The other sad reality of this is how people can change their tune once something happens to them.

Since Paul was the one who posted an explination, let me use him for a very ugly "what if". Let me clarify that I *HATE* what-if scenerios because they are extreme and like Brandon said, it's basically feeding off fear. Brandon and I discussed it once where you can't life your life in fear of the 1% chance of someting, but in this litigious society, lets surmise the following:

What if we are on a group drive and didn't have the rules an expectations in place.
What if Paul and Elizabeth were following the group which were all travelling a little fast
What if they did not see some debris on the road and have a major accident because of it. One of them ends up in the hospital with severe injuries and can no longer walk properly.

Suddenly there is a huge financial strain on them. They now want reconciliation too.

It's easy to say "I wouldn't hold anyone responsible" until something happens that "wasn't my fault"

This is extreme and probably a 1% scenerio which is why I am hesitant to bring it up at all.

Let me say a couple of things on my own, apart from the "Larron" persona (thanks Paul):

Larry and I have both been playing extremes on each side of the various issues. One item will have me playing the devil on the shoulder while Larry ends up the voice of reason and vice versa.

In many cases, we've spend weeks discussing and tearing apart the different angles on how to approach the issues. I personally have researched more liability law and loopholes than I ever care to again trying to find ways we can still have our fun and not have to change any more than necessary. Let's face it...Driving the speed limit is boring. Being "good" all the time sucks. This is coming from a 29 year old who lives with lead in his foot on a daily basis. I don't like coming to the group with all these long and drawn out explanations of why we have to tighten things down.

When the liability issue was brought up amongst the site COs because of the NE resignations, many of the others *FREAKED* once they started thinking about how dangerous it could be for them, legally. Many groups do not hold group drives anymore because of the liability, or they only operate the occasional big meet/drive that has huge fees to attend (like stated). This all is because they are concerned on that 1% chance. Larry and I were even, at one point, talking about de-organizing the drives entirely and just giving out the routes and letting people do everything themselves. We didn't want to do that...

When it really comes down to it, you must look at how much is really going to change, and that is very little:

We drive the speed limit now (and I know there will probably be occasions where that is overlooked for passing to keep the group together, I'm a realist).
We avoid alcohol while on drives (good idea even if you aren't in a group)
and
we are making clarifications on what we are and are not so there is no assumptions as to what the group should expect.

It's mostly a lot of big explanations that make it feel like our fun little group is collapsing in on itself, but when you step back a moment, you realize that it isnt *that* much different.

 

This is the statement that is a contradiction.

We in one thread say that we are not a "club" to show that this is not an organization of any type. Yet in the very next breath we are saying that to come to our events you must follow these rules. My point is that by putting all of these threads up to clarify everything you are making our "group of friends" look more and more like an orgainzed club. Isn't this the opposite of what we want here

We have always had the "No driving crazy" rules in place and I agree with that. The events will likely not see much change like Aaron has said. But why all of this legal crap for a group of friends. Looks fishy if you ask me

Paul- You have a very good point about it being someone outside our group being the issue. But is that not why we have insurance We are not a organized club so the clause in most insurance policies will not come into play. If you do not know what I am talking about there is a clause that states if you are taking part in a orgainzed or timed event and you have a claim, the insurance company has the right to deny all payment. Again, this is why I am only now hesitant to join events. We are making ourselves look more and more like an actual "club". I talked directly to my agent and my insurance companies underwriting department to clarify this clause and make sure that by me joining drives for S2ki.com I would not be denied coverage. To be honest I looked into it heavily before going to the Homecoming down in Cali. I was afraid that since this huge event was public, it would cause the thiefs to come out of the wood work and target S2000's in the Irvine area.

<Quote: "When the liability issue was brought up amongst the site COs because of the NE resignations, many of the others *FREAKED* once they started thinking about how dangerous it could be for them, legally. Many groups do not hold group drives anymore because of the liability, or they only operate the occasional big meet/drive that has huge fees to attend (like stated). This all is because they are concerned on that 1% chance." End Quote>

This statement above is again playing off of someones unwarranted fear. We can not say it is a 1% chance, can we? Again, are there any examples of this fear being true? If not then it is a 0% chance unless my math is wrong

 

Things won't be much different for the group and I am happy that we will still be able to have fun together

 

Until you sell your S ...

 

Well, we don't pay dues, but I don't think that matters. We don't have a rule book and I don't think that matters either. If you're hung up on the word "club", you can't avoid it. We are a club. "Club == group", in noun, verb, and adjective forms.

Welcome to the club, fellas.

The real issue is, what does the court think about club activities, who do they hold responsible in the event of legal action, and how does your insurance feel about you operating your vehicle as part of a club.

 

You are right Paul but legal definitions are different. I can not find a legal definition of a club though

I have been searching a archived database of civil suits in the country. This database is said to date back to the 1800's and has listed almost all civil suits in the USA. I can not find a single suit involving even a REAL DEAL car club. I have only searched for about 45 minutes though.

I can not even count how many suits there are involving person vs. insurance company where the person is suing the insurance company for not paying claims filed by the individual where the loss happened during a organized car club event. So far it seems that unless the CO's are involved in an incident, they are safer then the rest of us are

Now all of the suits I found involved clubs that took in fees and had membership contracts. If you sign on the line it makes it official. At the very least I would suggest that we DO NOT have waivers to sign for events/drives. Could be considered a contract.

