. As long as no one get hurt—or at least not hurt badly enough to make a claim against the municipality, the park costs the County no extra for insurance.

When it comes to users and helmets, RPC staff fear— with some support from their legal advisors—that if the County makes wearing helmets mandatory it will need to enforce the bylaw.

According to Templemen Meninga, lawyers for the County, “if the County passes such a bylaw and then fails to take steps to enforce the bylaw, the County will likely face a significant risk of liability.”

The lawyers neither defined the “steps to enforce,” nor did they quantify “significant risk.”

So in the topsy-turvy world of municipal liability—helmets on experienced and trained adults who move nets reduces liability risk, but insisting that kids wear helmets at the skate park increases liability exposure.

Braun interprets the legal direction to mean that if the County makes helmets mandatory his department will have to provide full-time supervision during hours of operation— something he doesn’t believe is feasible. He noted that of the skate parks in neighbouring communities, only Madoc provides supervision to its skate park.

Mayor Leo Finnegan wasn’t convinced. He wanted harder information.

“What is significant?” asked Finnegan. “What are the costs?”

Braun hadn’t done a cost estimate. Pressed, he estimated that supervision might be required 14 hours a day at a cost of about $18 per hour—or about $252 per day.

But several councillors wanted to know why this issue wasn’t sorted out before the skate park was built.

Several councillors weren’t buying the need for full-time supervision.

“Do you monitor the outdoor rink at Demorestville?” asked Sandy Latchford, councillor for Ameliasburgh. “We have other bylaws that we manage to enforce. We don’t have fences and barbed wire around our parks and public properties.”

Braun’s department has purchased a quantity of helmets for use at the skate park, but when councillor Lori Slik showed up with her kids to borrow helmet she was advised that none was available. Braun said he would look into the matter.

Councillor Brian Marisett pressed the RPC commissioner to speed up the creation of an operations committee to share responsibility for the maintenance and running of the facility. Braun’s recommendation: more signs. The additional signs, he proposes, would explain that users of the skate park do so at their own risk and that parental supervision is advised.

He also proposes incentive programs to encourage participants to “Wear the Gear.”