Suing the WTB&TS for their failure of duty of care towards Jehovahs Witnesses/volunteers when furthering their cause

smiddy

As an illustration/example : The two mature age women who were mauled by a dog recently who underwent a horrific experience when they were engaged in feild service for the WTB&TS and needed medical treatment and hospital care , if they had so chosen to do so ,couldnt they have sued the organization for their failure of duty of care ? How many more such cases happens that we dont hear about ? injuries at conventions , in field service ,on the way ,driving to field service or assemblys , accidents etc. ? (you are covered going to and from work in compensation cases )

I just wonder how many would be discouraged/intimidated against making such a claim by certain elders , especially against the elderly , or new ones, with the logic "just leave it in Jehovahs hands he will provide" let it be .

smiddy

DilemmaGF

Do you think they dare to sue their god?

Heartofaboy

They don't even insure the 'volunteers' that help out at the assemblies.

Get squashed by a reversing vehicle when helping 'brothers' to park & you are on your own.

Julia Orwell

I don't think they could sue even if they want to, except maybe in the USA where you can sue anyone for anything I believe. If they're considered an independent contractor, which is what the WT would class them as for legal reasons, they would technically be liable for their own insurance. I'm not sure what insurance covers charity volunteers, which could be another classification for them. They certainly wouldn't be eligible for workers' comp. Also, if the house had a "Beware of the dog" sign that makes the sisters liable for the injury because they ignored the sign.

Where I live, the owner of the dog would be liable for the attack, unless there was a warning sign. My cat got attacked by neighbourhood dogs once, and the dogs' owners were fined by the council. I could have pursued action against the owners myself for the cat's vet bills. These women could sue the owner for their medical expenses, but I don't know what the laws are where they live.

smiddy

Do you think they dare to sue their god?

I did know a brother an elder mind you ,who walked through a glass door at a circuit assembly held in a high school and he sued the school .

If I remember it properly the brothers said it was an insurance job

I do not know the ins and outs of this or the outcome.

smiddy

Julia Orwell

Yes, the venue would have public liability insurance. All public places do.

smiddy

Also, if the house had a "Beware of the dog" sign that makes the sisters liable for the injury because they ignored the sign.

I THINK it was when I was doing my first aid course , that the instructor pointed out that having a sign such as "beware of the dog " made you the owner liable for any injuries inflicted on anybody , in other words it didnt excuse you ,it made you liable .

I think it had to do with the fact /law /right ,that anybody has the right to come to your front door without prejudice.

Anybody who can add from an australian perspective would be appreciated

smiddy

designs

You pays the money and you never see it again. It is a one way street. The Wt. Leaders are without scruples.

joe134cd

Smidgey = you are correct in that you are allowed access to the front door during the hours of daylight. When you think about this it makes sense. Because it is not only the dubbies but also meter readers, girl guides selling cookies etc. as far as dangerous dogs I do believe they have to put a sign out. So what the situation with free access to the front door and having a dog that will rip your throat out trying to get there i don't know.

Tiktaalik

Julia: a sign warning of a vicious dog does not relieve the owner of responsibility if that dog attacks someone.

Suing the WTB&TS for their failure of duty of care towards Jehovahs Witnesses/volunteers when furthering their cause

Share this