Re: Clearing trail

["Linda B. Merims" <lbm@ici.net>]

Cyberpony@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Hate to throw cold water on these ideas.  But what about the liability
> exposure of having 4-H kids and Boy Scouts doing this kind of stuff?
> Just a thought.
> 

One of the presentations given at the Clemson conference was on liability.
In 1997, the Federal Volunteer Protection Act was passed.  The blurb from
the attorney (Denise Farris of Kansas City, Missouri) reads as follows:

 "Pursuant to a Congressional recognition of the steady decline of volunteerism
 as a result of legal liablity exposure, Congress enacted the Volunteer Protection
 Act of 1997.  The Act's primary pupose is to assist non-profit organizations
 in recruiting and maintaining volunteer support by limiting their exposure
 to lawsuits arising from the volunteer activity.  The Act applies only
 for "qualifying organizations," i.e., an organization formed for
 charitable, civic, educational, religious, welfare or health purposes;
 or a tax exempt organization; or a state or its subdivisions.  The protected
 party must qualify as a "volunteer"; i.e., may not receive compensation for
 his, her or its services (other than reasonable reimbursement or allowance
 for expenses actually incurred) or receive any gift in lieu of compensation
 exceeding $500.  Finally, a volunteer will enjoy protection only if he
 or she was acting within the volunteer's scope of responsibility; was
 properly licensed or certified if licensing or certification is required;
 did not engage in wilfull, criminal, reckless or grossly negligent conduct;
 or did not cause an injury while operating a motor vehicle, vessel,
 aircraft or other vehicle requiring a license."

(There is more on this on her web page:  http://www.farrislawfirm.com/equine_whatsnew.htm#S3 )

But I suspect that doesn't answer your real question.  What this addresses
is the exposure of the *volunteer* to being sued.  I.e., it would protect
the individual boy scouts and, possibly, individuals within your organization
who were supervising them from being sued.  (My understanding is that the
organization as a whole can still be sued.)  But it doesn't say anything
at all about what could happen if, say, a girl scout breaks an arm and her
parents decide to sue your organization or the private property owner on whose
land the work was being done.  Another thing that I remember from
this is that the "rules" about how much responsibility one has to protect
other people are much, much stricter when we're talking about kids than
adults. 

But surely the people to ask are the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.  (Maybe not
the local leader, but the national office.)  It would stand to reason they
encounter these kinds of objections all the time and have had to work
something out to avoid losing many, many enriching adventures.

Another suggestion made at the conference was the local AARP chapter.
Many of these retired folks are still in reasonable shape and have
incredible experience that they are just itching to put to some good use.

I was also thinking that while many riders in training may not have time to
devote to work days, I'd bet there are a lot of rider's *spouses* who would
jump on board if asked.  Thinking about the proposed work day in Alabama,
what guy do you know could resist the chance to build a bridge?

Still, I'd hate to think we rely too much upon getting our trail maintenance
done by proxies... 


Linda B. Merims
lbm@ici.net
Massachusetts, USA