A different wrinkle on liability in Virginia

[eisely 13]

I thought that California had strange laws. I wonder how many other states have similar laws exempting non profits from civil liability in similar matters.

 

When I first saw the headline I thought two scouts had died, but apparently these boys were not scouts participating in a scout sanctioned and operated event.

 

Such deaths are tragic and usually avoidable, but $30 million sounds a little too opportunistic to generate much sympathy from me.

 

Sure validates scout safety procedures.

 

______________________

 

Ruling: Church, Boy Scouts immune from suit

Exception allows attorneys to go forward with case

 

By Jessie Halladay

Daily Press

 

August 16, 2003

 

HAMPTON -- A Hampton judge ruled this week that a local church and the Boy Scouts of America are immune from a lawsuit filed by the parents of two boys who drowned at a James City County camp last September because they are charities.

 

Circuit Court Judge Christopher Hutton ruled in a letter released Friday that both the Boy Scouts and the Iglesia Cristiana Camino a la Luz in Hampton qualify for charitable immunity. Groups that qualify for charitable immunity are exempt from lawsuits seeking damages.

 

The fathers of 14-year-old Jordan Feliciano and 17-year-old Maximino Feliciano Jr. sued the church and the Boy Scouts for $30 million.

 

The lawsuit accuses church leaders of not properly supervising the boys, who were cousins. The Boy Scouts are named in the lawsuit because they own Camp Chickahominy, where the boys drowned.

 

Joseph Stellute, attorney for the Feliciano families, said they will appeal the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court.

 

Despite the judge's ruling or the result of the appeal, Stellute said the lawsuit can still go forward because of an exception to the charitable immunity rule.

 

That exception allows Stellute to continue his argument that the church was negligent by not providing a qualified lifeguard for the outing.

 

Hutton's ruling comes after hearing arguments from the church and the Boy Scouts in July.

 

In order to prove charitable immunity, the groups have to show that they are a nonprofit charity and that those suing benefited from their services.

 

During the July hearing, Stellute argued that the boys did not benefit from the Boy Scouts, who merely provided the land for the church outing.

 

As for the church, Stellute argued that they do not qualify as a charity because they do not follow their bylaws to the letter - making them not a legal church.

 

In his ruling, Hutton disagreed - writing that the Felicianos benefited both from the Boy Scouts and the church, both viable charitable groups.

 

[scoutldr 732]

At the time it happened, the news reported that the Church had leased the camp from the Colonial Virginia Council for the weekend. The rental agreement did not include the lake, and it was specified that it was off limits. Nor was aquatics a part of the Church's planned activities. The youth snuck away from the group and one dared the other to a swimming race to a raft anchored in the middle of the lake. Their deaths were tragic, but were the result of their own misconduct.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

If this goes to trial, the plantiffs will assert that the Boy Scouts should have erected a six foot high fence around the lake and that the church should have posted armed guards. After all, we cannot expect that youth will stay away from an off limits area.