View Single Post
  #57  
Old 10-01-2015, 09:26 AM
xmastree xmastree is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
The code is worded as such.

"Every one who makes or causes to be made an opening in ice that is open to or frequented by the public is under a legal duty to guard it in a manner that is adequate to prevent persons from falling in by accident and is adequate to warn them that the opening exists."

The key wording if I were a lawyer would be "adequate to prevent persons from falling in by accident and is adequate to warn them that the opening exists.". Signage to warn them of the aeration and a visible barrier surrounding the area close to aerator would be plenty adequate to prevent a person from falling in by accident. There may still be people that don't head the warnings etc but it would then not be by accident waiving ACA's liability on the matter.

A floating barrier(a few buoys and a rope should suffice) that can freeze into place around the aerator seems to be the easiest solution and protect the ACA from liability.

Furthermore there are some aerators that are placed close to shore on certain lakes. It would be easy to fence off the area in those types of situations.
Do you think they would fall in "by accident" on purpose. You have to prevent the accident or be liable, that's why a physical barrier is required.
Reply With Quote