An article appeared in last Thursdays Advertiser newspaper over here in South Australia regarding a court case where a current Jehovah's Witness (tm) sued a farmer AND the Adelaide Congregation Of Jehovahs Witnesses for injuries he sustained during a 'house-to-house' visit.
Sorry I haven't got time to reproduce the whole 3/4-page article so i'll just paraphrase it. SORRY! If any Aussies want to see it just go to your State Library and they'd have it there.
Article details:
Newspaper: The Advertiser (Adelaide, South Australia)
Date: Thursday, 23rd of January 2003
Page: 11
Article headline: "Forgive Us Our Trespassers - SB The Ram Didn't". (Note: 'Trespassers' not 'Trespasses').
Basically 2 JW's (father + daughter) were country witnessing and they entered a farm (which was fenced totally around) and as they approached the house the male JW was charged by a pet ram named SB. He tried to fend it off with his suitcase but was knocked to the ground with a broken shin.
Article (rightly) points out that if they had read the sign on the gate "PRIVATE KEEP OUT" (Article has pic of farmer standing behind gate...the sign on the gate is right next to the gate-chain the JW's had to unlock to enter the property) the incident would not have happened.
The JW who broke his shin afterwards took the farmer AND the Adelaide Congregation of JW's to court!!!
The injured JW said in court that SB the ram "was a dangerous and ferocious animal" and [farmer] was negligent for not keeping it confined. (Err, the farm was totally fenced off). Also said that he entered the property to "engage in biblical discussion". (Weak excuse for justification to enter private property). Injured JW said he had to sell his "hose-fitting" business and is only able to walk small distances and his quality of life is diminished. (The incident happened in July 2001)
The injured JW sued the Adelaide Congregation Of Jehovahs Witnesses for "failing to provide proper instructions about doorknocking in rural areas".
Farmer in his defence said the JW's had entered the property "uninvited, unwanted and without notice".
Now here the kicker, The Adelaide Congregation Of Jehovahs Witnesses said in its defence (I'll reproduce the whole 2 paragraphs in the article here):
"In it's defence, the Adelaide Congregation Of Jehovahs Witnesses said doorknocking was VOLUNTARY and followers WERE NOT OBLIGED to undertake the activity.
"Whether or not anyone claiming to be one of the Jehovahs Witnesses and the extent of such involvement is a personal matter for each individual to decide," it said. (Capitals mine)
So field service is now optional??????????
Anyone here wanna do a search on the WT CDROM for statements saying that field service is compulsory/optional????
The Adelaide Congregation Of Jehovah's Witnesses wasn't found to be negligent (based on the argument that the JW didn't have to be there) and the farmer made a confidential out-of-court settlement, which was covered by his insurance company.
To quote 'Dirty' Harry Callahan: "The law's crazy!"
P.S. I'll be definitely getting the court transcripts to this one!
P.P.S. I hope the JW didn't have SB the ram put down...
AK