[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Re: SCA Alcohol Policy
Poster: Suzanne Metzler <email@example.com>
>>But I believe the point is that Host Liquor liability insurance is
>>affordable (hurt after drinking at an SCA event) but that Liquor Service
>>Liability insurance is not (hurt after served drinks by the SCA).
I disagree with Tibor's statement about the point of this discussion.
I may be wrong, but I did
not see anything from the powers that be that suggests that they have
obtained "host" liquor liability insurance, or even if such exists.
In fact Falcone wrote:
<<< The SCA can't afford LIQUOR LIABILITY INSURANCE,
<<<which is something we should have if we are going to involve any alcohol
<<<in an arm's length transaction with event-goers. Individual's probably
<<<can, but assume the liability themselves. [emphasis added]
This statement leads me to believe that what the Board sought is to
insulate the SCA from all liability, and allow its members to solely
assume liability based on their own actions of serving. The current formulation of
this policy does not achieve this goal. In fact the only thing which would is dry sites.
(Ombudsman can you comment about the insurance issue?)
Liability under the dram shop statutes is
for the place where liquor
was served (whether sold or not) and the server,
so liabliity would occur if it was "served" at an SCA site whether
or not the SCA was offically responsible for serving (including selling
or giving away). Therefore, Anarra's previous statement:
---"I just can't see a jury making a distinction about who
---actually purchased the alcohol if it was distributed at an official and
---announced part of an event in such a manner that
--- implied SCA sanction of the presence of the alcohol."
To which Tibor responded:
<<The jury wouldn't have to: it would be made at the time the charges are
To which Tehair responds:
While the Judge will instruct
the jury as to the distinction and the percentage of liability for
each assuming its a shared liability statute and not a joint and several
liability statute (meaning that both "wrongdoers" are responsible for
seeing that the whole whole award is paid, as opposed to splitting paying the award
based on an upfront percentage of each's liability for "wrongdoing"), the SCA
will still end up in court and may still be held responsible
because it did not take steps to limit consumption of alcohol at official
Again, what is the purpose of this policy: to avoid suits, or to avoid
all liability. I think it does not avoid either as currently formulated.
who freely admits that her specialty is intellectual property law and
not personal injury law and really hopes that the SCA is able to get
an insurance policy it can afford covering vicarious liability for the serving of
alcohol by private individuals at SCA offical events/practices.
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
Admin. requests: firstname.lastname@example.org