If SCCA has "knowledge" and doesn't react, then it could be
considered ignore a safety advisory. If there is an attorney on
the list, they could elaborate on the legal aspects.
Matt Murray
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>
> Why should that be an issue when they are talking about a 1999
report in the
> first place? SCCA is no more liable than they were a year ago
in that
> respect.
>
> --Rocky
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matt Murray" <mattm@optonline.net>
> > But if they "soften" the impact (pun intended?) of
obsolescing
> > our helmets, and an incident occurs, what happens then? The
> > lawyers would have their way with us. I'm wagering it will
happen
> > sooner than later.
> >
> > Matt Murray
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>
> >> I really do not believe we can prevent this -- "safety"
issues
> > always
> >> seem impervious to any objections -- but we might get it
> > imposed in a more
> >> user-friendly manner (if a new helmet you must buy, would
you
> > not rather be
> >> able to get a Snell 2005 than a Snell 2000 that already has
4
> > years of its
> >> rulebook life gone?)
> >>
> >> --Rocky
|