Barnwell ROM

[x2elite]

I was keeping quiet and hoping it would blow over, but I think we may need to discuss this now. Over on LSJC there has been a lot of drama about TMTC, and Barnwell, and the new waivers they are forcing clubs to sign if they wish to have an event there. The current waiver now states that even if a club is having an open event (ie: not closing the park to outsiders), they will still be responsible for any and all accidents or damage to the park during their event (even if the injured party, or party who caused the damage/accident is in no way affiliated with their group). As you can tell this would open a whole new box of worms regarding liability for our organization. Also if the organization would not back the signers of the contract then there could be some personal financial liability invloved as well. I, for one, do not wish to be held personally financially responsible for anything the club (or outsiders) may do. Kurt and Ian I know are both over on LSJC, and I think we need to discuss this issue to determine if this is going to affect ROM.

 

[lil_red_wagon]

is it goin to mean the ROM is goin to be moved to another place? or what are yall thinkin?

 

[x2elite]

I am more or less wanting to see what everyone's opinion is. LSJC is currently working/battling with TMTC/Barnwell about the issue, and maybe they will get it hammered out. However, if they don't get it resolved we may need to have a backup plan.

 

[MischiefMan]

I would like to get a copy of their waiver and review it. I strongly suspect that the waiver may not be enforceable in accordance with their fears. I would also want to run it by the powers that be for and have their legal peeps comment. If I remember to, I'll venture over to LSJC and check out the drama.

 

[Crusher16]

The BMRA agreements can be downloaded for the following:

http://www.barnwellmountainra.com/do...t%20policy.pdf
http://www.barnwellmountainra.com/do...20Contract.pdf

 

[MischiefMan]

Cool. Thanks. I assumed they were readily available. I'll take a look at them tonight after I get finished with my school work.

 

[lil_red_wagon]

is the ROM a open or closed park event?

 

[MischiefMan]

The park is open to all during the ROM. We are not renting the entire park, just holding our event there.

 

[x2elite]

That is exactly what lsjc was doing as well , but tmtc was still trying to make them sign and assume all liability.

 

[MischiefMan]

It's all part of the New World Order man....

 

[lil_red_wagon]

thats wrong of a company to make you assume responsibility and liability for everyone espec if they arent with your group. i can understand for the ones that are with you. but isnt that why everyone signs the waiver?

 

[DeftwillP]

Well, we better get this worked out soon since we've committed to ROM @ Barnwell for the rest of eternity.

 

[xxmidianxx]

Well no one should ask the guy who is setting this up.

I have been working with Rick (Hawk) the Barnwell V/P and Tom Mitchell (greybeard) Barnwell Pres., but mainly with Rick, on setting this event up. I have a little diffrent copy of the contract and I will send it to you, MM. The one I have is alot alike the one posted with some stuff added for our event (i.e. trails closed).

There are two points I can see:

Section 3:
"The promoter agrees to pay restitution costs for any damages to portable toilets directly resulting from usage during the event."

and

Section 6:
"In general, the promoter agrees to return the property and facilities of BMRA in substantially the same conditions of function and cleanliness as they were received prior to the event."

Now I am no legal person but I think those statements are a little too general.

 

[x2elite]

I PMed you earlier about it Kurt, but I just wanted to make sure that none of us (or our organization) would be put into jeopardy by signing this contract. Unless they reword the contact for LSJC, and we can get a similar contract then I personally am not willing to sign my name to it. Not trying to start problems, just wanted to address this issue.

 

[MischiefMan]

thats wrong of a company to make you assume responsibility and liability for everyone espec if they arent with your group. i can understand for the ones that are with you. but isnt that why everyone signs the waiver?

Well, in fairness to the park.....it's a bit hard to police who is part of what gathering.

 

[lil_red_wagon]

i understand that. but if their guests no affiliation with any of us or the ROM damages somethin then it should be on yall. thats all im tryin to get at. now if it was a closed event then i could understand that cause everyone there would be involved with the event. but with it bein open i dont think thats fair to the ones that are tryin to put this on.

 

[xjintx]

Just an FYI to all :compwork:

I was on a committe for a few years that organizied I large sports event annually. The Bud Light Triathalon in Hawaii. We had lawyers that represented us. Two years we had bad accidents and even a death. We had over a million dollars in our cash flow assets alone.

The lawyers had always told us and it proved true that the WAIVERS signed by contestants just kept Honest people Honest. That is it kept contestants from claiming petty stuff... we could just say you signed waiver so sorry. However, when it came to civil lawsuits they meant nothing! You can't sign away liability.

I think TMTC is just trying the same... see if they can try and punt some responsibilty off if it ever comes up.

My .02

 

[x2elite]

I totally agree with you on this. I figure if it came down to it, then it shouldn't be too hard for any attorney to poke holes in whatever waiver they may have. However, I am still not wanting to place any unneccessary liability on us.

 

[MischiefMan]

So, I've read both the docs that Crusher linked. I see no where in them that says that we'd be responsible or liable for anyone outside of our event. In fact, the event policy specifically requires that are participants sign in as participants at the office.

Well, I suppose that we could be liable for damage to the portable toilets that is caused by usage of the same.

If I'm missing something or someone reads things differently, please let me know so that I can try to understand what you're talking about.

Of course, I make no representations or guarantees. Nothing in this post is intended to be, nor is it legal advise. The statements made in this post are merely the opinion of the poster. Any legal questions should be directed to an attorney licensed to practice law and admitted to the Bar. I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on the internet. The matter should be referred to our governing body.

 

[bwildered]

I think the concern is more with the 'Open Event Contract". Since the park will still be open to the general public, the line in Section 6,

"In general, the promoter agrees to return the property and facilities of

BMRA in substantially the same conditions of function and cleanliness​

as they were received prior to the event."

seems a little "open-ended". Meaning, let's say Joe-Bob in his 1-ton chevy on 44's crushes six outhouses, and then takes off before anyone notices/reports it. Technically, couldn't BMRA come back against "the promoter" for restitution, even though Joe-Bob wasn't part of their club/event?