I generally hate to see a property owner get sued for something that was unintentional. It is easy to sympathise and imagine myself in the same situation. Fortunately, there is insurance to protect both property owners and those who may have been injured and have a legal right to seek reimbursement for their injury. However, I think we have a situation that goes well beyond that. I think it is plausible that those in the local congregation failed to foresee the danger of the exposed wires. They were acting under the direction of the Watchtower society that enforces the peculiar question and answer format of the meetings. The Watchtower society has to be aware of the dangers caused by these exposed wires. The must receive countless reports of people who have been injured. The fact that they haven't demanded that changes be made could indicate that there is a business and financial reason that outweighs the financial costs of allowing the wires in aisles. Their peculiar practice of asking questions that are meant to be answered without much thought from the publications and often with the society's ideas translated into the respondent's own words is a powerful mind control technique. This is a cornerstone of the Watchtower society's business model and is responsible for much of the suffering and even death that has been caused by the organisation. The Watchtower society has been able to shield itself legally from most of the damage they cause, using loopholes and their status as a religion. However, there is the obvious harm caused by their microphone wires that can (and should, in my opinion) be used to start recovering money for the harm they cause. The use of wires in the aisles is largely a cold hearted business decision where the financial benefits vastly outweigh the financial costs. These financial costs are greatly reduced by the reluctance of members to sue when they become injured. I say people should sue over this and there will finally be a financial motive for the Watchtower society to make a business decision that increases safety and reduces some of the harm caused by that organisation. The fact that much safer alternatives are available should make the Watchtower society's negligence and callous disregard very clear.
I sued the local congregation
by chukky 594 97 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Momma-Tossed-Me
Keep in mind that, although I agree that we are to litigious in this country. Having said that if the WTBTS had the opportunity to cause us as desenters and "apostates" harm, they would do it under that banner of spiritual warfare. They would not hold back as soilders of Jah.
So it is war and as you all know, "Alls fair in love and war."
-
TD
The occupancy rating of a meeting place like a Kingdom hall revolves around the exits and means of access to said exits being proportional to the number of seats. In other words, you have to have enough exits and the aisleways leading to these exits have to be wide enough to handle a full house in a panic situation. There are formulas for this and if you don't get it right, you may have to remove some seats to get your certificate of occupancy
Can you imagine what would happen in a Kingdom Hall if there was a fire, a strong gas leak, a sudden structural failure or some other cause for panic with 50+ feet of unruly coaxial cable running up and down each of the ailses? There's a reason why insurance regs and fire codes strictly prohibit creating trip hazards and/or restricting the ailses when this type of building is occupied. It's DANGEROUS.
I've been at JW functions where extra columns of folding chairs were placed up and down all the ailses. I've been at JW functions where the side aisles were elminated. I've even seen fire exits blocked off entirely with folding chairs.
Does simply pointing this out have any effect? Of course not. When a large group of human beings get into a chain of command mentality, the collective intelligence level goes into the toilet. It's unfortunate that it takes a situation like Chukky's to force change. Nobody likes to be spanked. Children don't like it and neither do organizations. But it serves a purpose if it helps to elimate a dangerous situtation and the mentality the created it.
-
miseryloveselders
TD, I hear ya, all too well. Yeah we can talk about building codes, inspections until we're blue in the face. But still, the fact remains that the kid either walked or ran across(probably the latter) the isle to sit with someone else, and wasn't paying attention to where she was going as most children don't pay attention, and she got jacked up as a result. Some responsibility has to fall on the child or the parents at that point. If the kid ran into a wall and broke her nose, can the parent sue and say the wall should have been somewhere else? Maybe the next time some kid gets his tongue stuck on a pole in the middle of winter, we can sue the city for not coating the poles with salt. At the hall, we've all seen 1 or 2 year olds who crawl under chairs, and forget that there's something over atop of their head and then inadvertently bump their head. Should we sue the congregation because it could have been prevented? Had the kid stayed put, or paid attention to where she was going, she never would have tripped over the wire in the first place. Considering it was a five year old, and considering that she busted her head pretty good, she probably was either walking really fast or running. I guarantee you after the event, I bet she payed a little more attention before walking across the isle.
-
clarity
There's a reason why insurance regs and fire codes strictly prohibit creating trip hazards and/or restricting the ailses when this type of building is occupied. It's DANGEROUS.
I agree with TD's comments on this subject.
We are commanded to attend these meetings, whether at kingdom halls or rented assembly facilities. The driving force behind this attendance, is not the care and safety of the sheep, you can be very sure! We must get there, and be there come hell or high water. Sick or not. Do or die.
And yet in our sacrificial attempts to satisfy "the mother' we find ourselves many times in rather unsafe circumstances.
While making our way to seats at an assembly one year, my little son walked off the end of a stairway and dropped down about 4 ft, injuring his neck. No one had checked to put up a barrier!
Obviously this site was not checked out for our safety then, and will not be as long as we keep quiet. As long as the borg can have it's own ends met, that will be the most important thing!
So glad I'm out, but for those still affected by the ineptitude of the 'rulers' - will they change their tactics any other way? .......So sue.
clarity
-
AGuest
Some responsibility has to fall on the child or the parents at that point.
Folks (and particularly you, dear Rooster - peace to you!)... this is an ERROR. First, children under 7 are almost always exempt from "responsibility", and certainly in this kind of situation. Why? Because their judgment skills are severely underdeveloped. Any of you who think that a 5-year-old child THINKS before walking/running... is seriously on some kind of mind trip (pun intended). Seriously, you all are suggesting that a 5-YEAR-OLD should have stopped, said to herself, "Hmmmm... Oh, look, there's some wires (note, where they shouldn't be), so I'd better slow down and carefully step over them so I don't hurt myself." Seriously??? I'm thinking you haven't spent much time around a 5-year-old... or even a 14-year-old (boy).
