[sac-board] Re: SAC Board Meeting before this Friday's meeting....
- From: AJ Crayon <acrayon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: sac-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:05:16 -0700
As you may recall we had a couple of board meetings over the liability
topic. From an early meeting we sent Kimball a list of questions, which he
answered and we discussed at a subsequent meeting. Later we came up with
another set - based on earlier meeting. This set of questions and answers
byKimball was posted some months ago, but we haven't had a meeting for a
discussion. It is this set of questions and answers albeit long, which now
follow, we need to review.
>1) Is it possible for the release to have a place for one to sign and that
the signer is responsible for their guests and or visitors? No. Only if
thesignatories are signing for their own minors or those for whom they are
guardians and only if those charges are identified by name. For example
suppose someone comes to an event with their family or out of town visitors.
Should all be required to sign Yes, except as noted above. or can we
setup something that allows one to sign for a number of other well defined
individuals? Would including their names on the release form allow for this?
Always include names, regardless, but no. This is not recommended.
>2) How should we handle people show up, refusing to sign and belligerently
enter the observing grounds and the event? This is a tough one. First, get
as many witnesses to the refusal and forced entry as possible and their
namesand numbers. Second, make a memo as soon after the refusal as possible
documenting what happened, when it happened, and what was said and by whom.
Third, ask if the the objecting party will sign a preprepared document
stating he refused to sign a release and entered the event over SAC's
objection. Fourth, if something happens, notify your carrier immediately,
hope it retains a good lawyer and pray for a sensible jury or judge. Now
what if something happens - they get hurt or something stolen. Where does
this leave SAC, organizers, officers and others in attendance? In pretty
good shape, I believe, if my advice is followed. Is there a difference if
person is SAC member or not? Yes. You can have an amended bylaw provision
that if a member refuses to sign a release, he is immediately and
automatically suspended from SAC until the Board, when it decides, addresses
the question and determines what to do.
3) Another likely scenario is this…. Saturday night is an advertised
SAC sponsored event. Friday night many want to show up at the site for extra
observing. If the event is known and publicized as a SAC event on Saturday
and Saturday only, and someone shows up Friday, he is on his own and SAC is
not responsible. The tougher problem is when six or so hard core SAC
members (including one or more officers or Board members) agree amoung
themselves to show up on Friday and one get injured or suffers a loss. That
plaintiff will argue it was a SAC event anyway. The best solution here is to
amend the bylaws to define an SAC event as only one ocurring on the day and
at the time that the Board, acting as such, formally specifies, and
explaining that subgroups of SAC members may not sponsor or or make SAC
responsible in regard to events not defined and formally approved by the
fullSAC Board. How can we handle the Friday night such that we are not
liable for any and all that show up or is this not of concern provided the
date for the event is well known and “published” (internet,
flyers,
>etc.)? The suggestions above should protect SAC pretty well.
>
>4) As far as land use is concerned some of our events are held on private
land, open land or on public land. What is impact and ramifications for
thesesituations being added to the above mix? For example the Messier
Marathon site is private land, If on private land, open land (which is
always under some entity's responsibility and control -- we don't have any
"Columbus land" left) or public land, arrangements should be made with the
land owner, govenment or trustee in advance on behalf of only SAC and its
members who sign releases. All others are then trespassers, not only to the
event, but on the land also and therefore not a part of the event. The
bylaws should be amended to make it clear that the participants at a SAC
event are only those who are members or invitees and who also have signed a
release. Whenever bylaws are amended, copies should be given to the members
for their review and understanding. Sentinel is open land and Five Mile
Meadow is in the Coconino National Forest. In these places we don't believe
we can prevent someone who doesn't sign from being there.
>
>5) Is it possible for us to have SAC members sign a waiver as part of the
membership registration to simplify the gathering of waivers? For example,
John Smith pays his dues and signs a waiver that releases SAC from
responsibility from any and all SAC events. Is this possible? Can it be
transmitted to Mr. Smiths family or guests? (see #1)
This has a certain simplicity and logic to it that is complelling, but it is
often said that convention and not logic is the lifeblood of the law,
especially where serious rights are involved. I would not prefer to hang my
hat on an obsecure bylaw provision and would much rather have a specific
release signed by the party at issue in my hand. The more specifically an
ocurrance is dealt with, the better it is for SAC. The more global and
general the protection, the less it is worth. Reaching to family members and
invitees is just asking for trouble. Jurors and courts are impressed with
thetrouble gone to in order to obtain protection because it evidences
seriousness and an intent to really address the issue and get protection.
Generalities are not much the favored business of the law. You instinct to
simplify and minimize the work is operating against you here for this
reason.
>6) Is it possible to have "event registration"/"waiver signing" on the
internet to help reduce paperwork and make these events more efficient?
Again, see the above. I would at a minimum, separate the registration for
theevent from the release.. Also, if a release is used, it should be for
members only. The bylaws should be amended to make the email transmission
the equivalent of a signature on a document and the waiver, or more
correctly, release should itself say as much. The real problem here is
courts are too behind in this electron age. Service by fax or email is, for
example, not permitted whereas hand delivery and U.S. mail is. There is a
present bias against doing things electronically and courts are about 20
years behind in their thinking. You are better off not proceeding this way
because of this bias and retardation which can and will subconsciously carry
over into any case.
>The foregoing is asking a lot and we hope this isn't imposing on your
>knowledge and time. We appreciate any consideration you can give to
>these questions.
I will bring a few copies of this along with some from the first discussion
with Kimball.
I have asked Kimball if he could attend the board meeting but I haven't
heardfrom him - yet.
Hope this helps us get started,
aj
Thad Robosson wrote:
Hello all, As you can imagine, the Messier Marathon will have the most
emphasis, and thus may take a good portion of the time available. Hope to
seeyou this Friday! Thad
Other related posts:
