[MR] Waterbearing going forward.

[sigrune at aol.com]

From: Alan MacNeill <gormofberra at gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:48 pm

>Nothing will be helped by this ruling, any attorney that wants to can
>still sue the SCA (we control the space, and we bought the water, we
>therefore warrant it's quality...yeah, we might win the suit, but we
>might not), and the lack of any ability to enforce, or even request,
>standards, will lead to *more* unsanitary situations, not less.

Haveing dealt with contracts for these kind of things for many years, 
SCA could only be a secondary laiability in these circumstances.

With sites, we do not control the space, we are contracutally permitted 
to use it.  If a person stumbles in a hole, or a step, it is the owners 
of the site they sue first, not the SCA. It would have to be proven 
that through negligence the SCA caused the problem resulting in the 
injury (i,e, offically dug the hole,  broke the step,  and then 
furtherly took absolutely no measures to inform the owner, repair it, 
or warn people of a potential danger)

If the SCA branches contract for, or reimburse for purchasing water to 
be available, the botteler or distributor (or water buffalo company) is 
the one responsibile for quality of the water.  If it is contracted for 
as pottable and turns out to be non-pottable, they are in violation of 
the contract and more than likely in criminal or civil code violation 
as a business... and the first company brought to suit... contractually 
it was their responsibility. The SCA contracted a service and was as 
much a "victim" as an individual.

>From my understanding of the presidents original message is thus:
Our lawyers, and or insurance underwriters, have pointed out that by 
having organized and sanctioned water-bearing element, we as a 
corporation (profit or non-profit not mattering) are quite possibly in 
violation of state and municipal health codes; and also run an 
increased risk of liability that would not be present if waterbearing 
was not offical or sanctioned... Legal issues aside, the liability is 
sufficent to make insureing against it financially diffucult, 
impossible, or at least un-practical.

Anyhow just wanted to clarify

-Takeda