Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Wright
Really? Unsafe environment? Possibly leading to serious eye injury? Is this really how you are thinking?
|
For me personally, not really. I do all kind of crazy activities that most people would find way too risky.
But, reviewing the thread, I think a skillful lawyer could make that case. I have seen many posts about "unsafe" actions committed by teams which were tolerated by the FIRST safety monitors. When unsafe practices are allowed to exist by the responsible authority, that creates liability.
I think it could be argued that the pit area is inherently more dangerous than the spectator seating in the dome. If there were not a threat of serious eye injury, there would not be a requirement for safety glasses to be worn in the pit areas at all times. At the regionals I have attended, it was not a requirement that spectators expose themselves to this increased level of hazard in order to simply watch the matches. But at the finals, it was.
Statistically, at some time, some spectator IS going to be injured. Their health insurance company lawyers are going to examining the circumstances which lead up to that injury. If FIRST has in any way been negligent, they are going to get taken to the cleaners.
If I were on that legal team, the first thing I would do is subpoena any video footage shot by every team at the event that might show unsafe conditions which FIRST could have or should have anticipated, but did not prevent from occurring. I'm betting that if I were to review the footage that even our one team took of the matches, I would find many, many people in the stands of the pit fields not wearing safety glasses. I would present this to a jury as evidence that FIRST created a known safety hazard, and allowed it to exist, even in violation of it's own rules.
Why should FIRST even go there? Putting the match fields back in the dome shows that FIRST exercises due diligence to protect spectators from preventable harm. We live in a lawsuit happy culture where hanging a "Beware of Dog" sign is not evidence of concern that visitors not be harmed. It is evidence that the owner knew that their pet was dangerous and yet did not take steps to prevent the public from harm.
And in the interests of full and open disclosure, I personally don't believe that anywhere at the competition was unacceptably dangerous. But, I am willing to use this hypothetical argument as a way to get the pit fields out of the pits and back into the dome.