Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re:Liability Insurance in Foreign Countries

Expand Messages
  • henrikofhavn
    Thanks, I certainly don t disagree with having insurance coverage, if it really works. In my mind the real question is where to get it. I think the rules about
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 11, 2011
      Thanks,

      I certainly don't disagree with having insurance coverage, if it really works. In my mind the real question is where to get it. I think the rules about insurance coverage, as presented in the equestrian handbook, as I understand them, only offers legal protection in the US, and Thai riders need to make special inquiry of the Coporation as well as locally to see what they should do.

      I know in England, at the NON SCA reenactment event of the Battle of Hastings that I've participated in, combat with blunt steel bladed weapons are the norm and we were all subject to having bird blunt tipped arrows fired at us from 60 pound draw weight bows. The only protection for the eyes that was recommended ( not required in many cases) was a conical helmet with no coverage for the eyes. I personally whitnessed a rider and his horse fall at a full gallop downhill, and both did a complete cartwheeling sommersault. Aparently they managed little or no injuries, though the rider could have ended up paralized like Chris Reeve or worse, dead! Only his kite shield prevented his high cantled saddle from crushing his ribs as the horse rolled over him ( according to the testimony of a whitness standing nearby),

      The SCA's Liability policy, even if it did apply in England, wouldn't permit much of such activity. Yet we were able to do it because in England, I was told, the courts presume that adults participating in such activity understand the dangers and so don't usually award liability claims against participants, when someone gets injured of killed. It seems the SCA corporation probably wouldn't benefit significantly in such cases, from requiring an insurance certificate in England, were it even to be applicable in that country in the first place.


      As a former Board Member, I have to agree with you, as a whole they tend to be overly conservative and in a sense perhaps less practical. On the other hand look at how many years they managed to avoid major law suits. The current one that they are using as the reason to raise membership rates, is the first one in 45 years to my knolwedge.

      Henrik

      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      --- In WestKingdomEQ@yahoogroups.com, Nancy Reimers <nancyreimers@...> wrote:
      >
      > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:17 PM, henrikofhavn <henriksd5@...> wrote:
      >
      > >
      > >
      > > Again, in MY OPINION, the reason for Liability Insurance is to have a way
      > > to fight law suits that are caused by accident or misuse of activities and
      > > objects, that cause someone injury or financial losses, within the
      > > jurisdiction of concern ( ie. The United States of America). The only party
      > > that is protected by such Liability Insurance that the SCA Corporation owns
      > > and requires "members" to obtain coverage under, is the SCA Inc. and it's
      > > officers and agents. If any of us as individuals get sued, we are on our own
      > > to fight it and pay for it.
      > >
      > >
      > I agree. I just figure you are being much more practical than the Board of
      > Directors might be :)
      >
      > Else
      >
    • Antonie Dvorakova
      I never have solutions, but when we are speaking of foreign countries, I have an observation. It is not only England that it is assumed that adults are
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 11, 2011
        I never have solutions, but when we are speaking of foreign countries, I have an observation. It is not only England that it is assumed that adults are responsible for themselves in whatever they may like to be doing. When I used to participate in battle re-enactments in the Czech Republic, there were no recommendations/requirements whatsoever, so some did not even wear gauntlets and helmets. Yet, everything Henrik mentioned was going on--the steel swords and everything. I have news that now a certain diameter is required on arrows so that they cannot poke eyes that easily. But I have never heard of a liability waiver form until I came to America, and I do not think they have any of this stuff at re-enactments to this day (most of them include horses as well). So I doubt they have any of this kind of stuff in Thailand either. Although of course they need to check out there.
        Best luck,
        Antonie
        PS: Concerning injuries, I have never seen a bad one, but it is true that I was attending the safer battles where only those who are considered to know what they are doing are invited. There are also battles in which anyone can participate, and those may be significantly scarier. Still, no liability forms, however :-).

        --- In WestKingdomEQ@yahoogroups.com, "henrikofhavn" <henriksd5@...> wrote:
        >
        > Thanks,
        >
        > I certainly don't disagree with having insurance coverage, if it really works. In my mind the real question is where to get it. I think the rules about insurance coverage, as presented in the equestrian handbook, as I understand them, only offers legal protection in the US, and Thai riders need to make special inquiry of the Coporation as well as locally to see what they should do.
        >
        > I know in England, at the NON SCA reenactment event of the Battle of Hastings that I've participated in, combat with blunt steel bladed weapons are the norm and we were all subject to having bird blunt tipped arrows fired at us from 60 pound draw weight bows. The only protection for the eyes that was recommended ( not required in many cases) was a conical helmet with no coverage for the eyes. I personally whitnessed a rider and his horse fall at a full gallop downhill, and both did a complete cartwheeling sommersault. Aparently they managed little or no injuries, though the rider could have ended up paralized like Chris Reeve or worse, dead! Only his kite shield prevented his high cantled saddle from crushing his ribs as the horse rolled over him ( according to the testimony of a whitness standing nearby),
        >
        > The SCA's Liability policy, even if it did apply in England, wouldn't permit much of such activity. Yet we were able to do it because in England, I was told, the courts presume that adults participating in such activity understand the dangers and so don't usually award liability claims against participants, when someone gets injured of killed. It seems the SCA corporation probably wouldn't benefit significantly in such cases, from requiring an insurance certificate in England, were it even to be applicable in that country in the first place.
        >
        >
        > As a former Board Member, I have to agree with you, as a whole they tend to be overly conservative and in a sense perhaps less practical. On the other hand look at how many years they managed to avoid major law suits. The current one that they are using as the reason to raise membership rates, is the first one in 45 years to my knolwedge.
        >
        > Henrik
        >
        > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        >
        > --- In WestKingdomEQ@yahoogroups.com, Nancy Reimers <nancyreimers@> wrote:
        > >
        > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:17 PM, henrikofhavn <henriksd5@> wrote:
        > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Again, in MY OPINION, the reason for Liability Insurance is to have a way
        > > > to fight law suits that are caused by accident or misuse of activities and
        > > > objects, that cause someone injury or financial losses, within the
        > > > jurisdiction of concern ( ie. The United States of America). The only party
        > > > that is protected by such Liability Insurance that the SCA Corporation owns
        > > > and requires "members" to obtain coverage under, is the SCA Inc. and it's
        > > > officers and agents. If any of us as individuals get sued, we are on our own
        > > > to fight it and pay for it.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > I agree. I just figure you are being much more practical than the Board of
        > > Directors might be :)
        > >
        > > Else
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.