Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
Ah.. is that what was on the plaintiff's pleadings? I'm sorry, I don't really buy that. The removal of a blindfold is not a difficult or time consuming thing.
|
I don't believe it went to court because the parties in question weren't suing and they ditched the blindfolds and got the drunk pledges (not all were drinking) out of there before the police arrived at the scene of the accident. The pledges were triple blindfolded. Eye patches taped to each eye, then a typical blindfold around the eyes and tied in back and a then a hood (pillowcase) over the head and tied around the neck by the rope. Pledges were assisted in and out of the cars by actives who yanked them by the ropes. One pledge banged his head against a door jamb of a car when "assisted" from one car and suffered permanent hearing loss. In the ER, he only said that he hit his head on the door jamb of a car.
One car of pledges was in a rollover accident and took considerably longer to get out of the car than the actives in the car who were not blindfolded. Fuel was leaking and actives in the car behind them managed to stop and get them out before the car went up in flames, but it was close. This was in a less litigious time period (mid 80's) but it's these types of events that lead to these rules. I'm fairly certain it's one of the rules laid out by our liability insurance. As you said in the "Does your chapter haze" thread, most of these rules are set for financial reasons (dictated by the insurance companies).