re: Red Cross in Shelters of flood areas

quote:

---

Sorry, but even in today's litigious world, I don't see how accepting a box of clothes at your doorstep opens you up to a major lawsuit.

---

You would hope not, but you'd also be surprised what kind of claims people and their attorneys can conjure up.

Many of the people the Red Cross is now helping have lost quite a lot, if not everything. They will need money. It's not inconceivable that someone with some kind of skin condition could be in the shelter. They then put on some clothes that were donated by some anonymous person which somehow exacerbates that skin condition. That person will then be looking for someone to sue and the only known potential defendant, with money, will be the Red Cross.

Or, let's say a local church group wants to donate several chicken dinners. If some of those chickens are undercooked and people in the shelter get sick, then they could come after the Red Cross. The argument would be that the Red Cross was negligent in accepting undercooked meals.

I'm sure the Red Cross has indemnity provisions in all their vendor contracts to protect them against litigation, thus the insistence on only using vendor provided goods.

I think it is a shame because most people really do just want to help their fellow man and most people in the shelter really are grateful for whatever help they can get. However, when you combine people in serious need of money with a defendant that has lots of it, all in a chaotic situation where accidents can happen, it could be a recipe for litigation.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Red Cross is a bureaucracy that is much more inefficient that a local church group. However, I can somewhat understand them trying to protect themselves from litigation. It's the world we live in today