Interesting legal precedent

[Dan Williams]

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/18887856/detail.html

Also interesting how fast it was bumped off the main WCVB web page.

[schrode]

interesting message they're sending there. non-profits are not possible of negligence if i interpreted that article correctly. seems a little unfair

[leanin]

its also interesting that he didn't sue until 8 years later. Turned 20 and decided he'd rather sue than work?

[ThatsA5]

interesting message they're sending there. non-profits are not possible of negligence if i interpreted that article correctly. seems a little unfair

I would think that "someone" could still be help personally responsible if proved to be negligent but not the association as a whole.

For those of us in clubs I think a ruling like this weighs in our favor greatly.

[Dan Williams]

Remember in most states the clock for statue of limitations doesn't start until a person reaches the age of majority. In other words a 10 year old has 15 years to sue you.

This is actually a really good thing for clubs but it is important to be established as a non-profit sporting organization. It's worth looking at other state's laws to see if they also have this type of statute.

[schrode]

believe me i think most law suits are bs. but you don't think that to declare unilaterally that they cannot be held responsible, doesn't that just open the floodgates for groups to get completely lax on safety. kind of sets some up to do just that.

so at the next event we go to if your mc club is established as a non-profit then they could set up the ramps for the fmx comp. with the camping area in the gap between ramps. would make for some excitement, but is irresponsible too. or potable water is supplied but they never really bothered to find out if it is, just say it is and half the people there get giardia, dyssentary, and ecoli. you should have some recourse for gross negligence. that's all i'm saying.

[ThatsA5]

believe me i think most law suits are bs. but you don't think that to declare unilaterally that they cannot be held responsible, doesn't that just open the floodgates for groups to get completely lax on safety. kind of sets some up to do just that.

so at the next event we go to if your mc club is established as a non-profit then they could set up the ramps for the fmx comp. with the camping area in the gap between ramps. would make for some excitement, but is irresponsible too. or potable water is supplied but they never really bothered to find out if it is, just say it is and half the people there get giardia, dyssentary, and ecoli. you should have some recourse for gross negligence. that's all i'm saying.

This is my point...The Club is not responsible for negligence but someone else else. Responsibility for the FMX ramps and the poopy water will come down to the person in charge not the Club body.

[1992yz125]

Huh... from what I can gather, that seems pretty good. Clubs being less concerned about liability should work in everyones favor...

[schrode]

This is my point...The Club is not responsible for negligence but someone else else. Responsibility for the FMX ramps and the poopy water will come down to the person in charge not the Club body.

wouldn't that then make it so everyone who volunteers at an event be put under the microscope of the bond holder? not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand how this could effect how events may be handled/organized. or would volunteers then have to provide their own insurance since it would seem the event organizers, non-profit m.c. clubs, don't really need it now.

[Dan Williams]

OK kiddies lets be reasonable. This is precedent but it doesn't mean you wouldn't have to retain a lawyer, go to court and still have the risk of a judge who will find summarily against you because his neighbor's kid rides his 125 Yamkasuzda around at 10:00 PM when the honorable justice is heading for bed.

This is just one more piece of armor if used properly.

But a very important one.

[schrode]

OK kiddies lets be reasonable. This is precedent but it doesn't mean you wouldn't have to retain a lawyer, go to court and still have the risk of a judge who will find summarily against you because his neighbor's kid rides his 125 Yamkasuzda around at 10:00 PM when the honorable justice is heading for bed.

This is just one more piece of armor if used properly.

But a very important one.

fair enough, i guess my question is how much does this change the environment we already currently operate in?

[laser17]

Here is the actual Ma. Civil Practice refered to in the article.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/231-85w.htm

Looks like theres still plenty of room for all the lawyers to make money. My guess is that the gross neglegence argument never flew. Doesnt mean it wont with the next judge.