A Philadelphia jury has awarded $$2.36 million to a boy in an inner city program which "involved" youth in horseback riding and polo matches. The defendant was a well known local group called Work To Ride Inc.
The boy was kicked by the horse as it was being loaded into a trailer. The horse struck the youth in the face breaking his jaw and causing other injuries. The jury found the non-profit was 90% liable and the total award was reduced by 10% for the youth's percentage of fault.
One issue here that appears a lot in cases like this is the discrepancy of knowledge between those who are used to wild things and those who are not.
If you grew up on a farm you know horses kick. If you grew up in a big city you expect that someone who is taking your children to do something with them will take them to a safe place to do safe things. You probably don't know that horses kick.
Consequently when a horse kicks your son, you are going to be mad. People don't let their children do dangerous things. Consequently when something a parent thought was safe turns out to be dangerous someone is mad. Mad equals lawsuit.
My other concern is the program in general. What long term skills or experience is someone from the inner city going to have by learning to ride a horse?
See Boy Awarded $2.36 Million for Horse Kick to the Face
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Ten Reasons Why Retailers should use a release
Why Retailers should use a release
Why? I need more information about what you are looking for in an attorney, what you want from the blog, what worries you about the legal and risk management aspects of your program and subscribers to the Outdoor Recreation Law Review. I want to learn more about you. The questionnaire is going to help provide some of those answers.
Let Everyone You Know, Know about this.
Pass this information along on Facebook, Twitter and Email your friends and associates.
The Survey will be posted on the blog at here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dGVHV0RmdVFUcUpiTFNBeVlOOVliMXc6MA
- You can track who is coming to your store.
- You will learn how many people demoed a product and whether the event was a success
- You will get the name, address, phone and email of everyone who demoed a product so you can start a contact list
- You can learn if the customer liked the product, even if they don't buy the product that day
- You can stop yourself from getting sued.
- You can educate your customers to some of the risks of the sport
- You can educate the customers to the risks of the new product
- You can rent anything to customers if you have the right release
- You can keep manufactures from sharing the defendant's table with you in a lawsuit.
- You can help customers move into bigger and/or better products because you can run a demo program for every product in your store.
November Free Review of Releases Program
In an opportunity to help generate ideas and interest in my blog and the Outdoor Recreation and Fitness Law Review I am going to make everyone an offer you can't refuse. During the month of November I am going to review your releases or acknowledgment of risk documents for free. You have to complete two steps to get this offer.. - Take the Survey and answer the questions and provide the necessary contract information.
- Send me a PDF or a Word document of your release or acknowledgment of risk form to me.
Why? I need more information about what you are looking for in an attorney, what you want from the blog, what worries you about the legal and risk management aspects of your program and subscribers to the Outdoor Recreation Law Review. I want to learn more about you. The questionnaire is going to help provide some of those answers.
Let Everyone You Know, Know about this.
Pass this information along on Facebook, Twitter and Email your friends and associates.
The Survey will be posted on the blog at here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dGVHV0RmdVFUcUpiTFNBeVlOOVliMXc6MA
Rules:
- I'm only licensed in the state of Colorado
- This will be a review. I will identify the issues I've found in your release or acknowledgment of risk form only.
- You must complete all questions on the quiz and provide complete and correct information.
- It can only be a PDF or a Word (doc, docx).
- The release is for use by human powered outdoor recreation programs or adventure travel programs.
- I reserve the right to cancel at any time or reject a program or release
- It may take several weeks to review your document; there is no time limit on my end.
- I reserve the right to change the rules, modify the rules, cancel the idea, or do anything else I want.
- There is no value in doing this.
- I'm not responsible for what you do with the information.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Four Corners School of Outdoor Education Southwest Ed-Ventures Head Guide 2010
General: Four Corners School of Outdoor Education (FCS) is a twenty-five-year old non-profit based in Monticello, Utah. Our mission is to create lifelong learning experiences about the Colorado Plateau bioregion (Southern Utah, Southwest Colorado, Northwest New Mexico and Northern Arizona) for people of all ages and backgrounds through education, service, adventure, and conservation programs. Our vision is to build a diverse community of people who are committed to conserving the natural and cultural treasures of the Colorado Plateau.
FCS achieves its mission/vision through 4 education, service, adventure, and conservation programs that include:
1-Canyon Country Youth Corps (CCYC)-an employment, education, and leadership program for primarily Navajo youth ages 16-23, who complete public lands projects on the Colorado Plateau.
2-Southwest Ed-Ventures (SWED)-adventure education trips for all ages throughout the Colorado Plateau, whose net income supports the other 3 programs of FCS.
3-The Bioregional Outdoor Education Project (BOEP)-a place-based environmental education training program for all K-8 schools and teachers on the Colorado Plateau.
4-The soon-to-be Discovery Institute for Conservation Education-part of the new campus of FCS, the Canyon Country Discovery Center, that provides place-based learning on and about the Colorado Plateau bioregion.
Job-Description: The Southwest Ed-Ventures program seeks a Head Guide for the 2010 season. It is a part-time position, mid-March to mid-November. It may or may not allow you to work for other companies during the season, depending on our schedule of booked trips each year, but SWED trips will need to be your first priority for work. You will work SWED river and land trips, BOEP and CCYC river trips, and as cook where needed. Pay is subject to the FCS guide payscale, as attached. This person will work as head guide on all trips (unless there are overlaps), plus some basecamp office days (10-15) as needed to keep equipment, logistics, and pre-trip paperwork in order. As the number of river and land-based trips vary from year to year, the number of workdays a month will vary. Will report to Janet Ross (Executive Director), unless a SWED Manager is in place. Can live at FCS basecamp at no cost when working. In a typical year you will work fifteen to twenty 3 to 7 days trips.
Overall duties are:
1. Trip leader, whenever you are on a trip (being a good cook is a must)
2. Supervise of trip staff (Janet does the hiring)
3. Create menus, shop for, and pack out all trips with other staff (even if you are not on them) including BOEP/CCYC river trips
4. Repair gear and manage/maintain basecamp
5. With Pam/Kathy send out pre-trip information
6. With Pam/Kathy make sure all logistics are handled for each trip
7. Set up/take down of Safari Camp with other staff, if the trips go
8. For non-field days worked you will be paid your same daily rate
9. Work with Tim on vehicle maintenance and management
Qualifications Needed:
1-Guide 1 or 2 in Utah with WFR and CPR certification
2-Good dutch oven and camp cook for high-end menu
3-Well-organized, multi-tasker, and some computer skills
4-Good people skills (guides and clients and office staff) with high-end clientele
5-Good interpretive skills for Colorado Plateau bioregion
6-Ability to lead river, backpack, hike, basecamp, and service trips
7-Handy with tools for basecamp and gear repairs
Email: Please send your resume and a cover letter detailing your availability to Janet Ross, jross@fourcornersschool.org. She will then send you further information and schedule a phone interview with you. Thanks!
Letter to the Editor: Wilderness and Environmental Medicine
June 23, 2009
Jonna Barry, Managing Editor
Wilderness and Environmental Medicine
1505 N. Royer Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
For a defense oriented attorney and possibility for the plaintiff's bar the use of the word standard creates issues. The word in everyday life, means a reference point or median, it has a different definition in the law. A standard in the law is the lowest level of acceptable level of doing or not doing something that a reasonable person would accept. It may not be the median or average. As such, a statement that something is the standard which is not the lowest acceptable level creates a path for a lawsuit for anyone who may not meet the median but is above the lowest acceptable level of work.
This is important because a violation of a standard is the first step in proving negligence. In general in outdoor recreation activities, the hardest thing to prove is a violation of a standard. By putting in writing what the standard's are for a particular activity, we have made the plaintiff's job that much easier.
Plaintiff's lawyers grasp on to an article using the term from respected publications, such as this Journal, as proof that the outfitter or guide did not meet the industry standard. It then falls on the defense to prove, and normally at a much greater cost, at trial, that the standard is not at issue or was not the legal definition used in the article.
Consequently I was happy to see the article did not really reach a conclusion about what the standard is above that of simple first aid courses.
A major issue is what is wilderness first aid? There few legal references to a definition of first aid, those that do simply reference the American Red Cross definition: immediate and temporary treatment of a victim of sudden illness or injury while awaiting the arrival of medical aid. One court described first aid as anything that did not require training, consequently CPR was not first aid because it required training. L.A. Fitness International, Llc, v. Mayer, 980 So. 2d 550; 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 5893; 33 Fla. L. Weekly D 1136. If a court determines that an act done was outside the definition of first aid, there is no defense for a non-licensed health care provider. Many wilderness first aid courses teach techniques that are clearly outside of the simple definition of first aid: immediate and temporary treatment. The Wilderness Medical Society Practice Guidelines for Wilderness Emergency Care, 5th at present is the only document that provides wilderness first aid advice for those wanting to understand what is and is not first aid.
Many times articles such as these want to improve the care for those injured in the outdoors. Articles rarely accomplish that goal and mostly encourage litigation, which also fails to accomplish that goal. What does occur is an increase in litigation and a decrease in participation. The Boy Scouts of America and Sierra Club were both referenced in the article. Both groups are led by volunteers. Volunteers do not have more time to take more than a basic first aid course while all ready taking several hours each week to volunteer and then spending your vacation with a group of youth cannot be stretched much father.
This is a classic example of we need to protect more kids by requiring more leader training which protects the kids because they now never leave the city. Volunteers have only so many hours and kids have too many chances to get hurt.
The article speaks to statutes or governmental regulations referencing first aid requirements. There is a misnomer that a legal standard in the industry can be higher or lower than a state statute. The standard for a particular industry is the state statute and in this case the statutes that were recognized in the article would be the standard for medical training needed in that occupation.
The article did miss several dozen state statutes requiring first aid training for guides and outfitters, as well as all federal requirements. Most states put first aid requirements into specific statutes affecting a specific activity. As an example Colorado has no state statute requiring first aid training for outfitters and guides, but the state has no state statutes for outfitters and guides. Colorado does have a statute controlling the first aid requirements for whitewater outfitters and guides. C.R.S. §§ 33-32-105.5 that requires a standard first aid card to work on a river. Colorado horse packer's statute C.R.S. §§ 12-55.5-103.5 have a similar requirement.
Various state and federal land managers have specific first aid requirements for permittees or concessionaires working on state or federal land. This varies by land manager and the type of service being offered.
The article mentioned the marketing term "wilderness first responder" (WFR) which is not recognized by any state or federal agency as a first aid course. Many state Good Samaritan laws provide coverage for first aid based on the provider of the first aid training. No state Good Samaritan law recognizes WFR or WFR providers as providing training that would be protected by the Good Samaritan law. See Connecticut C.G.S. § 52-557(h) or Illinois I.C.S.A § 745 ILCS 49/67.
Many state statutes require the regulatory agency to specify the first aid training required. Fishing guides in California pursuant to Fish & G Code § 2542 specifies the agency shall prescribe the first aid training required of guides. Maine requires a first aid training M.R.S. § 12853 but leaves the level of training to the regulatory agency with a different level of first aid training for trip leaders M.R.S. § 12860.
Statutes once enacted are difficult to change so many of the statutes requiring first aid training are out of date. Worse are those that specify the items to be in first aid kits. California Gen Ed § 32043 requires a snakebite kit on field trips for some school outings.
There are three agencies chartered by the Federal Government to provide first aid training: The Boy Scouts of America, the American Red Cross and the National Ski Patrol. All three organizations provide training that is recognized by all states as for protection under state Good Samaritan acts recognized by all states and the federal government as first aid training providers.
Litigation that claims the first aid care is rare when brought against outfitters and guides. Litigation against search and rescue groups and volunteers is growing. In both cases the claim that the first aid care was negligent was combined with other claims. Both groups need to be protected in any additional studies done to determine what training is appropriate or necessary.
I agree with Dr. Forgey's editorial that the issue needs to be reexamined. But instead of a chart of what is being doing, I would strongly urge any study to look at best practices for the industry with an eye to the ever changing future. Instead of listing the standard, which will then allow plaintiff's to gauge their lawsuits and start advertising for them or the minimums which would guaranty a loss by a defendant the study should look at what is being done and what might work.
More importantly as the article relates too in the beginning and Dr. Forgey mentions is a study of what really occurs and that can be resolved with basic first aid. What can first aid supplies be reasonable carried by a group, what can be used with the knowledge that can be retained by the group and what is actually effective in the outdoors when miles or hours from EMS. The desire to stop litigation is leading groups to wildly divergent and in many cases ridiculous results. One Texas University outdoor program was told to carry AED's on their wilderness backpacking trips. Another example is the use of helmets in whitewater rafting; an industry that prior to the use of helmets never had a reported head injury. Colorado, West Virginia and California have not received a report of a head injury that a helmet would protect in a whitewater rafting. This would assist outfitters and guides as well as state and federal land management agencies in determining what is really possible and therefore needed. It might also reduce the desire to teach and or carry prescription drugs because of the effectiveness at a distance from EMS and consequently take pressure off physicians to prescribe these drugs in violation of the law or their medmal insurance carrier.
What we need is realistic analysis and study of what is possible and plausible in a wilderness setting. What will save a life and what won't, what should be done and what is a waste of time. That study should be labeled in such a way as to not create the basis for injured participants to start litigation.
Sincerely,
James H. Moss
Cc Wm Forgey, MD
Jonna Barry, Managing Editor
Wilderness and Environmental Medicine
1505 N. Royer Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Via Email: bob.norris@stanford.edu
Re: Wilderness and Environmental Medicine Volume 20, Number 2, 2009
Wilderness First Aid: Is there an "Industry Standard"?
Wilderness First Aid: Is there an "Industry Standard"?
Dear Dr. Norris:
I read with appreciation, interest and concern the article Wilderness First Aid: Is There an "Industry Standard"? in the latest Wilderness and Environmental Medicine. I have the following comments about the article suggestions about future articles and research.For a defense oriented attorney and possibility for the plaintiff's bar the use of the word standard creates issues. The word in everyday life, means a reference point or median, it has a different definition in the law. A standard in the law is the lowest level of acceptable level of doing or not doing something that a reasonable person would accept. It may not be the median or average. As such, a statement that something is the standard which is not the lowest acceptable level creates a path for a lawsuit for anyone who may not meet the median but is above the lowest acceptable level of work.
This is important because a violation of a standard is the first step in proving negligence. In general in outdoor recreation activities, the hardest thing to prove is a violation of a standard. By putting in writing what the standard's are for a particular activity, we have made the plaintiff's job that much easier.
Plaintiff's lawyers grasp on to an article using the term from respected publications, such as this Journal, as proof that the outfitter or guide did not meet the industry standard. It then falls on the defense to prove, and normally at a much greater cost, at trial, that the standard is not at issue or was not the legal definition used in the article.
Consequently I was happy to see the article did not really reach a conclusion about what the standard is above that of simple first aid courses.
A major issue is what is wilderness first aid? There few legal references to a definition of first aid, those that do simply reference the American Red Cross definition: immediate and temporary treatment of a victim of sudden illness or injury while awaiting the arrival of medical aid. One court described first aid as anything that did not require training, consequently CPR was not first aid because it required training. L.A. Fitness International, Llc, v. Mayer, 980 So. 2d 550; 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 5893; 33 Fla. L. Weekly D 1136. If a court determines that an act done was outside the definition of first aid, there is no defense for a non-licensed health care provider. Many wilderness first aid courses teach techniques that are clearly outside of the simple definition of first aid: immediate and temporary treatment. The Wilderness Medical Society Practice Guidelines for Wilderness Emergency Care, 5th at present is the only document that provides wilderness first aid advice for those wanting to understand what is and is not first aid.
Many times articles such as these want to improve the care for those injured in the outdoors. Articles rarely accomplish that goal and mostly encourage litigation, which also fails to accomplish that goal. What does occur is an increase in litigation and a decrease in participation. The Boy Scouts of America and Sierra Club were both referenced in the article. Both groups are led by volunteers. Volunteers do not have more time to take more than a basic first aid course while all ready taking several hours each week to volunteer and then spending your vacation with a group of youth cannot be stretched much father.
This is a classic example of we need to protect more kids by requiring more leader training which protects the kids because they now never leave the city. Volunteers have only so many hours and kids have too many chances to get hurt.
The article speaks to statutes or governmental regulations referencing first aid requirements. There is a misnomer that a legal standard in the industry can be higher or lower than a state statute. The standard for a particular industry is the state statute and in this case the statutes that were recognized in the article would be the standard for medical training needed in that occupation.
The article did miss several dozen state statutes requiring first aid training for guides and outfitters, as well as all federal requirements. Most states put first aid requirements into specific statutes affecting a specific activity. As an example Colorado has no state statute requiring first aid training for outfitters and guides, but the state has no state statutes for outfitters and guides. Colorado does have a statute controlling the first aid requirements for whitewater outfitters and guides. C.R.S. §§ 33-32-105.5 that requires a standard first aid card to work on a river. Colorado horse packer's statute C.R.S. §§ 12-55.5-103.5 have a similar requirement.
Various state and federal land managers have specific first aid requirements for permittees or concessionaires working on state or federal land. This varies by land manager and the type of service being offered.
The article mentioned the marketing term "wilderness first responder" (WFR) which is not recognized by any state or federal agency as a first aid course. Many state Good Samaritan laws provide coverage for first aid based on the provider of the first aid training. No state Good Samaritan law recognizes WFR or WFR providers as providing training that would be protected by the Good Samaritan law. See Connecticut C.G.S. § 52-557(h) or Illinois I.C.S.A § 745 ILCS 49/67.
Many state statutes require the regulatory agency to specify the first aid training required. Fishing guides in California pursuant to Fish & G Code § 2542 specifies the agency shall prescribe the first aid training required of guides. Maine requires a first aid training M.R.S. § 12853 but leaves the level of training to the regulatory agency with a different level of first aid training for trip leaders M.R.S. § 12860.
Statutes once enacted are difficult to change so many of the statutes requiring first aid training are out of date. Worse are those that specify the items to be in first aid kits. California Gen Ed § 32043 requires a snakebite kit on field trips for some school outings.
There are three agencies chartered by the Federal Government to provide first aid training: The Boy Scouts of America, the American Red Cross and the National Ski Patrol. All three organizations provide training that is recognized by all states as for protection under state Good Samaritan acts recognized by all states and the federal government as first aid training providers.
Litigation that claims the first aid care is rare when brought against outfitters and guides. Litigation against search and rescue groups and volunteers is growing. In both cases the claim that the first aid care was negligent was combined with other claims. Both groups need to be protected in any additional studies done to determine what training is appropriate or necessary.
I agree with Dr. Forgey's editorial that the issue needs to be reexamined. But instead of a chart of what is being doing, I would strongly urge any study to look at best practices for the industry with an eye to the ever changing future. Instead of listing the standard, which will then allow plaintiff's to gauge their lawsuits and start advertising for them or the minimums which would guaranty a loss by a defendant the study should look at what is being done and what might work.
More importantly as the article relates too in the beginning and Dr. Forgey mentions is a study of what really occurs and that can be resolved with basic first aid. What can first aid supplies be reasonable carried by a group, what can be used with the knowledge that can be retained by the group and what is actually effective in the outdoors when miles or hours from EMS. The desire to stop litigation is leading groups to wildly divergent and in many cases ridiculous results. One Texas University outdoor program was told to carry AED's on their wilderness backpacking trips. Another example is the use of helmets in whitewater rafting; an industry that prior to the use of helmets never had a reported head injury. Colorado, West Virginia and California have not received a report of a head injury that a helmet would protect in a whitewater rafting. This would assist outfitters and guides as well as state and federal land management agencies in determining what is really possible and therefore needed. It might also reduce the desire to teach and or carry prescription drugs because of the effectiveness at a distance from EMS and consequently take pressure off physicians to prescribe these drugs in violation of the law or their medmal insurance carrier.
What we need is realistic analysis and study of what is possible and plausible in a wilderness setting. What will save a life and what won't, what should be done and what is a waste of time. That study should be labeled in such a way as to not create the basis for injured participants to start litigation.
Sincerely,
James H. Moss
Cc Wm Forgey, MD
Monday, November 23, 2009
Why Rental Operations should use a release
Ten Reasons Why Rental Operations should use a release
Why? I need more information about what you are looking for in an attorney, what you want from the blog, what worries you about the legal and risk management aspects of your program and subscribers to the Outdoor Recreation Law Review. I want to learn more about you. The questionnaire is going to help provide some of those answers.
Let Everyone You Know, Know about this.
Pass this information along on Facebook, Twitter and Email your friends and associates.
The Survey will be posted on the blog at here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dGVHV0RmdVFUcUpiTFNBeVlOOVliMXc6MA
- It stops lawsuits when you have provided too much information that has gotten the customer in trouble
- It allows you to recover damages if the customer does not return the product or damages the product
- It tracks who is renting your product
- It helps keep the relationship strong between you and the land manager where your product is being used
- It keeps you from falling in love with a defense attorney.
- It keeps your insurance premiums from going through the roof.
- It allows you to keep control of your business in turbulent times.
- It educates your customers in how your product works and what they should and should not do.
- A release informs your customers of the risks of using the product improperly.
- It makes sure you get paid and your product comes back.
November Free Review of Releases Program
In an opportunity to help generate ideas and interest in my blog and the Outdoor Recreation and Fitness Law Review I am going to make everyone an offer you can't refuse. During the month of November I am going to review your releases or acknowledgment of risk documents for free. You have to complete two steps to get this offer.. - Take the Survey and answer the questions and provide the necessary contract information.
- Send me a PDF or a Word document of your release or acknowledgment of risk form to me.
Why? I need more information about what you are looking for in an attorney, what you want from the blog, what worries you about the legal and risk management aspects of your program and subscribers to the Outdoor Recreation Law Review. I want to learn more about you. The questionnaire is going to help provide some of those answers.
Let Everyone You Know, Know about this.
Pass this information along on Facebook, Twitter and Email your friends and associates.
The Survey will be posted on the blog at here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dGVHV0RmdVFUcUpiTFNBeVlOOVliMXc6MA
Rules:
- I'm only licensed in the state of Colorado
- This will be a review. I will identify the issues I've found in your release or acknowledgment of risk form only.
- You must complete all questions on the quiz and provide complete and correct information.
- It can only be a PDF or a Word (doc, docx).
- The release is for use by human powered outdoor recreation programs or adventure travel programs.
- I reserve the right to cancel at any time or reject a program or release
- It may take several weeks to review your document; there is no time limit on my end.
- I reserve the right to change the rules, modify the rules, cancel the idea, or do anything else I want.
- There is no value in doing this.
- I'm not responsible for what you do with the information.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
CALL FOR PAPERS: SCHOLE: A JOURNAL OF LEISURE STUDIES AND RECREATION EDUCATION
Volume 25, 2010
DUE DATE: January 15, 2010
Schole is the official yearly refereed publication of the Society of Park and Recreation Educators. Schole was established to disseminate knowledge related to park and recreation courses, curricula, and teaching at the college level. Manuscripts may address the wide range of issues concerning graduate and undergraduate education such as:curriculum planning, curriculum design, future employment requirements, trends and their impacts, student and faculty profiles, course content, fieldwork and internships, leisure and the humanities, teaching methods, accreditation, community education, and tenure and promotion. Manuscripts based on conceptual, philosophical, and empirical inquiry will be considered for publication. Book reviews and classroom activities are also accepted under a separate call.
Guidelines for Contributors:
1. Manuscripts will be accepted for review by the Editors with the understanding that they have not already been published, and that if accepted for publication in Schole, that the manuscripts will not be published elsewhere without permission of the Co-Editors.
2. All manuscripts should be in American English. Papers should be double-spaced (including abstract and references) and pages numbered consecutively with 1" margins. Approximate length should be no more than twenty (20) double-spaced pages in total.
3. The author's name should appear only on the title page. Begin the title page with the title of the article, the author's name, address, telephone number and email address. In the case of co-authors, respective addresses should be clearly indicated as well as which author is to receive correspondence.
4. The essential content of each paper should be briefly recapitulated in a single paragraph abstract (150 words) following the title page.
The abstract page should also contain 3-6 keywords for indexing.
5. All photographs, charts, and diagrams should be referred to as "Figures" and numbered consecutively as they appear in the text.
Tables should also be numbered consecutively and should have informative titles. Figures and tables should not be in color but in black and white or grayscale. Figures and tables may be submitted as separate documents, however, their position in the manuscript should be indicated in the text.
6. Include only references to books, articles, and bulletins actually cited in the text. All references should follow the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).
7. Submit one electronic copy of the manuscript saved in M.S. Word or rich text format to schole@uga.edu. Please name Schole_lastname.firstinitial_10.
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION:
Articles submitted for the 2010 volume must be received by January 15, 2010.Articles should be submitted to:
Corey W. Johnson & Gwynn M. Powell, Co-Editors
Schole: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education Recreation and Leisure Studies Program Department of Counseling and Human Development ServicesThursday, November 19, 2009
Update: Lawsuit over drowning at nudist party at pool settled.
It's being reported that the lawsuit I reported on in the blog It's always sad when someone dies, but sometimes the facts can be…..interesting. The plaintiffs are going to accept $250,000 to settle this suit.
The facts surrounding the suit are pretty thing and of course you can speculate for years over what happened. (Do you rescue a nude person the same way you rescue one with a bathing suit on?) The same goes with the legal issues, was a released signed? Does Pennsylvania recognize negligence per se which would void the release. Negligence per se is negligence which is based on the violation of a statute or law. So not having a life guard which is required by law may prevent may defenses from being used.
See Drowning Lawsuit Settlement in Pennsylvania.
