[sac-forum] Re: Waivers CONS
- From: Paul Dickson <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: SAC-Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 22:22:08 -0700
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 08:39:02 -0700, Jeff Hopkins wrote:
> Some reasons why SAC should NOT use Waivers
>
> 1. There has been no compelling reason shown for them.
If we decide to use a waiver when there is a compelling reason, it's too
late. The time to use the waiver is before any incident.
> 2. Waivers are extremely difficult to enforce. Expelling members,
> physically restraining people, ignoring those who do not sign. Will
> the club hire a rent-a-cop for events?
>
> 3. Expelling a member for not signing a waiver is Draconian.
You're mixing up the "enforcement". The enforcement is determined by a
judge. Not by strong arming people. If a member decides to trespass in
order to take part in the marathon, other than documenting the incident
and dismissing that member's membership, there is very little we can do.
But if we don't dismiss the member, and something happens at a future
event, our credibility would be pretty much shot.
> 4. This issue of waivers has not been discussed with an attorney
> specializing in such issues.
The club has a lawyer and I talked with another. Do you want to dig into
your own pockets and pay for another?
> 5. Most Astronomy Clubs do not use waivers (see list from previous posting).
Peter's research seems to refute this claim. A lot do. What do you think
are the odds that others have waivers that don't mention it on their web
sites?
> 6. Waivers are unlikely to offer any significant protection against lawsuits.
It depends on what you mean by protection.
If you mean we will be named in any case brought forth, then yes a waiver
won't stop this. According to the lawyer I talked to, any lawyer worth
anything will name everyone involved in the case no matter how remotely.
He will allow the judge to determine how valid the waiver is.
Now then. If we go to court, how well will SAC do with a valid required
waiver versus without? If the waiver is valid, the club could be dropped
from the case pretty early.
> 7. Waivers may have the opposite effect in case of an injury giving
> the appearance that the club is hiding something and shrinking from
> responsibility.
What evidence do you have to back this up? Any numbers? Please provide
some real detail. You make this claim but provide no basis to it's
truth. Perhaps your claim is only true for invalid waivers?
> 8. Logistics of waivers would be a nightmare.
> A well lit table manned full time during a star party to make sure
> people sign the waivers, show proper identification so no bogus
> signatures are used, rather defeats the purpose of a star party.
You do understand we are talking about the Messier Marathon?
> 9. There are far better ways to reduce the club's liability, e.g.,
> showing the club is safety conscious, has a safety plan, implements
> the safety plan at events. Rather than shrink from responsibility and
> try to hide behind waivers, SAC should take a positive approach.
You make this claim, but I don't see how this will work beyond about 15
months (if that). Once the honeymoon of the new plan is over, it will be
forgotten. I suspect most members would prefer to sign waivers rather
than listen to a 2-5 minute safety review at each lecture meeting. How
would you show the court that these reviews actually took place? Have
everyone sign a form? How do we show we followed the safety plan
(consider that we can't modify the site in any way)?
> 10, Astronomy is supposed to be fun. Waivers have an adverse effect on that.
So you claim, but the evidence doesn't back this up.
If you go to a sporting event, you are accepting a waiver by purchasing
the ticket. In a public garage, merely taking the time-ticket, you are
accepting that waiver. Do these waivers diminish your fun?
You've had been generalizing a lot about waivers on this mailing list and
SAC-Board. Your claims have been all over the place, from "they don't
work" to that "they are a blank check". You seem to have now gone back
to the former. Thanks for providing your input.
SAC's involvement with club star parties has always been just a means of
communicating a common location to it's members. It's been that way
since the club's beginning. We don't own the land and probably never
will. Whether two people go to a site, or the entire membership, it has
always been considered that SAC's responsibility ends when you leave
home. Anything that happens, is between the attendees, not the club.
This is the intent of the waiver we are writing for the marathon. If a
specific waiver states something differently, you can object to it at
the time the board decides to use it. The way waiver's are generally
interpreted by judges is if a common person reading the waiver can
understand it, then the waiver is valid. So read the waiver.
-Paul
Other related posts:
