RISKMANAGEMENTFOR PLAYAND SPORTSFACILITIES

Ralph G. HildebrandAssistant City SolicitorCity of Surrey, B.C.

Risk management is more thaneliminating risks.If the sole purpose of riskmanagement was to eliminatethe risk of injury, the mostsuccessful risk managementprograms would be ones whichkept people out of the parks andplaygrounds and ensured thatno one used any recreationalequipment.

INTRODUCTION

There are various ways of managingrisks. The most obvious way of man-

aging risk is to refrain from engaging inthe "risky" undertaking. Secondly, poli-cies and procedures can be adopted toidentify risks and minimize their effect.Thirdly, the responsibility for the risk canbe diverted to another party.

Risk management occurs within thecontext of tort law and occupiers liability.In most cases the primary issue is whetherthe allegedly wrongful conduct was ap-propriate or reasonable. However, it issmall consolation that the "offender" isonly required to act reasonable since,when the matter proceeds to court, what

is reasonable will be evaluated with thewisdom of hindsight. Thus, for example,while it does not seem appropriate toleave a lawn mower running while youpick up paper in the immediate vicinity,in Whaling v. Ravenhorst (1977) 16 OR(2d) 61 (Ont CA) the defendant was heldliable in the case where the lawn mowerwas briefly left unattended where chil-dren were playing while the operatorpicked up paper just 30 feet away.

DEFINITIONWhat is Risk Management:

Risk management is a modern buzzword which connotes to many the con-cept of risk elimination.

Many employees seek assistance of cor-porate counsel for risk management ad-vice either out of fear of being caught ina bureaucratic squeeze (passing the buck)or out of general concern about risks.However, invariably their request is thatthe corporate counsel miraculously ascer-tain how the risky activity can be taken ina manner which avoids all exposure tolawsuits.

A working definition of risk manage-ment that I will adopt here is, "the man-agement of the risk relating to yourundertaking and managing your under-taking to avoid unnecessary risks." In mymind, therefore, risk management can beboiled down to common sense. However,to have common sense it is necessary tosensitize yourself to what risks your un-dertaking is exposed to and what consid-erations you should bear in mind whenlooking at those new found areas of con-cern.

What is common sense and howcommon is it?

The assessment of a risk is basically a 3step process:1. Identify the risk.2. Assess the risk in terms of its severity

and probability.3. Determine what steps should be taken

to reduce or eliminate the risk.Identifying the risk is simply the process

of developing an eye for risky aspects ofyour business. It should be noted that asuccessful risk management program willentail a program of sensitizing the staff torisk management.

When assessing a risk, a risk managershould consider the nature of the risk andweigh it against the costs of avoiding thatrisk. The courts are influenced to a largedegree by the nature of the risk that they

are confronted with within the context ofthe costs of avoiding the risk. In otherwords, if an injury of a severe nature islikely to occur and could be avoided withvery little effort or money, the courts willbe more likely to find liability.

CAVEATSRisk management is not a be alland end all.What business are you in?

While it is honourable and desirable tocreate a safe environment for your clientsand employees, this goal must not com-pletely detract from the overall mission ofthe corporation.

All Things In Moderation!It is possible to go overboard. For exam-

ple, if someone comes to your premises toprovide you with a volunteer service, suchas painting Christmas decorations onyour windows, while a risk managementprogram would acknowledge that thereare certain risks related to the activity(falling paint, falling painters, etc.) itwould be unreasonable to require exten-sive waivers, indemnities and insuranceprovisions.

It is likely you will be sued at sometime; It is only a question of time.

It is arguable that in the increasinglyself-centred society people are more intune with what they can get than whatthey can give. The result is a greater con-cern with rights than with responsibilities.At the end of the day people are alwayslooking for someone else to blame whensomething goes wrong.

So for example, when a person recentlybroke into a City of Surrey outdoor poolby climbing over a six foot high chain-linkfence, climbed on the roof of the changingroom building, ran off the roof, divingheadfirst over 20 feet of concrete andthen broke his neck when he hit the poolbottom, the City was given notice hewould be seeking compensation for neg-ligently allowing him to break into thepool area. He argued that the City wasaware that break-ins occurred and thatpeople were diving off the roof and didnothing to prevent it.

In another case the plaintiff was injuredwhen he drove his motorcycle off an em-bankment of the defendant's land. He wastrespassing on the land and injured him-self when the trail he was riding on sud-denly ended. The sand he was driving onhad been stockpiled on the site by the

2-Sports Turf Manager

owner and had remained relatively un-moved during the previous months. Dur-ing the week of the accident the owner ofthe property moved some of the sand anddid not erect a sign to warn trespassersthat the configuration of the property hadchanged. The plaintiff successfully suedthe occupier for creating the hazard.

One of the most difficult concepts formost risk managers is the idea that theircorporation may be held responsible forthe stupidity and misbehaviour for whichpeople bring harm upon themselves [Ja-cobsen v Kinsmen Club of Nanaimo(1976), 71 DLR (3rd) 227 (BCSC)]. Thedefendant was held liable when patrons ofthe curling rink injured themselves whenthe steel girders they had climbed on in adrunken state collapsed. The defendanthad warned then regarding the activitybut had taken no additional steps to pro-hibit or prevent reoccurrences of beamclimbing.

But, the reasonability of the defendant'sbehaviour will be judged on its own mer-its. If one knows that others are inclinedto act in a careless way while on yourproperty, you must take reasonable ef-forts to minimize the possibility of resul-tant harm. The occupier will beresponsible for the foreseeable folly ofothers.

Image:An area of risk management which is

frequently overlooked is the image of thecorporation. The maintenance standardwill create an image which will, in anintangible way, affect how an area is usedby the majority of the users of the facility.It will also affect the way the users (andemployees) consider a defect in mainte-nance. It is common for plaintiffs to com-ment that they proceeded with a lawsuitbecause it appeared that a party allegedlyresponsible did not seem to care aboutrisk that caused their injury or harm.

Image is coupled with staff manners,attitudes and common courtesy. Ordinar-ily this is reflected in the speech, dress,and personal commitment of the employ-ees. This should be true of all staff. Thepromotion of good "image" is not theresponsibility of one person. It is a groupeffort which is integral to risk manage-ment.

Pride in workmanship is integral to riskmanagement. Quality personnel may wellconstitute the single most indispensablecomponent in an effective risk manage-

ment program. You can have the bestfacilities, equipment, programs and pro-cedures, but without competent staff,they can be next to useless. [Saari v Sun-shine Riding Academy Ltd.(1967), 65DLR (2d) 92 (Man. QB)]. The courtfound the defendant liable, despite anabundance of waivers and warning sig-nage when employees failed ta ascertain arisk and ensure that it did not materialize.On the other hand, an employee who"owns" his job and the product of hislabour is an effective employee if properlytrained and encouraged. Moreover, inlight of the fact that the employees will beresponsible for the day to day operationof the risk management program, it isimperative to their "buy in" that they begiven an opportunity to be involved increating it.

Inspection Procedures andChecklists (Paper Hell):

Checklists are often viewed as a nui-sance. In court, however, a properly com-pleted checklist may be the only"independent" evidence that a defendantcan present which proves it acred reason-ably in the maintenance of its premises.

A checklist should be designed with in-put from those who are going to use them.A multiple use checklist can be a guide towork requirements and work schedules, areference point for time lost, staff assign-ments, staff accountability, clarificationof duties and evidence in litigation.

All list makers should beware of overpa-pering employees. There is a saturationpoint on lists. A checklist program shouldbe complete enough to ensure an ade-quate defense to most claims. In additionit is better to have a few lists that are usedthan unused lists. An unused checklist willindicate that while particular care wasrecognized as being required, there is norecord of its status at the relevant time.This may lead to a presumption that thework did not take place.

Recreation checklist possibilitiesinclude:1. General Work Schedule2. Maintenance Equipment Inventory3. Material Inventory4. Emergency Equipment Checklist5. Play Equipment Safety Checklist6. First Aid Equipment Checklist7. Signs: Words/Design/Installation

Checklist8. Play Safety Checklist9. Vandalism, Theft, Robbery Report

Form10. Motor Vehicle Checklist11. Water Safety Checklist12. Storage Safety Checklist13. Accident Reporting Form14. Electrical/Lighting Checklist15. Insurance/Agreements/Amendments

Checklist16. Trail/Track Checklist17. Special Competition Checklist18. Outdoor Program Checklist

Work Volume:Work volume is also a factor in risk

management. For municipalities andother government institutions, work vol-ume, limited resources and policy deter-minations on the use of limited resourcescan constitute a defense to a claim. There-fore, in the case of a tree pruning programwhich operated on a limited budget, theB.C. Ministry of Highways was not liablewhere it could prove that it had a systemof inspection but simply could not dealwith all the trees in its jurisdiction [Swin-nammer v. Ministry of Highways &Transportation].

This type of defense does not exist forprivate corporations. It is no defense tothe negligent undertaking of a task to sayyou did not have the money, time orpersonnel to do it properly.

A work volume issue also arises in thecontext of overuse of a facility. If toomany people are using a facility so that itcannot be supervised properly, the opera-tor will be liable for failing to limit accessto the facility. In addition, when workvolume is high, staff may take shortcuts totry to get the job done, increasing riskexposure in the process. Proper risk man-agement, therefore, will consist of a de-termination in advance of the limits of thephysical and human resources.

How does the law affect you:Our examination, herein, is an examina-

tion of how the law of torts and occupier'sliability affects the every day operation ofa sports or recreation facility.

While it is true that to some degreeeveryone involved in recreation has re-sponsibility for his or her own safety andthe safety of others, the real issue is, whatform does this responsibility take and towhat degree is it owed to others.

Negligence:Negligent conduct is conduct which in-

volves neglect or failure to act with thecare that would normally be expected in

the circumstances. Negligence is com-posed of the following elements: a dutyrequiring conformity to a certain standardof conduct, failure to conform to thisrequired standard of care, material injuryto the interests of the injured person, areasonable connection between the de-fendant's conduct and the resulting in-jury.

Liability may also arise in the sports andrecreation context as a result of the defen-dant position of occupier. In British Co-lumbia the Occupier's Liability Act setsout the standard of care of the owner ofpremises. Under the Act the occupier ofproperty is required to take reasonablesteps to prevent injury to those who arereasonably using the premises.

Counterbalanced against the purport-edly negligent conduct of the defendant isthe plaintiff's own conduct. Plaintiffs whovoluntarily accept the risks of the activitysuch as being hit by a puck escaping ahockey rink, or a baseball hit out of a ballpark, or have contributed to the injury byskiing without keeping the proper look-out or have contracted out of the right tosue in tort by waivers found in tickets,etc., may have damages reduced or de-nied.

In the sports and recreation contextthere is also some room for motives andrules of the game. Therefore, in recrea-tion such as golf, the player assumes thenormal risks of the game. However, onedoes not expect to have the golf balldriven directly at one. In the case Ratcliffev. Whitehead(1993) 3 WWR (Man KB),the plaintiff, while playing golf, lost hereye as a result of being stuck by a golf ballplayed by the defendant. The defendanthad "sliced badly" on the 8th tee andended up playing across the 7th. Someoneon the 7th invited him to play through (he was standing in the middle of the fair-way) but the plaintiff just walked up andwas hit by another bad slice.

