ORIGINAL: J_R
ORIGINAL: abel_pranger
The essence of it is, how does AMA rationalize giving themselves the option to walk away from liability risk at an event site that may arise from activities not allowed by their own rules and assessment of risk, absolve themselves of the responsibility for anything that may happen outside the 'official events' time frame but still within the overall time frame of the sanction, and knowing that the site owner has no such option?
[Abel
I guess post #18 is not clear. The landlord has 24 hours of coverage on the date of the sanction.. period.
It is NOT subjet to the comings and goings of the CD. It is NOT subject to the safety code. It is NOT subject to the sanction being in place.
It's quite clear to me and has been since Jim B posted the same information way back in post #12. It still doesn't relate to my last post, repeated, which stipulates that the landlord has coverage, as you now say. What I asked is (trying different words):
Is it fair and equitable that he is at risk of being sued for property damage/personal injury, during periods when AMA has opted to make themselves lawsuit-proof in the course of an AMA event by simply walking away from any responsibility for the actions of event participants?
AMA 'walks away from any responsibility' when the CD leaves the premises, either at his own pleasure, or at the behest of AMA.
Abel