 

Brandon, you and I have talked before and you and I agreed, fear is not something you can use to measure how much risk you are at. I think the biggest issue comes down to how much fear *should* we assume in the effort to make sure there is as little risk as possible.

Here's another repeat of past info we've said:

Legal Bill is/was a CO on this site and one of the ones resigning. His concerns for liability were coming from a 22 year insurance lawyer's perspective. Those concerns specifically stemmed from the group thinking they were an official and organized club of S2ki which put him at risk on events he wasn't a part of. Everything he explained to us was his own opinion, not legal advise since we had not retained him for such. Take it with a grain of salt.

When he mentioned that he felt reasonably secure on the drives he put on, I questioned him about what he meant. His reply was basically that on his drives, he has strong control of the group (rules and expectations) that gives him leave on the liability issues. He makes the rules and makes them clear which gives him a few benefits:
- If someone doesn't follow the rules, they are told they are no longer welcome on the drive.
- If they don't follow the rules and cause an accident, they were violating the established expectations - i.e. it's their own fault and they cant blame him because they were strictly in the wrong.

Our "Crazy Driving" policy was "common sense" but not clear and precise.

So even if we aren't an official club, the liability for Larry and I is best reduced by establishing understandable rules. I sometimes feel like I'm cutting the group loose and hiding "It's not my fault if something bad happens!" with that sort of approach, but what else can we do? Is it really that bad?

Paul, technically by definition, a group of people = club, but legally I do not think it fits into saying something like "S2ki Car Club". I could be wrong. I'm not a lawyer .

I do not think that car insurance cares so much if you use your car in a club setting. You are allowed and licensed to drive your car in the state as you see fit within the laws, and your insurance allows for the same. It boils down to you being "just out for a drive" as an individual surrounded by like cars.

BUT - If I understand everything I've been reading (which has been a lot so I might be blending things here) the sticking point comes in is if you are taking part in a club activity and violating the law.

For instance, If the club condones speeding (or if they say "no speeding" but allow it anyway) and an accident occurs, then you/they could have a big problem. Same goes for alcohol. Even a bar doesn't cut you off and take your keys after 1-2, but as a group leader, if we allowed it and an accident happened, the fingers could start pointing.

It's all here-say and a bunch of "what if". In the best interest of the group, is it better to err on the side of caution and say "What If" than to say "We'll be fine"?

I don't know, but I'd rather be looked at as a stickler for some rules and have a fun big group drive than to be the one that turns a blind eye and ends up seeing someone hurt because I let something get out of hand, liability or lawsuits be damned. If I got sued, I'd defend myself as best I could.

Besides, I have little to lose. Larry would tell me I'm wrong because I could get a judgment against me for the rest of my life...and he's totally right.
but you cant get blood from a turnip, and I'm a very big and poor turnip.


However, my conscience would not let me live with someone I care about getting hurt during my lead if I could have helped prevent it.

Am I wrong?

 

Well for peace of mind, I would say there are far more people in the group who would testify the COs have shown due diligence than those who might say the group was 'lead astray', should the need arise. Having served on both civic and criminal juries I found it surprising how insistent those groups were in making people accountable for their own actions instead of passing the buck to someone else.

As an aside, I found it interesting and frustrating, that as a juror and being a member of the group that effectively passes judgment we were not allowed to question the plaintiff or defendant. Sure you expect the lawyers to ask all the right questions, but they didn't.

All this legal crap is bringing me down. We need more fun topics to counter balance.

 

That's a very reassuring thing to hear. Paul.

We like to think we're doing everything right and we can't always make the popular choice, but we try.
God help us if I were trying to run this on my own without Larry to keep me in check on these sorts of things.


I served on a jury too and the thing that amazed me is how everyone sat down in deliberation and 5 of the people immediately blurted out "He's guilty" with a Lets get this over with attitude.

They didn't want to be there and they would take the easy way out just to shorten their time, regardless of the things explained and discussed in court. In that particular case, it worked out because it was shown to be true, but what if there was a grey area? Scary thought to have a bunch of grumpy people saying "Guilty, now lets go home".

As for better topics. I need pictures!
See my thread.

 

Very well put Aaron

I competely agree with you now and in our previous discussions like you said. I think that there are two different issues here though. "Legally right" and "Morally right" are two different things in some cases. This being one of them.

I am not even close to a laywer and am just using my own judgement here but "legally" I think by letting things be less structured and look more like a big group of friends is safer for us all. If we want to err on the side of "Morally right" then putting these rules and regs in place is the way to go. I too do not want to see anyone hurt in our group or see anyone go through hurting an innocent bystander by an incident on one of our events. Again, that being said, "legally" I think we are safer by not trying to "organize" everything so much especially the suggestion of having waivers to sign for our drives. You can't lead people and not call yourself a leader just like you can't call yourself a group of friends if you are having those same "friends" sign waivers that say they will abide by your rules

Again, I am not a lawyer and I am also young and stupid so these are just my opinions. I would barely take them with a grain of salt

Bottom line is Larron has done lots of research on this and I hope the way we are going with this is the right way both morally and legally. I, like everyone else, have both a a**hole and an opinion The only difference is that I have never been called an opinion before

BTW- With no disrespect to Legal Bill, maybe being a lawyer for 22 years has made him really paranoid about being sued since I am sure he has seen some ridiculous suits in his 22 years.

Brandon