The facts surrounding the suit are pretty thing and of course you can speculate for years over what happened. (Do you rescue a nude person the same way you rescue one with a bathing suit on?) The same goes with the legal issues, was a released signed? Does Pennsylvania recognize negligence per se which would void the release. Negligence per se is negligence which is based on the violation of a statute or law. So not having a life guard which is required by law may prevent may defenses from being used.
See Drowning Lawsuit Settlement in Pennsylvania.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Update: Dr. who slammed brakes on car in front of cyclists convicted.
To see my original post see
Criminal Trial Starts this week for MD who pulls in front of cyclists and slams on his brakes.
Dr. Dr. Christopher Thompson was convicted of seven felony counts for the act of pulling in front of two cyclists and slamming on his brakes injuring the cyclists. Dr. Thompson was convicted of two felony counts each of assault with a deadly weapon, battery with serious bodily injury, a felony count of reckless driving with specified injury, a felony count of mayhem, and a misdemeanor count of reckless driving. He could face ten years in prison.
See
Justice Served?
Ten Reasons Why Retailers should use a release
Why retailers should use a release
- You can track who is coming to your store.
- You will learn how many people demoed a product and whether the event was a success
- You will get the name, address, phone and email of everyone who demoed a product so you can start a contact list
- You can learn if the customer liked the product, even if they don't buy the product that day
- You can stop yourself from getting sued.
- You can educate your customers to some of the risks of the sport
- You can educate the customers to the risks of the new product
- You can rent anything to customers if you have the right release
- You can keep manufactures from sharing the defendant's table with you in a lawsuit.
- You can help customers move into bigger and/or better products because you can run a demo program for every product in your store.
November Free Review of Releases Program
In an opportunity to help generate ideas and interest in my blog and the Outdoor Recreation and Fitness Law Review I am going to make everyone an offer you can't refuse. During the month of November I am going to review your releases or acknowledgment of risk documents for free. You have to complete two steps to get this offer..
- Take the Survey and answer the questions and provide the necessary contract information.
- Send me a PDF or a Word document of your release or acknowledgment of risk form to me.
In return I'll send you a review of your release. No Charge. I'll let you know the problems you have or changes you need to make in your release or acknowledgment or risk form.
Why? I need more information about what you are looking for in an attorney, what you want from the blog, what worries you about the legal and risk management aspects of your program and subscribers to the Outdoor Recreation Law Review. I want to learn more about you. The questionnaire is going to help provide some of those answers.
Let Everyone You Know, Know about this.
Pass this information along on Facebook, Twitter and Email your friends and associates.
The Survey will be posted on the blog at here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dGVHV0RmdVFUcUpiTFNBeVlOOVliMXc6MA
Rules:
- I'm only licensed in the state of Colorado
- This will be a review. I will identify the issues I've found in your release or acknowledgment of risk form only.
- You must complete all questions on the quiz and provide complete and correct information.
- It can only be a PDF or a Word (doc, docx).
- The release is for use by human powered outdoor recreation programs or adventure travel programs.
- I reserve the right to cancel at any time or reject a program or release
- It may take several weeks to review your document; there is no time limit on my end.
- I reserve the right to change the rules, modify the rules, cancel the idea, or do anything else I want.
- There is no value in doing this.
- I'm not responsible for what you do with the information.
The information collected will not be used, distributed or given to anyone else. The contact information will be kept separate and not identified with the survey answers.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
PR Disaster should not be turned into bigger disasters
And if you did turn it into a bigger disaster try not to make an even bigger disaster
There has been a ton of issues flying around the world over BPA and finding it in container you use to drink from. It started with plastic water bottles which sent plastic bottles to the land fill and sent metal ones soaring in sales. Everyone picked up metal, stainless steel water bottles. You immediately found them in bicycle water bottle catches, on playgrounds and school teacher desks. Then it was discovered that stainless steel water bottles were lined with BPA.
In the mean time the public and Wall Street saw the metal water bottles sales soaring. People were afraid of BPA and plastic and the stainless manufactures benefitted from the fear of plastic. Then the stainless steel water bottle manufactures admitted that their bottles were lined with BPA also. That was a good and honest move.
Now the stainless water bottle manufactures are trying to redeem themselves and they are blowing it. When the plastic water bottle manufactures got caught, they argued that the BPA did not leech into the water. They lost this fight, they converted and they started selling again.
The stainless steel bottle makers tried to make this argument/defense again, there was no BPA in your water. Stupid move number 1. Don't learn from the guy who screwed up big time and try the same move.