The judge wrote "If it were to be foundthat it is a risk incidental to the game tohave balls driven directly at one, it would,to say the least, interfere with the allegedpleasure and healthfulness of the game.The person playing a golf ball should bescrupulously careful and not hit anybody,and if he does, the onus of making anexplanation showing the care and cautionhe took is much the same as though he hadthrown a stone or fired a gun"

An injury from a golfer playing on anadjacent fairway is considered a normal

risk. In the case Ellison v. Rogers (1968)1 OR 501 (HC), a golfer who normallyslices, hooked the ball off the first tee intothe eye of the player on the tee of the 4thgreen. Once the plaintiff proved he wasstruck by a ball driven by the defendant,the onus of proof shifted to the defendantto prove that the accident was not theresult of negligence or intent on his part.The defendant satisfied the burden as hewas a persistent slicer and expected toslice on this occasion. There was no rea-son for him to foresee he would hook orany reason to hail as the rules of the gamepermitted him to proceed if the fairway infront of him was clear.

The club's liability as an occupier of landwas only there re an unusual danger ortrap. There was no unusual danger or traphere. Parallel, contiguous fairways arecommon on golf courses. In consideringthe layout of this course it was significantthat 80% - 85% of golfers sliced ratherthan hooked. It is a normal risk of thegame assumed by all those who play orventure onto a golf course. The action ofthe golfer is a risk for which the occupierof the golf course is liable if it is a normalrisk of the game. The court notes "Mr.Lamb explained the difference in thestroke that produces a hook or a slice.Despite these apparently simple adjust-ments 85% of golfers still slice."

But the golf club can be liable if it isreasonable to expect that the play willoccasionally interfere with others. In thecase Castle v. St. Augustine's Links, Ltdand Chapman (1922) 38 TLR 615 a ballhad been driven from a fairway whichparallels a road, onto the road. The ballwas sliced and hit a vehicle on the road.Damages were claimed against the golfclub in nuisance, viz. in maintaining thecourse in proximity to the road withoutgiving warning to passing traffic. The di-rectors knew, or ought to have known,that balls driven from the tee frequentlylanded on the road, even though therewas no specific complaint. Also the slicingof balls was a probable activity of golfers.What duty do I owe to children?

Children may be plaintiffs as well asdefendants in matters of responsibilityand liability. As plaintiffs, children enjoymore protection and require a higherstandard of care from defendants. Gener-ally speaking an owner or occupier mustnot expose children to potentially danger-ous things which may be irresistibly at-tractive to them. To constitute an

allurement or trap, the condition or ob-ject must be both fascinating and injurycausing.

The onus is on the occupier to know thedangers that the premises present to chil-dren. The circumstances of each case de-termines the effect and expense requiredof each occupier to make the premisessafe. Such effort and expense may dependon the social habits of the neighbourhood,(the play activities of the children and thesupervision of the adults), the financialresources of the occupier, the nature ofthe premises or the reasonableness ofguarding against children on the prop-erty.

On the other hand, a child is expectedto conform to the standard appropriatefor normal children of similar age andexperience [Jones v. BC School Dist.No.71 (1981) 221 (BSSC)]. In this casethe school district was held not liable forinjuries sustained by a school boy whoinjured himself on a trampoline after be-ing given instruction and showing an abil-ity to do the manoeuvre contemplatedbased on prior activities.

What About Volunteers?Volunteers play an important role in

society, and recreational programs in par-ticular lend themselves to volunteer par-ticipation. With the current trend toreduced budgets, parks and recreationalfacilities must increasingly depend on vol-unteer support. There has to be a blendingof the work force and the volunteer force.It is important to match talent to duty, etc.The working staff needs to understandthat the volunteers are an integral part ofthe operation.

The organization retaining the assis-tance of volunteers needs to determine anadvance the role and duties of volunteers.Failure to do so will result in poor utiliza-tion of the volunteers and probably a lossof good will. The issue, however, is whatlevel of expertise is required of volunteerswho assist in the recreation program.

"... it is in the interest of society thatvoluntary efforts directed towards pro-moting excellence and safety in any fieldof endeavour are to be encouraged. If thestandard expected from a non-profit or-ganization is put to high, such organiza-tions may depart the field" [Smith v.Horizon Areo Sports Ltd. (1982) 130DLR (3rd) 91 (BCSC)].

