This is my first post, so forgive me if I have missed a previous post regarding this issue (I looked, but couldn't find one).
I am trying to get our school in Pickering Ontario Canada to consider a play structure. Unfortunately, despite interest in our parent organization, our school administration is very worried about liability (personal and organizational). The main concern does not seem to be the initial build, but the ongoing maintenance. Although there is regular maintenance done throughout the year by the schoolboard and the town has at one point said they would be willing to put our school on their inspection list as well since they use the school in the summer for soccer, the administration is ocncerned that this is not frequent enough. My limited understanding is that the schoolboard's insurance does cover play structures, but regular inspections are required. Our school admin is concerned this means daily inspections with a checklist.
A couple of things.
Can anyone tell me if they have had similar experiences in Durham Ontario, or even nearby? What maintenance/inspections are done on th play structures there?
Then, can any one suggest how to reassure the administration in order to get them on board for building? We are a fairly motivated group of fundraisers and volunteers, and with over 800 students and no play structure it is not a hard sell to convince people of the need. I have contacted a local vendor to see if they have been selling in the area, and they have and are willing to come and speak at our school, but I thought maybe someone else had come up against these challenges. There have been two principals who were unwilling to take on this liability, so I think there must be some misunderstanding regarding liability. I see other schools in Durham with playstructures, so....
Thanks for any advice. I'd love to get started on this, but can't do it until the school is onboard.
I'm going to put my comments in your text with *** marks...read thru to the end...
Unfortunately, despite interest in our parent organization, our school administration is very worried about liability (personal and organizational). *** When you finish the playground build, you can grant the equipment over to the school district. OR you can grant the money to them prior to it with a written contract that the money will be spent by them for the ordering of the playground equipment. Either way, the district ends up 'owning' the equipment and thus, your group would not be liable. Is the school district then liable? Well, yes, but they're also liable for kids who slip on their floors, or trip on their stairs, or fall off of a balance beam in the gym...I mean, what do they propose, that you eliminate every single thing in the school setting... the key to it is that the district must complete the playground installation with 'due diligence', meaning, did the school district follow all standard safety guidelines-- is the playground not only ADA accessible, but does it meet the ASTM safety requirements? is there safety surfacing installed underneath the equipment? is it the right depth? is the perimeter of the playground (at least 6 feet from any point on the equipment) clear of any hazards? are curbs poured level with the surrounding ground? did they follow the recommended post-set inspections, and a walk-through inventory etc. etc. the point is, that liability doesn't just mean, someone got hurt and therefore the school district is now liable, it means, did the district act properly when installing the playground and therefore, would potentially be cleared of any liability should an accident occur...
The main concern does not seem to be the initial build, but the ongoing maintenance. Although there is regular maintenance done throughout the year by the schoolboard and the town has at one point said they would be willing to put our school on their inspection list as well since they use the school in the summer for soccer, the administration is ocncerned that this is not frequent enough. My limited understanding is that the schoolboard's insurance does cover play structures, but regular inspections are required. Our school admin is concerned this means daily inspections with a checklist.
*** your school admin is over analyzing the situation. In fact, the more that they try to micromanage with the daily inspection checklist, the more they will set themselves up for failure and liability. i.e. if they say they need a daily checklist/inspection, then what happens if the person doing that is sick for a day, or a week, and the playground goes "uninspected" and someone gets hurt...the basic fact that the school district initially felt that daily inspections were a must, and then failed to conduct them consistently, would make them liable. They are better off sticking with whatever the industry standard is for formal inspections and then keeping record of only that much. A principal, a staff member, a parent, a recess aide--anyone can "eyeball" the playground on a regular basis for any debris or breaking equipment...there need not be a checklist to go through to check each bolt or nut on a daily basis. Again, that is setting themselves up for failure and liability. Sometimes LESS documentation is better. They should speak to the neighboring districts to find out what is the standard in your area.
Then, can any one suggest how to reassure the administration in order to get them on board for building?
**** well, I'd keep trying with the positive angle, but if they continue to dig in their heels, then I would not be above mentioning that you would get the media involved. How silly it would look if they continued to have cracks in asphalt or pavement that go unfixed (and are a liability) but oh no, we won't install a new, modern, safe playground for our children to play on, in an age where diabetes and obesity are on the rise... how silly it would look if the article said that there was an active group, willing to raise funds, willing to build the playground with supervision, willing to help with inspections, but oh no, we can't have a playground for our students... I think the thought of that type of article alone, would make them at least willing to sit and listen and think about how to make it work.
There have been two principals who were unwilling to take on this liability, so I think there must be some misunderstanding regarding liability.*** I think that you are right--there must be some misunderstanding regarding liability. There truly is nothing wrong with following the industry steps to get it installed properly, within ASTM regulations, with at least a 6 foot perimeter, with proper safety surfacing...
I see other schools in Durham with playstructures, so....
***which then begs the question, how old are these playstructures, how well would they stand up to current safety standards about entrapment risks, and width of bars, and safety surfacing, etc. they might find that these playgrounds are actually the potential liability if they aren't up to the current levels...the new playground will likely be the safest one they've got!
*** keep working at it, and talk to neighboring districts yourself and get a proposal going. The main thing is to reassure them that there are things to adhere to within the playground industry, and if the district follows them, then that reduces their liability because it shows that they were doing their best to create a safe playground. If they are really worried, then they can take after my district, that doesn't allow any decks that open up to an activity that are higher than 6 feet. Meaning, a deck that might open up to monkey bars on one side--that deck can't be higher than 6 feet, because they would not want a kid to accidentally fall from anything higher than 6 feet. On the playground we just built, 5 feet is the highest deck like that... we have a deck that goes 6 feet, but it has a slide attached to it. We also don't have moving parts (e.g. no merry go rounds or bouncers), no swings allowed either. So they/you CAN make choices in equipment that make the playground less likely to present a problem down the road if they are super skittish about liability.