Children DO fall and scrape themselves... all the time... for all manner of reasons. Which is why the ADULTS are supposed to get things out of their way!! What you and others are suggesting is that the child... and the parents... are to blame because the child IS 5-YEARS-OLD! Because she did what most 5-year-olds would have done: thought, "Ooh, I better hurry so "JEHOVAH" doesn't get mad at me because I'm out of my seat!"... didn't pay attention to the wires (because what 5-YEAR-OLD would?????????)... and tripped. Children run, skip, hop... and move about in all manner of ways. She wasn't being unruly. She wasn't being disruptive. She was crossing the aisle, fer chissake!
If the kid ran into a wall and broke her nose, can the parent sue and say the wall should have been somewhere else?
Forgive my zeal... but this is an absolutely ridiculous question. A WALL is (1) immovable, which makes it (2) where it should be. The wires SHOULDN'T have been there. That the WTBTS is a religion that includes presentations where microphones are traipsed up and down the aisle... IS NOT A 5-YEAR-OLD's fault. Nor is it her parents. It theirs (the WTBTS/congregation's)... and it is [probably] ILLEGAL (it is almost anywhere you go in the western world!). If the WTBTS/congregation CHOOSES, therefore, to utterly disregard the RULES OF SAFETY and have such equipment used during their meetings, then it is THEIR responsibility to ensure the safety of EVERYONE around while they do it!
Obviously, none of you who believe the child and her parents to be responsible have undergone a fire expection. I PROMISE you that cords in the aisle are a VIOLATION of the fire code, no matter where you live in the western world. I PROMISE you that the Fire Chief would tell them, "Uh-uh. You can run 'em along the wall to, say, a stationary mic, and have folks walk up and comment, but you CANNOT have cords running up and down the aisle." Which is why, whenever you see shows/events/conferences, etc., you don't SEE folks running up and down the aisle with corded mics!
What you are others are suggesting, however, is tantamount to saying, for example, that the [brother] "handling" the mic who "accidentally" got severely shocked and his hand burned... was responsible for HIS injury... because he KNEW that electrical equipment can create a shock! Nevermind that there was a "short" somewhere IN the mic - he knew mics are used during the meetings and since he "volunteered" to handle one, he took the risk. SERIOUSLY???
Want to take issue with the poster for his motive in bringing a suit at this time? Hey, I'm with you - that wasn't on the up and up and he shouldn't receive any pats on the back for it. But to try and say that he and/or the child was RESPONSIBLE for her injury? No. You're wrong. Dead wrong. Unequivocally and absolutely dead wrong.
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA... Juris Doctor
-
diamondiiz
Most who are upset are because it was a lawsuit out of spite against an organization a person was about to leave and an incident which occurred years prior. If this was an individual person being sued I would disagree with the concept and reasons behind it. Being that this cult not only takes advantge of people when they are down or that they take advantage of young and naive victims I would care less for what reason an individual would sue these bastards. It's true nobody holds a gun to anyone's head for being a dub and no one is forced BUT when an individual is going through hard times, is young and naive or simply seeking God and these assholes come and take advantage of showing you selected information while the true history is hid from you and many of us were involved with the cult because we just didn't have all the facts presented to us when we were dupped and so forth. How many of us lost our youth to this cult? How many have lost their families for leaving the cult because wts teaches anyone who leaves is an evil, satan's slave? How many have given up much of their resources because they were dupped to following a BS teachings of this cult? How many lost family members to following wts' no blood policy? And on these basis alone I have no problem for the organization getting sued for whatever small and insignificant reason someone deems to do so. We cannot sue for being decieved, for losing loved one because of no blood policy, for loosing family or friends or our youth to a cult, so who really gives a rats ass if this cult gets sued because it's done out of spite. I'm sure JWs wouldn't have problem sueing you if they fell at your doorstep because of ice while knowing you were an apostate. I guess I have zero sympathy for WTS as a whole which includes khs which beling to wts and not to individuals.
-
miseryloveselders
Aguest, I'm sorry, but The Rooster is just not going to see eye to eye with you on this. If you feel that the five year old is absolved from responsibility, well then that leaves at least one, possibly two people who are not.....the parent or parents. Since we're getting all legalistic, allow Attorney General Misery to approach the bench...........if crossing the isle during the WT Study is such a dangerous activity, why didn't one of the parents walk the child, hand in hand to to the row that the child wished to sit in? They would certainly hold the child's hand and walk the kid across a street, wouldn't they?
I'm all for bringing the WT down, but I don't agree with this. I'm glad the threadstarter and his family are out of the cancer though. I just don't agree with suing the congregation because of the actions of an underage child with careless parents. I'll concede maybe my thinking is off today, because some posters whom I respect have taken differing opinions, but i'm feeling like Pharoahe today, my heart has grown obstinate over this thread.
-
cyberjesus
the judges have spoken! bad perdon bad.... the judgmental attitude is the longer lasting gift of the wt. thanks for sharing and welcome
-
TD
Here's another way to look at it. We don't let our kids leave a skateboard out on the front porch and the reason should be obvious. Somebody could step on it and fall.
We could argue that the salesman who steps on a skateboard and falls should have seen something this large and this obvious until we're blue in the face. After all, you would think a skateboard would be pretty hard to miss. But that's not a legal defense. The salesman had a prior expectation of an unobstructed walkway and we had a prior responsibility to provide him one.