This would suggest that there may be alower duty of care placed on an organiza-

• . . . • • • • : . ' , '

tion utilizing volunteers. However, thereare cases which would indicate that theduty of care of an occupier of lands is thesame whether the occupier is a volunteerorganization or a "for profit" organiza-tion [Wessel v. Kinsman Club of Sault Ste.Marie (1982) 37 OR (2d) 481 (HC)]. Inaddition, there will be requirement thatthere be a level of training which is com-mensurate with their duties.

Environmental Issues:I do not intend to address environ-

mental concerns here in any depth. How-ever, there are two primary points whichshould be considered: (a) the extent ofcurrent environmental liability, and (b)the nature of that liability.

Liability for environmental issues is notsomething which only affects the com-pany for which you work, it can dent yourown pocket book. The Supreme Court ofCanada has recently ruled that where di-rectors of a company are held to be per-sonally liable for the pollution created bytheir company, the company can not in-demnify the directors for the payment ofthe fines.

Second, with the increasingly highstandards of pollution legislation, such asthe Environmental Protection Act, it ismandatory for staff to keep abreast ofenvironmental concerns. Thus, for exam-ple, while in the past the optimizing ofturf fertility while minimizing fertilizeruse has not been a high priority, environ-mental concerns about the use of agricul-tural chemicals has increased to the pointthat it is now mandatory for turf manag-ers to be sensitive to chemical contamina-tion [Reghetti, T.L. Plant Analysis forTurfgrass, The Turf Line News, Dec/Jan,1995/96]. Thus, part of good risk man-agement in the environmental area mustinclude a reduction in chemical use forpest control and fertilization through In-tegrated Pest Management which is not ano chemicals program but a methodologyof control strategies. The standard of con-duct is set out in the recent literaturewhich you should be reviewing and as-similating for application to your respon-sibilities as a turf manager.

Nelson and Johnston stated that theincreased environmental awareness of thepublic over the past decade has created aneed for turfgrass managers to becomeknowledgeable about the environmentand to manage accordingly [C.N. Nelson& WJ. Johnston. Maximizing BiologicalPotential of Turf, The Turf Line News,

Dec. 1995 - Jan. 1996]. This is not onlygood business practice, it is also good riskmanagement. The turfgrass managermust understand water pollution (bothsurface and ground), wildlife habitat, ur-ban development, wetlands and historicalsites. This leads inexorably to a need forcomprehensive ecosystem managementmeasures.

The articles in the literature will be usedin court against you.

Nuisance:Nuisance is an area of liability where

there is no personal injury but rather aninvasion of an occupier's interest in theuse and enjoyment of land. A nuisanceoccurs where some activity of the defen-dant prevents the plaintiff from enjoyinghis land or causes some danger to theland. The most obvious issue here is theissue of toxic chemicals, etc. However, anuisance is also created by stray golf ballsfinding their way onto adjacent propertyor roads

The case of Segal v. Derrick Golf &Winter Club (1977) 4 WWR 101 (AltaTD) was a situation in which the golfcourse was built and then the plaintiffsmoved into a house. The 14th hole ap-proach led directly to the plaintiff'shouse. There had been some futile at-tempts to remedy the situation. The plain-tiffs claimed in trespass for the going ontheir property and in nuisance for the golfballs. The golf course was not liable forthe former but was liable for the latter andan injunction was issued. A similar situ-ation arose in the Australian case ofLester-Travers v. Frankston, (1977) VR2. "I know of no basis on which it can besaid that the interests of golfers, whetherthey are playing on a municipal golfcourse or any other kind of golf course,are superior to the right of the occupierof premises to the undisturbed use andenjoyment of such premises. If cricketcannot be played on a ground withoutcreating a substantial risk, then it shouldnot be played there at all."

Parks and Playgrounds:The cases are of two types, those that

deal with the physical characteristics ofthe park or playground including itsgrounds and equipment, and those con-cerning the acts or omissions of the staff,etc.