Stupid Move number 2 is continue to try and dodge the issue. In a post, SIGG and the Problems of Transparency several different arguments are being made to justify the cover up. Such stellar examples include:
Look the issue is not who is bad, the issue is I spent money on the bottle sitting in front of me. You knew I was buying it because of my fear of BPA in my water bottles yet you kept quiet. You were silent knowing I was buying your bottle to avoid BPA, and your bottle was lined with BPA.
This is not a government issue, this is a personal issue. This problem did not occur on Wall Street the problem is sitting on my desk in front of me. I'm starring at the problem and I feel ripped off.
At least the plastic guys did not lie to me once the information was out and they never said we are not as bad as the other guy.
If you have a PR problem and you don't want to turn it into a legal problem you better come clean the first time and stay clean the rest of the time. (See Class Claims Toxin Was in Aluminum Bottles and Caddell & Chapman files class action complaint against SIGG.) Consumers feel duped, crap even I feel duped
Covering up works the same way as hiding under the covers, eventually people will see you under the covers. When you get caught telling the world it's not you or that your brother or that your brother did something worse than you, your parents did not buy it. Telling consumers there are bigger fish to fry does not matter to a consumer. Let the fish fryers deal with those issues. I want to feel better about being ripped off.
For other articles about this issue see:
Anger uncorked at bottle maker Sigg over BPA
SIGG Fights For Fanfare, Against Lawsuit
BPA in SIGG Water Bottles
Patagonia terminates relationship With SIGG water bottles
For other comments about PR disasters see How not to respond to a product liability claim or How to turn a mess into a legal disaster.
There has been a ton of issues flying around the world over BPA and finding it in container you use to drink from. It started with plastic water bottles which sent plastic bottles to the land fill and sent metal ones soaring in sales. Everyone picked up metal, stainless steel water bottles. You immediately found them in bicycle water bottle catches, on playgrounds and school teacher desks. Then it was discovered that stainless steel water bottles were lined with BPA.
In the mean time the public and Wall Street saw the metal water bottles sales soaring. People were afraid of BPA and plastic and the stainless manufactures benefitted from the fear of plastic. Then the stainless steel water bottle manufactures admitted that their bottles were lined with BPA also. That was a good and honest move.
Now the stainless water bottle manufactures are trying to redeem themselves and they are blowing it. When the plastic water bottle manufactures got caught, they argued that the BPA did not leech into the water. They lost this fight, they converted and they started selling again.
The stainless steel bottle makers tried to make this argument/defense again, there was no BPA in your water. Stupid move number 1. Don't learn from the guy who screwed up big time and try the same move.
Stupid Move number 2 is continue to try and dodge the issue. In a post, SIGG and the Problems of Transparency several different arguments are being made to justify the cover up. Such stellar examples include:
- We are not as bad as the other guys
- We are not the first people to lie to you; you should be used to it.
- It did not cost you millions to bail us out
- There are bigger fish to fry
Look the issue is not who is bad, the issue is I spent money on the bottle sitting in front of me. You knew I was buying it because of my fear of BPA in my water bottles yet you kept quiet. You were silent knowing I was buying your bottle to avoid BPA, and your bottle was lined with BPA.
This is not a government issue, this is a personal issue. This problem did not occur on Wall Street the problem is sitting on my desk in front of me. I'm starring at the problem and I feel ripped off.
At least the plastic guys did not lie to me once the information was out and they never said we are not as bad as the other guy.
If you have a PR problem and you don't want to turn it into a legal problem you better come clean the first time and stay clean the rest of the time. (See Class Claims Toxin Was in Aluminum Bottles and Caddell & Chapman files class action complaint against SIGG.) Consumers feel duped, crap even I feel duped
Covering up works the same way as hiding under the covers, eventually people will see you under the covers. When you get caught telling the world it's not you or that your brother or that your brother did something worse than you, your parents did not buy it. Telling consumers there are bigger fish to fry does not matter to a consumer. Let the fish fryers deal with those issues. I want to feel better about being ripped off.
For other articles about this issue see:
Anger uncorked at bottle maker Sigg over BPA
SIGG Fights For Fanfare, Against Lawsuit
BPA in SIGG Water Bottles
Patagonia terminates relationship With SIGG water bottles
For other comments about PR disasters see How not to respond to a product liability claim or How to turn a mess into a legal disaster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
