Re: shielding from liability
Bruce Perens writes:
> We don't need to purchase liability insurance as long as the
> corporation's total assets are small.
The lack of assets or insurance gives plaintiffs an incentive to try to
reach through to the individuals.
> Since the corporation has the liability, ...
It may not. An employee is working under the supervision of the
corporation: he's "just following orders". The corporation is presumed to
be checking his work, so if his screwups get out it is held liable. Can you
argue that the maintainers are acting under your control and supervision?
> it is not necessary to make the developers beneficiaries of
> liability insurance.
A theurapeutic riding program I volunteered for purchased liability
insurance naming the volunteers as beneficiaries. The officers and
employees were not named as they were considered to be protected by the
corporate shield.
> A software bug can cause damage to life or property. We disclaim
> warranties, but some states have laws that don't allow you to disclaim
> _all_ warranties.
That wasn't what I meant. I was arguing that there is no contract and
therefore no duty. I don't know of any case law on that, though.
> I have not heard of one. I am not willing to put my family's security at
> risk so that I can be the first test case :-)
I suspect that you are at greater risk as an officer of the corporation
than you were as leader of an informal group.
Does SPI have an attorney? Have you discussed these issues with her?
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
john@dhh.gt.org Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: