[sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0

Peter presents an interesting example.

A couple of comments.

1. I like the idea of a blinking light for the port-a-potties. It 
seems a big deal now for camping and hunting to have blinking lights 
identify camp sites, tents plus corners with stakes, hunting stands 
and other objects that may be needed to be navigated to in the dark. 
different light colors can represent different objects. Perhaps green 
for the port-a-potties, and red for danger or telescope setups.

2. It may be wise to have a person assigned to check the area for 
unsafe conditions proper to the event and make any abandoned mine 
shafts or dangerous conditions. This would probably be very simple 
during the day light.

I think by doing the above, it may well be assumed the club did all 
it could to make an event safe and should not be liable for anything 
dumb someone does (like trip over there own feet).

Jeff

At 08:29 -0700 7/22/05, Peter Argenziano wrote:
>Allow me to elaborate by presenting a hypothetical dramatization 
>(over-dramitization?) (IMO an
>admittedly unlikely scenario that could lead to litigation):
>
>The club decides to host a special star party and advertises it on 
>their website, in their
>newsletter, in national astro publications and on flyers available 
>at its meetings. A special web
>page is developed to assist with the participant's logistics - maps, 
>directions, etiquette, etc. -
>all manner of detail relative to this event is available here, and 
>folks have been steered to this
>site through the advertising efforts. At the event site a couple of 
>porta-potties are available,
>each equipped with a small blinking red LED to aid in nighttime navigation.
>During the night one of the participants is taking a break from his 
>observing. He decides to walk to
>one of the facilities to answer the call of nature. On the way back 
>to his telescope, he steps into
>a hole causing him to fall. He gets up, feeling slightly embarrassed 
>and makes his way back to his
>telescope.
>The next morning, as he is packing up for the drive back to his home 
>state, he notices discomfort
>and swelling in his ankle. He decides to see his doctor when he gets 
>home. He does that, and
>discovers that he has managed to break a bone in his ankle. After 
>talking with his family, he
>decides to seek assistance with his medical bill from the event's sponsor.
>The club receives his request and contacts its insurance agent. The 
>agent reviews the claim and
>decides that the insurance doesn't cover the injury. He indicates 
>the reason as being that the site
>wasn't specifically identified in the policy.
>The injured attendee retains a lawyer who then serves the club with 
>a lawsuit. The club retains a
>lawyer and the legal proceeding begins. Likely the medical bill for 
>a broken bone wouldn't exceed
>the club's liquid assets, but in this example we'll assume there was 
>some complication. Also, the
>injured party is upset because the insurance didn't just cover his 
>bill. Now his lawyer is seeking
>treble damages, which far exceed what cash the club can raise. The 
>suit contends that the club
>didn't take the necessary actions to ensure for a safe event by 
>locating the 'facilities' in a place
>that required attendees to navigate rough terrain in the dark.
>It is this scenario when the officers and directors may be exposed 
>financially, since there is no
>vehicle that separates them from the club.
>
>This is not meant to scare anyone. I just see this kind of scenario 
>-- which I believe to be
>extremely unlikely to ever occur -- as being the kind of situation 
>that would make things like
>incorporation and liability waivers nice to have.
>
>Would a signed liability waiver have helped our cause in the example 
>above? Maybe so, maybe not -
>probably so. It may be argued that since the attendee had driven 
>1,500 miles to attend the event and
>was informed at 'the gate' that he would have to sign a waiver or 
>leave, he signed under what the
>lawyer termed 'duress'. The judge, having never heard of a star 
>party before the proceedings began,
>agrees.
>
>Anyway, all of this melodramatic rambling was intended to have you 
>think about actual scenarios
>where all of this may play out and what efforts we should take to 
>lessen their already remote
>possibilities.
>
>It is my belief that SAC could happily continue just as it is today 
>-- unincorporated and
>waiver-free -- without ever experiencing any legal difficulties.
>
>Peter

-- 
Jeff Hopkins
HPO SOFT
Hopkins Phoenix Observatory
http://www.hposoft.com/Astro/astro.html

*********************************************************
  Small minds speak about people * Average minds speak of events
************   Great minds speak of ideas!    ****************
*********************************************************
                     Hopkins Phoenix Observatory
                       7812 West Clayton Drive
                   Phoenix, Arizona 85033-2439 U.S.A.
                                www.hposoft.com

Other related posts: