[Ansteorra] Re: Non-member surcharge

[YsfaelEleanor at aol.com]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
In a message dated 7/25/2002 10:21:19 AM Central Daylight Time,
rbrooks at xit.net writes:


> Because of real life problems you can't be a paid member, come on out to
> fighter practice and such, *that* you can do. Come to A and S work shops,
> even War Practice, but no contests.

                   No, you can't.  If you come to practice and participate,
you must sign a waiver if you don't have a "blue card" and so are not a
member.  Most people don't have a "white card," or if they do it was a simple
oversight.  Anyway, you sign a waiver because an official fighter practice is
a micro event, but an event nonetheless, with attendance of the local
marshal, or other warranted officer plus a marshal, being a requirement of
the SCA insurance coverage.  If you, a nonmember, do or fail to do, something
that results in damages to another's person or goods, and their insurance
company sues the SCA, then the SCA will, by many readings, sue you in turn.

                   Seems quite ridiculous on the face of it, but I recall
someone burning themself with hot coffee at McDonald's and walking away with
a half million after fees......

                   Something else to think about.  If the micro-event is not
attended by the proper officials, is it an unofficial practice?  Could, say,
a person come out without prior notification that the practice is canceled,
and sue because he/she got injured.  After all, there was no marshal to see
to the safe administration of the rules.  BUT the person had every
expectation that there would be someone there, because it is a published
practice!  Heaven help the poor b@#tard the says, "I'll marshal for you"
because member or not, the SCA is not involved in any question of liability.
This is not a specious argument.  At a recent "War College" that I hosted
privately, the "powers that be" (I don't know from where the letter came)
required that the land owner sign a letter recognizing that the SCA bore no
connection whatsoever.  At the time I felt picked upon, but on reflection,
the letter was a good thing, or could have been had something untoward
occurred.  After all, if the land owner and I are the only people named in
the lawsuit, chances are that the legal fees will be lower.(smile)

                   One should recognize that even a paid member can find
oneself involved in SCA related activities where one's personal liability,
and not the SCA's is in effect.  And frankly, I agree that it is properly so.

                         Grace and Peace,
             Ld. Ysfael Bryndu, Squire to Duke Kien