'Banning' unruly participants

[Bob_McAdams]

@DENTONCHESS

A sound policy used by most of the chess-in-education firms I know of is that there are certain rules that must be used when dealing with minors:
A. no closed on-on-one meetings (Open Doors)
B. No escorting of minors into restrooms.
C. No transporting of minors to events (unless with permission slips and other adults present)

Use of such rules generally minimizes the opportunities, and thus the risk.

Well, that’s interesting! I once coached at a kids’ swim camp, which was held at a college. One of the rules was that the kids were not allowed to go anywhere outside their dormitory unless they were accompanied by at least one coach. We once took a bunch of the kids to the college’s bookstore and a boy needed to use a restroom while we were there, so I had to escort him into the restroom and remain there until he was finished. Your rule B seems to assume that a minor who is not escorted into a restroom by a staff member will automatically be safe from any other risk, which is rather naive!

Bob

[Bob_McAdams]

@kbachler

@jwiewel

I’m not sure of the truth of the following story (it’s probably apocryphal), but it is an example that makes many people hesitant to take some countermeasures if they cannot be guaranteed to be enough to prevent every risk.

STORY
Two people are walking after a snowfall. One slips, falls, and suffers an injury on an unshoveled walk. The other suffers the same injury on a shoveled walk.
The judge declares the injury on the unshoveled walk to be due to an act of God (a snowfall that was obvious and gave the walker a reason to take care) and absolves the homeowner of any responsibility. The judge also declares the injury on the shoveled walk to be due to negligence (incorrect or incomplete shoveling that gave the walker a false sense of safety) and requires the homeowner’s insurance to pay for the injury.

I believe the laws were like that at one time, but have been changing the last 30-ish years or so.

Just out of interest: In what direction have the laws changed? Is the homeowner now liable for falls on the unshoveled as well as the shoveled walk? Or is the homeowner now liable for neither?

Bob

[Bob_McAdams]

@Ron Suarez

Don’t convicted child molesters have a prohibition on them to not be around children?

It depends in some degree on where you are, and it depends on what you mean by “around children”. Some communities actually stipulate that convicted child molestors cannot live with a certain distance of places like schools and parks that might be frequented by children (though such laws are controversial), and there are certainly laws that may restrict child molestors from having unsupervised access to children. But it’s hard to imagine a doctor’s or dentist’s office, or a hospital, or an airport, or a train or bus station, or even a public street where a child molestor would not be “around” children.

The bottom line is that a parent doesn’t have the right to drop a child off unsupervised at a chess tournament that is open to both children and adults and to expect that their child will be inherently safe from predators. They need to decide, based on the age and maturity of their child and based on what warnings he or she has been given (e.g., “Don’t go anywhere with anyone unless we say it’s okay”), whether it is safe to leave the child without adult supervision.

Bob

[nolan]

When it comes to injury on your property (including the sidewalk) liability isn’t so much a matter of law, it’s a matter of what the judge/jury decides.

[kevin_bachler]

@Bob McAdams

@kbachler

@jwiewel

I’m not sure of the truth of the following story (it’s probably apocryphal), but it is an example that makes many people hesitant to take some countermeasures if they cannot be guaranteed to be enough to prevent every risk.

STORY
Two people are walking after a snowfall. One slips, falls, and suffers an injury on an unshoveled walk. The other suffers the same injury on a shoveled walk.
The judge declares the injury on the unshoveled walk to be due to an act of God (a snowfall that was obvious and gave the walker a reason to take care) and absolves the homeowner of any responsibility. The judge also declares the injury on the shoveled walk to be due to negligence (incorrect or incomplete shoveling that gave the walker a false sense of safety) and requires the homeowner’s insurance to pay for the injury.

I believe the laws were like that at one time, but have been changing the last 30-ish years or so.

Just out of interest: In what direction have the laws changed? Is the homeowner now liable for falls on the unshoveled as well as the shoveled walk? Or is the homeowner now liable for neither?

Bob

I haven’t followed up on this and I’m not an expert in it, but I recall a trend of “good Samaritan” laws with the idea that if one was reasonably trying to make a situation better than the previous “act of God/nature” situation the risk for the Good Samaritan acting would be diminished.

[nolan]

As I understand it, Good Samaritan laws generally apply to an otherwise uninvolved party, such as a passing motorist stopping to render assistance at an accident.

