[Artemisia] Some clarification of the Grand Council Discussions

[L.J. Richards]

There have been at least 2 such cases and the SCA won both.  The parties 
signing the waivers could not claim ignorance, etc., and the waiver held, 
i.e., did what it was supposed to do.

HE Bronwen

****>> According to the Utah Supreme Court a waiver doesn't
>> entirely protect an organization.  The recent ruling
>> stated somebody could sue despite signing a waiver
>> under very specific situations.  Just because you
>> signed a waiver doesn't mean you can't sue the SCA.
>> The fact that the Utah Supreme Court rule on the issue
>> should prove that point.
>
>> Michael
>
> No it doesn't. Most anyone can sue most any time. But it does
> demonstrate that the person signing had some idea what they were
> getting into, or should have, since it's all spelled out there in the
> documents.
>
> So that when some bozo decides to sue the SCA 'cause he got an owie
> (Yes, it's happened), the chances of *winning* the lawsuit are lower.
> 'What? you mean that people hitting each other with big honkin' sticks
> might have some risk involved? Heavens Above! Who ever knew?'
>
> -- 
> Ron/yumitori
****