Gene Kearns wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:32:28 -0400, Reginald P. Smithers III penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 21:10:10 -0400, Bill Kearney penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

That's bull****, trying to sue the association too. Money grubbing children
trying to score the lottery.
I disagree... at least, in principle... what is the purpose of a
"Lake Association" other than the purpose of social engineering.

If the "association" has failed to control the thoughts and behaviors
of one of its minions.... it should be held accountable..... and so
should all of the people (the "Association") that felt they could
control the actions of others........


Ditto all of those other "Associations" a la HOA.....

.... Go Figure.....

Gene,
I know you don't like HOA's, but do you really think the Association
should be held libel for "damages" because someone was drunk on the
lake? If that is true, couldn't we hold the C of E's responsible for
"damages" due to all DUI's and any other accidental deaths on lakes
under their control?

While the reward would not be as great, we could also sue any and all
lake owners if someone drowned in their private lake even if the victim
or the one responsible for the death was trespassing. After all a
lake should be fenced in to prevent people from trespassing, it really
is an attractive nuisance.

Now if, as Chuck said, the Association ran a club on the lake and served
the individual alcohol that contributed to the person being drunk, I
think they should be held responsible, but not just because they have
set up an Association to set up and enforce covenants for the lake.

I was posting a bit tongue-in-cheek..... attorneys tend to list, as a
defendant, everybody-on-earth that ever-had anything-to-do with
whatever-it-was seeking the deepest pockets.

It appears to me that these Lake Associations both control who is or
is not on the lake and have and enforce their own laws (which are most
likely a subset of the local and/or state laws). If I am correct on
that point (though not an attorney) I suspect that the plaintiff has a
pretty good case and will likely prevail in court. (I suspect that the
question will surround whether the victims of the accident had a
reasonable expectation of safely enjoying a privately controlled and
regulated lake.)

Again, don't miss the point that this is all CIVIL litigation made
possible by people who willingly signed on the dotted line and exposed
themselves to the potential hazards of being a defendant in any future
litigation. Lawsuits (nor associations) don't just work in one
direction.

If you are a member of any of these associations, bear in mind that
the association can both sue and be sued. If not properly
incorporated, your personal involvement with the association may have
exposed you to personal risk.

It will be interesting to see how this is finally resolved......


Gene,
I agree with everything you said except your interpretation of what is
reasonable expectations of what is the Associations responsibility in
controlling whom has access to use the Associations property. I would
hate to think an HOA would be responsible for a DUI on a street owned
and maintained by a HOA.

ps - Many (I would think most) HOA and the BOD's have insurance to
protect the Association and the BOD's from lawsuits. I know our little
condo HOA has an $5 M of insurance policy.