[Ansteorra] SCA vs Nonmembers

[Paul DeLisle]

****SNIP****
>        Imagine if you will a feast at an event.  The Head Cook is a paid
> member, and has both members and nonmembers helping out in the kitchen.
> During the course of preparing the feast a grease fire starts and
> gets out of control burning down the feast hall.  Various people,
> members and nonmembers have been tending the stove but no one is
> at the stove when the fire starts.
> It seems posable to me that the SCAs insurance carrier could refuse
> to pay because there were nonmembers present and the SCA might then
> sue all the nonmembers who were helping in the kitchen, to recover losses.
> Consider that the cost of replacing a large building might well be more
than
> the SCA Inc. could pay.

Umm....I know I'm over *my* head here (but then, that never stopped me
before...) I do know that there are similar precedents that *could* apply.
For instance, if an organization prepares (and sells) food, only *one*
kitchen member (presumably, the one in charge) is required to have a Food
Handler's License. They are assumed to have control over the workers
underneath them, and as such are ensuring the safety, etc. of the kitchen
staff and food prep.

Does this apply to insurance?...who knows? ...*I'm* certainly not an
insurance lawyer (if I were, I think I'd tell Mom I was a male
prostitute...it's more respectable *G*.)
But, as has been said before, in many cases, what is right (or legal) has
little to do with winning the case; it's a matter of who has the better
lawyer.

So, this may be an important discussion; it may be an intereting
diversion...or we may be blowing smoke, and wating out time.

Alden