On Apr 14, 7:55 am, Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I don't know where Jacobs gets "dangerous recreational" out of the
> OP's query. These are volunteers facilitating a civic event, *not*
> people hanging on to landing gear of airplanes to get a free ride.
I was reading between the lines of OP's post which had intentionally deleted identifying information that would have told us a little more about the event. I still don't have all the details, but from his subsequent post it sounds like I was _almost_ right in my guess. It sounds like this is an appearance at OP's home airport by a particular restored and flying antique airplane, perhaps a WW2 bomber (there are several "on the circuit" who do that), or maybe a 1920's Ford Trimotor airliner, and the sponsoring organization (which I assumed was a recreational aviation organization, possibly the one I belong to myself, although there are others) was soliciting help from the city fathers as well as local volunteers to control the crowds, help people aboard the plane, etc. as they let people crawl around in it, and some of them (perhaps for an extra entrance fee) would get to fly in it as passengers for a brief sightseeing round trip.
That would fit my conception of a "dangerous recreational activity". Which is not to say that people routinely get killed or injured that way, but there are dangers and risks inherent in flying around, or even just crawling around in, a 60-year old WW2 bomber or a 75-year-old airliner. When you keep in mind that there are "old" 747s rotting in junkyards already because the airlines feel they have too many hours on them to safely continue to fly in first-line airline service, perhaps the risks of flying around in a 1927 tin-can flivver can be put into perspective. And if the exhibited aircraft is in fact going to engage in flying operations at OP's event, then all the kinds of dangers I mentioned in my original post for airshows do apply, even if the plane is not going to be engaging in aerobatics or skydiving or other activities that pose more risks than ordinary flying.
> If these were people participating in dangerous recreational
> activities, I think it's reasonable to conclude that they assume an
> extra measure of risk. But I see no reason why volunteers in a civic
> event should be expected to do so. Essentially that says that the
> organizers of the event aren't held to their ordinary duty of care.
Where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable attempts at indemnification would be a legal issue. There is no bright-line test. And if OP is uncomfortable about signing such a form before participating in the event, he should decline to participate in the event. That is exactly the kind of thing the courts look into in deciding whether an attempted indemnification is reasonable or not; whether the signer had a realistic choice to decline by refusing to participate in the activity. Where the victim had no real choice, as where the defendant is providing a necessary service, such pre-injury indemnification is generally not permitted.
So, my focus was more on "recreational" than on "dangerous." Frex, gyms and spas routinely have new members sign such releases. If you don't like that deal, don't join the club.
> Note the word in the release: "Exhibit". I see no reason to think
> that's referring to any intrinsically dangerous activity.
Flying _is_ intrinsically dangerous. But not in the "legal" sense of the jargon term of art "intrinsically dangerous activity", which is not how I intended to use it. An activity which is _legally_ "intrinsically dangerous" is one which, by reason of the factors that lead to that label being legally applied to that activity, exposes the person doing that activity to potentially strict liability for any injury that occurs as a result, even in the absence of provable negligence. Frex, a fireworks plant. If it explodes, the owners are liable to anyone injured as a result, regardless of why it exploded.
> "exhibit", in the ordnary meaning of the word, connotes something
> static that people look at -- it makes me think of tagboard on
> tables, or walk-in booths maybe.
I agree with Stan that IMO it would not be reasonable to require indemnity releases of the volunteers if that was the kind of exhibit we were talking about.
> If I've missed something, and we've actually been told that this
> "civic event" is a dangeous recreational activity for the volunteers
> who are facilitating it, then I'd be glad to know where that was
> said.
I still may be wrong in my guess. But if it's the kind of event I described above, I do think it would be an appropriate one for the courts to consider upholding the form as valid if anyone should challenge it by bringing a suit.
But the bottom line is, OP _does_ have a choice. If he wants to participate, he will sign the form. If he doesn't want to sign the form, he can decline to participate. It is as simple as that.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
No comments:
Post a Comment