[SCA-AE] the lawsuit/settlement/etc.

[Ruth Morrisson]

Greetings from Myfanwy!
People sue for all sorts of reasons.  A number of years ago, there was a 5K race 
a few miles from where I grew up.  One of the runners got a "runner's high" and 
collapsed.  The local (volunteer) ambulance crew rushed him to the hospital in 
that town, but the guy didn't make it.
The runner's widow *sued* both the ambulance company and the hospital for 
neglience, in that they weren't able to keep him alive (in spite of valiant efforts 
by both).  And won....
My mom got an earful from our doctor (who was either on the staff of, or had 
privileges at, the hospital), who was completely appalled that the lawsuit was 
successful.  According to what my mom said, the doctor was of the opinion that 
it was effectively a suicide, in that the guy "ran himself to death".  :-(
YMMV

---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:06:36 -0500
>From: Heidi/Clarissa <koala at bright.net>  
>Subject: Re: [SCA-AE] the lawsuit/settlement/etc.  
>To: discussion at aethelmearc.org
>
>Okay, I've poked around on-line some more rather than just relying
>what's been put out by the BoD or written by folks with more or less
>knowledge and involvement in the whole situation.
>
>FWIW, if you Google "Ben Schragger", you get 24K+ hits.  Needless to
>say, I haven't read them all.  :-)
>
>However, I read more than a few, including wading my way through some
>painful legalese and wishing I had Michael sat beside me.  And I'll
>admit that it's very possible I did not read something that would
>clearly answer my questions.
>
>It still seems to me that the SCA is being held responsible for his
>actions when there was no expectation that they, the Corporation or even
>its local representatives/officers, could know what he was doing.  It
>also seems that the standards to which it is claimed he should have been
>held are those of more recent times than 1999.  I understand the Two
>Deep Rule; I'm not sure it was as widely applied *then* to the point
>that it was the generally accepted standard or practice. 
>
>And I still don't understand how the Corporation can be considered
>responsible for the actions of the individual just because he was
>engaging in the same activity outside the SCA that he did as an officer
>of the Society.  If I'm at Thanksgiving dinner at the home of my friend
>the dance master whom I've asked to teach me <insert name of complicated
>dance here>, does that mean he's responsible  and legally culpable for
>my injury?  Maybe it's me, but I can't see it that way for either situation.
>
>I'm curious if and how the SCA's lawyers tried to contend that his
>membership in the SCA did not equal corporate
>knowledge/approval/involvement in the actions done outside its purview. 
>(I hope that made sense.  It's late and I'm tired.)
>
>Clarissa, the still-confused who will try hard to drop this now
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Sca-aethelmearc mailing list
>Send general discussion email to discussion at aethelmearc.org to post to the 
list.
>Email Official announcements to announcements at aethelmearc.org .
>Visit https://lists.andrew.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/sca-aethelmearc for:
> more info, archives, subscription changes, etc.
>When replying to posts, you should remove excess quotage.
>_________________________________________________________________________

Lady Myfanwy ferch Rhiannon
Ruth Morrisson
myfanwy at consolidated.net