Failure to Inspect Grounds:Where a danger is not discovered by an

occupier liability will arise when an injury

occurs as a result of the danger. InHertzog v Winnipeg (City) (1990) 2WWR 177 (Man. QB) the plaintiff brokehis leg in a park on a hazard which hadnot been discovered by the City's mainte-nance crew. The lack of discovery arosefrom the fact that there was no system forchecking the grounds for hazards. Simi-larly in Kelemen v. Delta (May 1991)BCSC liability was awarded because offailure to inspect a swing in a public park.

On the other hand, a proper, and docu-mented, inspection system will be a gooddefense to a claim premised on negligentmaintenance. In Vanna v. Kamloops(1992) 2 WWR 759 (BCSC) a case ofimproper installation of equipment wasclaimed. The two year old child had fallenonto a concrete pad in which playgroundequipment was embedded. The munici-pality had carefully inspected the play-ground, thus it was not liable. Accidentshappen when small children are notclosely supervised.

The inspection program does not haveto be extreme but it must be reasonable.In Gaw v. Porte Industries Ltd. the plain-tiff tripped in a hole on the defendantproperty. The court held that the occu-pier could not be required to completeminute inspections of the area, however,it was expected to complete sufficientinspections to discover a two foot holenear a well used pathway.

An occupier is not required to completeunderwater inspections. In Schab v. Al-berta (1984) 57 Ar 321 (Alta. QB) theplaintiff cut his foot on an underwaterhazard in the form of a broken pipe whichthe occupier was not aware of. The courtheld that the defendant failure to carryout the underwater inspection did notconstitute a breach of the province's dutyof care.

Hazardous Conditions:What constitutes a hazard in any given

case may differ depending on the sur-rounding conditions, the normal stand-ard of care, the reasonableness of themaintenance requirement which wouldhave eradicated the hazard in questionand what the court had for breakfast themorning of the trial. For example inO'Conner v. Gousee (1989) RRA (CaQue) a golf cart on a fair way struck anobstacle. In Flint v. Edmonton CountryClub ltd. (1981) 26 AF 391 (QB)0 aregular golfer at the club did not usereasonable care in tripping over a fencearound the tee off area. Likewise in Sum-

mers v. Niagara Parks Commission(1945) OR 326 (HC) a golfer should havebeen aware of the danger of bricks fallingfrom an old fort on a golf course. Thussand in a beach changing/shower room isnot an unusual hazard [David-Trempe v.Canada (1986) 7 FTR 302 (Fed. TD)],nor is it unusual for steps at a rural resortto be somewhat less than perfect where itwas found there was no breach of Occu-piers' Liability when the plaintiff slippedon outdoor steps at a rural resort [Alder-son v. North Pender Holding Ltd. (Aug.11, 1987) (BCSC)]. However when theoccupier fails to install handrails on theimproperly constructed stairs [Crerar v.Dover (1984) 3 WWR 236 (BCSC)] orwarn of the design of the stairs [Migus v.Club Med Ltd. (Dec. 7, 1983)] liabilitywill follow.Negligent.Design of Premises:

While frequently premises are designedby professional architects and engineers,reliance on paid professionals will notnecessarily constitute a defense. Riskmanagement entails a review of design atthe construction stage and subsequentlyto ensure that it is sufficient to create asafe recreational area. Thus designing arecreation facility in which the play-ground was located adjacent to a baseballdiamond was ruled a negligent design asit was reasonably foreseeable that therewas a danger of persons in the playgroundbeing hit on the head by baseballs [ Longv. Mount Pearl Town (1983) 41 NFLD& PEI 209].

Some sports such as tennis, which areplayed in parks or park-like settings, caninvolve occupiers' liability when the courtis of poor design or maintenance, eventhough the player may be partially liable.Thus in Stone v. Victoria (affd) 43 BCLR(2d) 118 (BCCA) the park was held liablewhen the design was such as to cause ahazard. However, here the player's

knowledge that the tennis court was sixfeet shorter than usual as well as having acurb at the end constituted contributorynegligence. In Burough v. Kapuskasing(1987) 60 OR (2d) 727 (Dist. Ct.) a playerassumed the risk of playing on a courtwhere there were cracks in the surfacewhich released the town from its dutyunder the Occupier's Liability Act. Also inZaitozow v. Vancouver (1976-77) BCDCiv. (BCS) the player should have exam-ined the surface of the court before start-ing to pay as obvious repairs had beenmade with asphalt strips.

Supervision:In public parks, as opposed to schools,

there is generally no duty to supervise theactivities of park users [see Desaultels v.Regina (city) (1941) 3 DLR 804 (Sask.KB)], however, once supervision is under-taken, there is a duty to ensure that it isdone in a non-negligent manner. This isparticularly true of children.Insurance Protection:

As part of risk management, recreationorganizations must identify and assess allrisks of injury to people and loss or dam-age to property which could ultimatelyaffect the organization's success or viabil-ity. Once these risks have been properlyconsidered, the organization can take ac-tion as set out above to either eliminate orreduce them or to insure against andbudget for the possible consequences ofthe remaining risk. Part of that process isobtaining insurance for the operation.

It is important that time be spent withthe insurance agent advising the agent ofthe nature of the operation and the activi-ties. This will ensure that appropriate cov-erage is being obtained and should it notbe obtained, that action can be takenagainst the agent for negligent advice.

Signage:A sign in a dressing room which indi-

cated "No Diving" was not sufficient

when there was no notice posted in thepool area [Arseneau v. Fredericton MotorInn Ltd. (1984) 59 NBR (2nd) 60].

A sign posted at a horse stable thatstated, "You enter premises and ride atyour own risk" and "Notice: all ridersusing horses do so at their own risks" wasnot sufficient in the absence of clearwording to the effect that they are notliable for negligent acts [Collins v. Rich-mond Rodeo Riding Ltd. (1996) 55

ONTARIO TURFGRASSSYMPOSIUM

January 7 - 9 , 1997:

) rt Turf Man-ive received a

brochure outlining the program for On-tionandie to fill outheque ande to indicateorts Turf As-

sociation.to hear Ron

in Canada re>ng the 1996

Olympics!oment - tor of thej!ey, U.K.,lents in rootnage princi-le thesent of play-

ing field quality. If you arenentofan

mization besure to hear Dr. Linda Gilkeson of theBC Ministry of the Environment.Don't forget the Trade Show of over

he hall. Thereequipment,an help youorganiza-

• > ' * .

Last, but not least, meet old friends ancitional experi-

tworkinq." * \ \ '. •

DISTRIBUTION

Vanden BusscheIrrigation & Equipment LimitedR.R. #4, MiltonOntario L9T 2X8Metro Toronto: (416) 798-4745 /}Milton: (905) 875-45451-800-263-4112Fax: (905) 878-4501

tnwefu Sleds LimikJbP.O. Box 511, LINDSAY, ONTARIO, CANADA K9V 4S5

(705) 324-9591 FAX (705) 324-0882

Turfgrass Specialistsin Establishing and Maintaining Turf for all Purposes

Norman Rothwell, President

WWR 289 (BCSC)].On the other hand a sign stating "Diving

at your own risk - Depth, 6 feet" wassufficient, even though the depth rangedfrom 1 1/2 to 5 feet, on the basis that theplaintiff executed a dive which would nothave been safe even if the depth had been6 feet [D'Auteuil v. Beausejour Invest-ment Ltd. (1961) 37 WWR 156 (Man.CA)].

Waiver Forms:A waiver form is also an effective meas-

ure to avoid liability. However, a waiverform must clearly set out the purpose ofthe form, the fact that the party executingthe form understands it and the terms ofthe release. Frequently, waivers aredeemed to be insufficient because they failto clearly state that the party executingthe form agrees that the potential defen-dant is not liable even if he is negligent.Therefore, in Delaney v. Cascade RiverHolidays Ltd. (1983) 44 BCLR 24(BCCA) a passenger on a rafting trip wasgiven a life jacket which, to the defen-dant's knowledge, would not provideenough flotation. The plaintiff had signeda liability release form which was clearlyworded to cover even negligence on thepart of the defendant. The defendant wasnot liable in the circumstances.