I don’t think they are applicable to what happens on your sidewalk, shoveled or not.

Several years ago, the city of Lincoln Nebraska assumed responsibility for repairing sidewalks, but at last report they were some $50 million behind in making repairs. I know several homeowners in my neighborhood who chose to repair their sidewalks at their own expense rather than risk being sued if someone fell or tripped on it. (At least one of them is an attorney.)

[timjust]

This is America–no matter what the law says,a law suit saying the client is not responsible is what it is all about. With the lawyers making all the $$$$.

[tmagchesspgh]

It must be election season. Cynicism is as fresh as the crisp air of autumn. With regard to the alleged icey sidewalk, local ordinances apply. If it snows and and you do not shovel your walk, you may be held responsible if someone falls. There is no “act of God” defense. A lawyer might try such a defense, and fail. Talk to your insurance agent or your attorney concerning your responsibility in such matters. Most lawyers will not press cases that are bound to fail; it wastes their time and money as they are paid on a contingency basis.

As to the issue at hand, if you have evidence that an individual is a convicted child molester, you are well withing your rights to ban him/her from an event where children are present. You can follow due process procedures of notifying him of your concerns and your decision not to permit him to play. In cases of convicted sex offenders, upon their parole or completion of their sentence, they are still under state restrictions and are almost certainly to be on a public listing. The states have yet to determine the degree to which such offenders are permitted to be around children in public venues, but you should be on pretty firm ground to deny such a person access. The burden will be on that individual to show why he should be allowed to participate.

Parents are going to have to recognize that we (clubs, TDs, tournament organizers) are not babysitters. There is only so much we can do to monitor their children. In large tournaments, it is their responsibility to see to their children. If it comes to the point where the states require that chess tournaments provide security for all participants, then that will be the end of much of tournament chess as the costs will be prohibitive.

[kevin_bachler]

@tmagchesspgh

It must be election season. Cynicism is as fresh as the crisp air of autumn. With regard to the alleged icey sidewalk, local ordinances apply. If it snows and and you do not shovel your walk, you may be held responsible if someone falls. There is no “act of God” defense. A lawyer might try such a defense, and fail. Talk to your insurance agent or your attorney concerning your responsibility in such matters. Most lawyers will not press cases that are bound to fail; it wastes their time and money as they are paid on a contingency basis.

The point that was being made though, is that in an earlier time we didn’t think the laws were not this way. See below for an example.

@St. Louis Today

For instance, in one landmark Missouri case, a plaintiff successfully sued a restaurant after slipping on a lot the day after it was cleared. Personal injury attorney K. Lindsay Rakers of the Cagle Law Firm explains the condition of the property was more dangerous than surrounding areas [that had not been cleared.]

“A thorough investigation of the facts leading up to the fall is absolutely crucial in these fall cases,” Rakers said.

Clearly, these cases are complicated. But Michener can think of one example when, yes, you should leave the shovel in the garage: ice topped with snow.

“At that point you have the natural accumulation and no legal duty. But if you do go out there and expose a sheet of ice under 3 inches of snow, then you’ve made it worse,” Michener said. “Good intent doesn’t matter in cases of negligence.”
:
:
Or you could just shovel the darn snow. That’s what Jim Camoriano, a spokesman for State Farm Insurance, does. The insurance company does not track snow-related slip-and-falls, but Camoriano says the region hasn’t faced a rash of claims. He recommends policyholders do what they can to keep their walks safe. After all, it’s the neighborly thing to do.

“I’ve heard that too, that once you maintain (your walk) then your liability increases,” Camoriano said. “But don’t you want to do what you can to make things as safe as possible for your neighbors and your mail carrier, not to mention yourself? To me, it seems like common sense.”

@NY Times

‘‘There are two basic rules,’’ said Ross Sandler, director of the Center for New York City Law, a nonprofit educational organization at New York Law School. ‘‘The first rule is that the city is responsible for the condition of the public streets and sidewalks.’’ And that, Mr. Sandler said, includes the responsibility for removing snow from public sidewalks.

But, he said, ‘‘the second rule is that the city requires individual land owners to clear the snow from sidewalks abutting their property.’’ And he added that the courts have upheld the right of local governments to require property owners to maintain public sidewalks adjoining their property.
:
:
Meg Reuter, a lawyer and managing editor of City Law, a newsletter published by the Center for New York City Law, explained that in New York City, neither the city nor the homeowner is required to shovel while snow is falling. When the snowing stops, however, the city has a ‘‘reasonable time’’ to insure that the sidewalks are cleared.

