Lifetime members of the church, the people least expected, will sometimes sue their church due to an injury.  The church with adequate insurance will, out of sympathy, often encourage it.

Lifetime members usually know every nook, cranny and quirk of the church building.  Older church buildings are often not upgraded to reflect changing safety standards unless a remodeling program is incidentally undertaken.  As a result, creaking stair cases with no rails are not uncommon in areas “behind the stage” at baptismal facilities, choir lofts, computer controls, and sound and lighting controls.  In Thompson v Evergreen Baptist Church, Slip. Op. (NC App. 2016), the plaintiff choir member fell off the stair case to the choir loft that lacked rails.  The trial court granted summary judgment for the church and the appellate court affirmed.

While churches should as funds permit inspect their premises to see if affordable safety improvements should be performed, it does not automatically follow that a long time church member, and especially a member with inside knowledge of the non-public areas or areas that represent a risk, will be able to press a claim successfully.  Indeed, open and obvious risks and risks known to the long time member with a long history of behind the scenes access often will not support a claim.

A tragic injury to a child on the church playground will test the church insurance policy and the character of a court.  Courts that will abandon the law in favor of a result are dangerous places.  Churches want to be open to the community and the public even though there is no economic benefit from such inclusiveness.  But, there are several risks.

In KT v Klein Road Church of God, Miss. App., Slip Op. 2016, a four year old was attending a local 4-H meeting with her mother and brother.  Most likely the four year old was not a meeting participant but was on the playground.  The four year fell off the swing set but when she landed struck her head on a tree root.  The family were not members of the church.

The trial court dismissed the case because as a licensee, i.e., a person with permission to be on the premises, the duty the church owed the child was only to refrain from willfully or wantonly causing injury.  If the child had been considered an invitee, the church would have had a higher duty which would include keeping the premises reasonably safe and to warn of hidden dangers that were not open and obvious.  The appellate court affirmed the trial court and the case was dismissed.

The appellate court was careful to note that the child and her family were not members of the church.  Therefore, because the common law duty of a premises owner did not recognize any intangible benefit to the church from the attendance of the family at the 4-H meeting, the child was not an invitee.  At common law, the premises owner must enjoy a tangible benefit from the visitor or the higher duty is not invoked.

While it does not automatically follow that to a church member the church corporate owes the higher duty, it might.  Because church grounds and property are typically operated and maintained by volunteers, it is especially difficult to achieve a consistent high level of repair.  Also, safety standards guarded by volunteer church leaders with no training or qualifications in maintaining them, year in and year out, will lag because with all of the best intentions time and wear progress.  In the internet age, finding an inspector bi-annually to inspect and report would not be burdensome.  Most insurers provide such services free or upon referral.

Church signs are still important although their usefulness is quickly fading in the shadow of social media and GPS.  Often a motorist that passes a church sign often enough will develop a relationship with the church just by reading the sign often enough.  Whether that relationship translates into visitation or attendance is someone else’s study to do.  Church signs sometimes annoy the neighbors and sometimes are overly regulated.

A Kansas City sign ordinance prohibited digital signs on church property in residential zones.  Needless to say, the church in this story had a legacy “monumental” sign, typically with changeable letters that could become airborne in the right weather, and decided to upgrade it to celebrate entry into the 21^st Century by adding a digital display to the monument sign at a cost of $11,000.  The church did not obtain a permit from the city and apparently did not know one might be required.  An anonymous neighbor complained about a year after the digital display was installed on the existing sign causing the Kansas City authorities to awaken to enforce the city code.  The church responded and filed an application for a variance.  The variance was denied, the digital display was ordered removed, but the church appealed to the court system.  The court ordered the variance be entered by the City.  The City appealed to the appellate court.  See, Antioch Community Church v Board of Zoning Adjustment, Slip Op. 2016.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court and the variance was issued.  The court noted the location of the church as near commercial zones on a busy street, noted that the display was put on an existing sign that no one argued was out of compliance, and that the digital display was superior to alternatives.  The court also noted that the digital display on the monument sign did not imperil the character of the neighborhood.

There are two morals to this saga:  make sure new construction has a permit, a qualified contractor will bid the job including the price, and in the application and at every other stage document how the sign will fit into the existing environment.  Also, while trying to work amicably with everyone, if push comes to shove involve legal counsel.  On an upgrade of an existing sign, be sure to preserve the former appearance of the old sign by use of the modern invention of photography.

A church sometimes will be held to the same standard as a profit making commercial property in bodily injury claims.  This is somewhat unfair because a church is typically led by a group of volunteers and one or only a few professionals, all of the latter of which are pastoral in training and outlook.

 

 In Vasilenko v Grace Family Church, Cal. App., Slip. Op., 2016, the court concluded there were triable issues, meaning that the church could not win on a motion but had to go to trial, because the overflow parking lot selected by the church was divided from the church property by a busy five lane street, because there was no safe crossing provided at the parking lot to the church (even though there may have been at the nearest but distant intersection), because the overflow parking lot attendants had no training about warning about the dangers of crossing the street and the procedure for doing so safely, and because the parking lot attendants were volunteers.  In other words, the chicken had to be taught how to cross the road.

 

 Of course, the failure to grant a motion for summary judgment is not surprising in a bodily injury case.  There are almost always fact questions to be answered in a trial in a bodily injury case.  Also, the Plaintiff in such a case would likely be confronted with the open and obvious defense, such as which of the five lanes of fast moving traffic did the Plaintiff fail to see, and questions about whether the Plaintiff’s inattention caused the Plaintiff to be unable to cross the road safely unlike the proverbial chicken that crossed the road.  Finally, the driver that struck the Plaintiff was a third party over whom the church had no control and might have been the primary person at fault.  In most places, pedestrians have the right of way.  In most places, a driver has a duty to drive so as to be able to stop in the assured clear distance ahead, meaning the driver cannot hit the pedestrian.  The third party driver of the car must not be inattentive.  The plethora of such issues is typically explored in discovery and the case settled reflecting a litigation discount based on the perceived weight of each argument.

 

 Most likely, the church had liability insurance for such a claim.  Be that as it may, if the bodily injuries were sufficiently catastrophic the sufficiency of the coverage might be tested if a jury with a lottery mentality decided the case.

The point is:  even selecting an overflow parking lot can require a risk assessment, even by a church.