[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Re: SCA Alcohol Policy
Poster: Mark Schuldenfrei <schuldy@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
>>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.
I have had the opportunity to read the insurance policy in the past, and
also to read the ongoing discussions on the Grand Council mailing list.
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."
Indeed. I was trying to make a slightly different point.
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
But that exposure WOULD Be insured under the current CGL policies, unless I
have been mislead.
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.
Hmm, I had come to the opposite conclusion. More specifically, I believe
that the policy attempts to ensure that no one can serve alcohol in the
Society's name, and cutting them loose for individual liquor liability when
I actually believe the Board is working hard to go in the right direction.
(Did I actually type that? I hope no one sees it. :-) It would be
simplest and safest to simply ban alcohol at SCA events: but totally
unacceptable to the participants. I believe that acting to support people's
desire to drink and to serve each others drinks is important, and necessary.
It is also important, and necessary, tfor the SCA to stay out of the
business of serving alcohol.
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
Admin. requests: firstname.lastname@example.org