Sexual abuse by a female member of a 14 year old in the congregation and elders being sued by the County --- now that CO's are liable for the elders only - does that mean the elders will lose everything if fines are levelled against them, since the society has washed their hands and separated themselves by setting the CO in place??
Wilmington Delaware Media report in another Topic
by truthlover 13 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
tim3l0rd
No. They will be just as responsible since it's a hierarchical organization. If the elders point back to a policy by the org, the org is responsible. -
truthlover
Thanks tim
I thought that since the CO was the decision maker re the choosing of an elder now based on congregation elders appointing new elders, that the society had removed themselves from the equation and left the CO out to hang if such cases were to occur.....setting the congregation elders up for loss of home, etc.
along with the congregation and the hall
Somewhat along Contis settlement since the congregations, the elders and the society was listed as defendants
-
Joe Grundy
(This may only apply to the UK).
Several years ago, when Health & Safety and other legislation was coming into force, I attended several 'senior management' seminars. It was emphasised strongly that liability for breaches lay not only on corporations/organisations (mine was a police force) but also on individual managers/those with responsibility.
I don't know whether there are any/many cases of individuals being held liable, but I am aware that in lawsuits individuals are named as defendants along with organisations.
My amateur view is that in WT land, it has been established by the ARC that elders are in a position of authority (despite the best efforts of Ms Applewhite) and thus are liable to be sued. There could be an argument that WT (in its various forms) has vicarious liability for the actions of its agents/officers (elders, etc.) but I think that there is sufficient case law in various jurisdictions to indicate that elders etc. are personally liable.
-
Joe Grundy
PS: I think most jurisdictions have moved away from the 'I was just following orders' defence.
Individuals are accountable for their actions.
I don't know how many elders are aware of this. If I was in WT land I would avoid responsibility at all costs.
-
Mephis
The individual liability is somewhat obscured in the UK given that elders are typically trustees of the local 'charity' (ie congregation) here in the UK too. So one has a situation where the elders, as trustees, are themselves personally and collectively responsible for their actions as individuals. In JWland though it typically would fall onto the congregation to pay compensation, as the elders are acting on its behalf, and via the congregation pass up the WBTS corporate chain.
They have recently tried to break that link by introducing COs into procedures, who they claim operate under a non-charitable body (Christian Congregation of JWs), but their last attempt to argue that here in the UK was laughed away by the judge presiding.
-
Simon
I think most jurisdictions have moved away from the 'I was just following orders' defence.
Individuals are accountable for their actions.
I think that's true. It may be that the elder then has to sue the WTS because they followed their damaging and disastrous orders.
Which of course is why elders are instructed to destroy the documentation of any instruction from the WTS which would be evidence that would excuse the elders (somewhat) and indict the WTS.
What the WTS is ignoring - even if that policy works it can only protect them so long ... eventually the elders will be aware of what is happening and someone will spill the beans. Then the WTS will look even more guilty because they have tried to throw others under the bus and cover things up.
-
truthlover
This pot of stew is getting thicker and thicker, thanks for all insights
-
ToesUp
I wouldn't want to be an Elder. The liability is incredible! -
tim3l0rd
There was a thread where the branch in another country sent a letters to the elders that if they did not follow policies to the letter, including contacting the branch for further direction, that they would not be supported by WT lawyers. There is definitely personal responsibility, but that doesn't absolve the org if the elders' actions can be linked to org polices (written or otherwise).