While the law does not specifically define how much time is reasonable, Ms. Reuter said, at least one court has ruled that it would not be unreasonable for the city to take as much as two days to remove 22 inches of snow from a public sidewalk.

The city, however, is not nearly as liberal in giving homeowners time to shovel sidewalks outside their homes.

‘‘The city’s Administrative Code requires owners, occupiers and managers of property abutting the public sidewalk to clear the snow from the sidewalk within four hours after the cessation of any snowfall,’’ Ms. Reuter said, adding that shoveling can wait until the next morning if the snow stops falling between 9 P.M. and 7 A.M.

‘‘You can get a ticket for not shoveling,’’ she said, explaining that a first violation carries a $50 fine while subsequent violations carry $100 penalties.
:
:
What many homeowners do not know, however, is that in some cases the safest way to avoid liability for a slip and fall on a snow-covered sidewalk is to do nothing at all – no shoveling, no plowing, no salting – and pay whatever fines are imposed.

‘‘It sounds odd,’’ said Mr. Sandler, who is also a law professor at New York Law School. ‘‘But in New York, the landowner who shovels negligently is at risk of being held liable for a slip and fall. The landowner who does nothing cannot be held liable at all.’’

The reason for the odd result, Mr. Sandler said, is rule No. 1 above: The city is responsible for the condition of the public streets and sidewalks.

Quoted in a Cleveland News Station article (and Mike Nolan, this is the story that I think was in the pit of my memory) "The city of Chicago even passed a law to specifically toss out frivolous arguments. Chicago Municipal Code 10-8-190 says that you cannot be sued if you attempt to clear your walk. It says “any person who removes snow or ice from the public sidewalk or street, shall not, as a result of his acts or omissions in such removal, be liable for civil damages.”

[davidacole]

Thank You for everyone’s comments. As was the case, this “Perv” was sentenced to 5 years probation, which would have ended a few years before this proposed U.S. Open we were bidding for, but was still in effect when the bidding process was occurring, and the “Perv” did not do any jail time since the victims were too embarrassed to testify against him, thus was able to escape the more serious charges, and got away with selling Kiddie Pornagraphy, just a real hard slap on the wrists, IMO.

I still feel to this day, regardless of how we proceeded with this bid, we were stuck in a “No Win Situation”. I am glad to see that presently, parents are a lot more vigilant about traveling with their children, offering their unconditional support and encouragement, and being on the lookout for any problematic behavior.

Back in those days, perhaps not enough information was available about child molestation, so we all plead ignorance given the general lack of knowledge of this delicate subject area.

[nolan]

Kevin, just because the law says you aren’t liable, that doesn’t mean you can’t be sued and possibly found liable anyway.

Just the time, effort and expense of defending yourself can be immense.

[Bob_McAdams]

@kbachler

I haven’t followed up on this and I’m not an expert in it, but I recall a trend of “good Samaritan” laws with the idea that if one was reasonably trying to make a situation better than the previous “act of God/nature” situation the risk for the Good Samaritan acting would be diminished.

I have heard of something along these lines pertaining to cases involving the internet.

Historically, the law has tended to take the position that the liability of third parties involved in the transmission of defamatory statements depends on whether the third parties scrutinize the information they pass before passing it. Thus, a newspaper that publishes defamatory statements made about someone in a letter to the editor may be held to be legally liable, since the newspaper does not publish all letters it receives, but reads and scrutinizes the letters before deciding which to publish, and therefore it knew or should have known that the letter contained statements that might be regarded as defamatory. But a telephone company that transmits calls in which a person makes defamatory statements about someone would normally not be held liable, since the telephone company does not monitor calls or scrutinize their content before transmitting them.

This led to an interesting situation in which an internet forum that made an incomplete and imperfect effort to remove defamatory statements posted in that forum might be held liable for any statements it did not remove, even though it would not have been held liable if it had made no effort to remove such statements. But section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 changed this through a provision known as “Protection for ‘Good Samaritan’ Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material” which states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of . . . any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such information is constitutionally protected . . .” A district court noted that an important purpose of this section “was to encourage service providers to self-regulate the dissemination of offensive material over their services” by removing “the disincentives to self-regulation created by allowing publisher liability to be imposed on interactive computer services.”

Bob

[Bob_McAdams]

@Sevan Muradian

If there is a known (and assuming) convicted pedophile, that’s a different scenario, however, to play devils advocate, at what point does it stop - the convicted rapist, thief, murderer, drug dealer/user. It’s a sticky situation not doubt. If we ban the pedophile but we don’t ban the rapist and something happens, then we could be in as much hot water as we chose to protect one class of potential victims and not the other.

@tmagchesspgh

As to the issue at hand, if you have evidence that an individual is a convicted child molester, you are well withing your rights to ban him/her from an event where children are present. You can follow due process procedures of notifying him of your concerns and your decision not to permit him to play. In cases of convicted sex offenders, upon their parole or completion of their sentence, they are still under state restrictions and are almost certainly to be on a public listing. The states have yet to determine the degree to which such offenders are permitted to be around children in public venues, but you should be on pretty firm ground to deny such a person access. The burden will be on that individual to show why he should be allowed to participate.

Sevan makes an important point here: I think that we’re going to be on very shaky ground if we start denying people access to tournaments based on non-chess-related crimes they may have committed in the past, but for which the judicial system holds that they have paid their debt to society. If we know that the judicial system is still restricting an individual’s actions (as sometimes happens with Registered Sex Offenders) in a way that would prohibit their participation in one of our tournaments, then, of course, that speaks for itself, although the appropriate remedy may be to notify the police and let them handle it for us. And if we know that someone is a RSO at a tier for which community notification was considered appropriate, we could take the position that allowing them to participate would require notifying all participants of their RSO status.

Bob

[usnavynurse]

The conversation about allowing a convicted criminal/perv on any chess club is very informative. Bravo Zulu guys. It reminds me of the Law and Order episode I saw. But my stance to this is based on that episode I watched. What if a person was convicted but changes his ways and wants to change for the better? Can we give him the chance to play and enjoy the sport?

[DENTONCHESS]

I have now had two “gentlemen” threaten to sue me over rulings involving their children as a tournament
director. Fortunately, neither followed through, and both apologized later, stating “heat of the moment” and
all that. But, I guess, it is always possible. I could imagine a ruling in a college scholarship final that
“gave my child’s scholarship to someone else” situation. And, certainly, as a parent of a teen who played
in many such situations, I can feel and understand the tenseness for the parent involved.

Rob Jones

[William_H_Stokes]

@Ron Suarez

Moderator Mode: Off

Don’t convicted child molesters have a prohibition on them to not be around children?

In the case of the OP, I would say if this is a convicted child molester, contacting the authorities before the event would be the thing to do.

I would also have no problem telling the individual they were not welcome at the tournament.

Yes, contacting the authorities would be the right thing to do if this were a scholastic event or there was going to be a number of children present.

This is cogent advice concerning convicted child moldsters. If participants (or spectators) are unruly I believe the organizers have the responsibility to have these unruly parties ejected from the playing site for the benefit of the paticipants and civil spectators of the event. In most cases there is a site rental fee thus the right to dictate the acceptable behavior on the site the organizer is paying rent for.

[jwiewel]

@William H Stokes

@Ron Suarez

Moderator Mode: Off

Don’t convicted child molesters have a prohibition on them to not be around children?

In the case of the OP, I would say if this is a convicted child molester, contacting the authorities before the event would be the thing to do.

I would also have no problem telling the individual they were not welcome at the tournament.

Yes, contacting the authorities would be the right thing to do if this were a scholastic event or there was going to be a number of children present.

This is cogent advice concerning convicted child moldsters. If participants (or spectators) are unruly I believe the organizers have the responsibility to have these unruly parties ejected from the playing site for the benefit of the paticipants and civil spectators of the event. In most cases there is a site rental fee thus the right to dictate the acceptable behavior on the site the organizer is paying rent for.

That depends on the site. Renting hotel meeting rooms and ballrooms would probably not include dictating acceptable behavior in the lobby, hallways, pool, etc., and it is not uncommon for the lobby and hallways to double as auxilliary skittles areas that the CM might find appealing to use.
A scholastic tournament held in a school would be more likely to be able to enforce all-encompassing behavioral restrictions (and such places are more likely to be off-limits for an RSO anyway).