On the other hand, children cannotwaive their rights to seek compensationfor an injury sustained at a recreationfacility [Crawford v. Ferris (1953) OWN713 (Ont. HC)]. This does not mean thewaiver should not be obtained. While aminor cannot be bound by a contract,evidence arising from the execution of thewaiver can be used to establish that thechild voluntarily assumed the risk.

CONCLUSIONSRisk management is a growing industry.

As the courts consider more bizarre casesthe efforts of risk managers must be incre-mentally increased to deal with the imagi-native plaintiff's counsel. However, agood system of risk management does nothave to go overboard or eliminate alto-gether the activities that the corporationis involved in. Moreover, a good systemof checklists, waiver execution and insur-ance will insure that the corporation is notbrought to its knees by "one false step".

[An address to the 1996 WCTA Conference,Victoria, BC. Reproduced with permission from

The Turf Line News]

GTI HILITES

In the June, 1995, issue of the Sports Turf Manager an article appeared on endophytealkaloid production in turfgrass. Prof. Bowley of the Crop Science Dept. at the U. of

G. had started a project investigating the production of alkaloids by endophytic fungi inturfgrass species, a production which may make the turfgrass resistant to damage by aboveground feeding insects such as the chinch bug.

Having refined the analytical procedures required to quantify the presence of thealkaloids produced by the fungus, Prof. Bowley examined the occurrence of thesealkaloids in four common varieties of ryegrass and four varieties of tall fescue (Table 1).Endophyte was detected in all tillers examined of the four perennial ryegrass varieties in1995 at all sampling dates. On the other hand, endophyte infection of tall fescue tillerswas lower than in ryegrass throughout 1995, although the infection increased from 56%of the tillers in June to 75% infection by August.

Whereas all varieties of perennial ryegrass had infected tillers at all dates the same heldtrue for only one variety of tall fescue - Mustang II. The concentration of the fungi inthe tillers was also higher in all the varieties of ryegrass than in the tall fescue.

Prof. Bowley feels it may be possible to utilize the turfgrass-endophyte association toeffect insect control in perennial ryegrass but that possibility is less promising in tallfescue. The latter is interesting since the original reports of alkaloid production byendophytic fungi was reported in tall fescue which lead to a rejection of tall fescue bygrazing animals.

This research has significant implications in the economics afforded by reducinginsecticide use and the environmental issues associated with man-produced chemicals tocontrol insect damage to turf. It would appear the next step in this interesting researchwould be to acquire data to confirm the perennial ryegrass varieties have resistance toheavy chinch bug attack under field conditions.

Table 1: The percent of infected tillers and the density of fungal hyphae from four varieties of rye-grass and of tall fescue at the Guelph Turfgrass Institute in 1995.

SPECIES VARIETYJune

INFECTIONJuly

(%)

Aug.COUNTS / MICROSCOPE FIELD

June July Aug.(No. /field*)

Perennial Ryegrass APMCutterPinnicaleYorktown

Tall Fescue Jaguar II

Mustang II

Pixie

Rebel 3D

100

100

100

100

25

100

25

75

100

100

100

100

38

100

38

100

100

100

100

50

100

50

100

2.8

1.9

2.1

2.3

0.3

1.5

0.1

1.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

2.1

0.1

0.8

0.1

0.2

2.6

2.2

1.6

2.2

0.1

1.2

0.1

0.5

* microscopic field

TUIF CARE Ronald M. CraigPresident

TORO - new and used turf equipment & irrigationproducts

PAR EX® - fertilizersE-Z-GO® - new & used golf cars & utility vehicles

Turf Care Products Canada Ltd.200 Pony Drive

Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 7B6Phone: (905) 836-0988

Sports Turf Manager - 7