The great thing about paying for movers is that it is much easier to get them to pay for what they break than it is to get the $$$ out of the EQP. This is a pretty clear case of you get what you pay for.

Adam, agreed that it is generally preferable not to sue. The family analogy is a good one. That said, there’s a lot of intra-family litigation in the courts. (See also Seth’s point that any family relationship is a two way street).

B Bell, there is certainly the danger of seeking a windfall. On the other hand, I’m concerned with the possibility of someone not receiving just compensation for legitimate legal harm.

Sarah, agreed that intent matters. There are areas where I would never believe a lawsuit would be appropriate, such as to try to change theological policies. On the other end of the spectrum are run-of-the-mill business transactions. If someone is harmed by negligent crate handling at a bishops storehouse, for instance.

And the comments regarding the church’s experience here are very much on topic. The church ran its own courts for some time.

Green eggz — I don’t know if added training would result in added liability. At some point, lack of added training could lead to liability, if there was a perception that the church should have known it should be trainign better.

The bigger problem is the use of the law to negotiate interpersonal relationships. These suits seem to me to be, in their common application now, antithetical to the development of relationships. They strip away so much of the human experience of community and place the opponents in antagonistic positions. So I vote with others that suits within a meaningful community ought to be quite rare, and to the extent they exist they likely indicate the fracturing of the community (though in fairness I will admit that occasionally they are the indication of an important problem rather than a cause).

re: 7, various suits were incessant in the nineteenth-century frontier–i’ve read court docs for nauvoo and carthage from the period, and every little disagreement was quickly litigated, often without lawyers. i’m not sure whether in civilized society of the time they were that common. If they weren’t that would go along with my thesis.

I wonder if the so-called “litigation explosion” is just a bunch of hype.

In my opinion, worth about two cans of Pepsi One, a suit against the Church by a member of the Church clearly, as previously suggested, is an action that can/could/should make that temple recommend question very difficult to answer.

If there is injury and liability, there should be payment. If the church is liable and refuses to pay out-of-court, then they can pay in-court. I see nothing wrong with that.

Maybe the volunteer nature of ecclesiastical callings helps insulate the church from lawsuits. But you only have to go two or three levels up from bishop before you get to the 1st or 2nd quorum of 70, who are compensated employees of the church.

How much liability does the church bear for the actions of home-teachers? How much for bishops? How much for full-time missionaries?

Are full-time missionaries considered de-facto employees of the church even though there is no remuneration? Does the fact that they are considered, and told quite often, that they are official representatives of the church imply liability on the church’s part?

At the least, because their full-time efforts are directed by official representatives of the church, and because there is a contractual agreement between the church and the full-time missionary, some kind of liability is implied.

I did not read all the fine print on the missionary contract that one signs when sending in your missionary application, and I don’t know if I read everything on the paper where you sign your acceptance of the calling. If I had, I probably wouldn’t have gone. I was concerned about health insurance, as I was over 21, and hadn’t been a dependent of my parents for seven years, and didn’t have the option of continuing health care coverage from my employer.

What liability does the church have if a missionary suffers some loss (monetary or health) while on the mission? What if that loss is the result of mission policy or the action or inaction of the mission president or other mission leaders?

What liability does the church have if missionary “A” causes loss or harm to missionary “B”? What if such loss or harm occurs in a foreign country? Physical and emotional abuse in the missionary system has occurred and has been addressed, but when it does happen, what are the legal implications?

The Doctrine and Covenants says that members should resolve issues within the church framework and not take them before the world, which I assume means in civil court. But does that also apply in criminal matters? Should criminal matters of member against member or church-leader against member be handled within the church, or should the aggrieved party go to the local legal authorities?

It seems like the whole point of that question (associating with groups that oppose the church) is much more about the intent of the person than names of the people involved (like, it’s not a “are you associating with members of the Communist Party” question, even though it looks like one — it’s a “are you working towards creating an insurrection within our country” kind of question.) So it’d be the intent (a nice happy impossible-to-really-determine standard) that matters.

So suing the church is liking suiing your family. To be avoided under most any circumstance.