Neligent for not following the rule?

[JFlowers]

When I read this article, the first time I thought it was silly. But then its implications, when applied to the shooting sports, began to bother me.

Basically, one golfer shanks a ball, fails to yell FORE, and it hits another golfer doing significant damage (seems he lost an eye). Now the debate is raging in the injured golfer's lawsuit if stepping on the golf course constitutes acceptance of the possible dangers or does the hitting golfer's failure to yell FORE constitute negligence beyond the acceptable danger and therefore liability. One judge has opinion-ed that the golfer's failure to "follow the accepted rules" constitutes liability. He was out voted 3-1, but still.

How does this apply to shooting? We all assume that being there we accept the risk. But could an RO be considered negligent because he did not say the commands quite right, etc and so on. Could be very scary.

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2010/11/15/golfer-hit-bad-shot-sues-friend-yelling-fore/?test=latestnews

[HoMiE]

I've signed plenty "assumed risk" waivers at shooting ranges and matches, but I've never signed one playing golf. I think all sports have an inherent risk and its a matter if it was intentionally done. I've seen guys hit balls into the group ahead if they are playing too slow on course. Now if someone got hurt from that I would have no problem calling that negligence. I think the rules are pretty clear and do the best they can to avoid any potentially dangerous situations and if the RO is doing what they are supposed to do. You get into negligent situations when you don't follow the rules and safety procedures set forth.

Even the most seasoned experienced RO could have a bad thing happen and there is nothing they could do about it. I remember one time a new shooter had a squib, the RO yells STOP, RO starts to give the iyafuasc, shooter sees that his gun didn't fully cycle and load next round and realzes the pfffft sound. So the shooter turns gun to look down muzzle. RO and the rest of squad at this point ALL YELL STOP. In that circumstance I don't think there could be negligence on anyone except the shooter. Luckily nothing bad happened, but in this sport the responsibility comes down to the person holding the gun.

[CSEMARTIN]

could an RO be considered negligent

This is why I'm not an RO. I don't want the liability.

When all hell breaks loose after an accident, everybody is going to get blamed and sued.

[JThompson]

could an RO be considered negligent

This is why I'm not an RO. I don't want the liability.

When all hell breaks loose after an accident, everybody is going to get blamed and sued.

It's a valid concern, but I'm glad everyone doesn't get that worried about it or there would be no one to run us.

I would like to know if the USPSA/NROI carries insurance to cover staff it it ever came down to it..........

JT

Edited November 17, 2010 by JThompson

[ac4wordplay]

I would like to know if the USPSA/NROI carries insurance to cover staff it it ever came down to it..........

JT

+ 1

[CSEMARTIN]

I'm glad everyone doesn't get that worried about it or there would be no one to run us.

Me too.

However, I think the reason people don't get that worried about it is because they haven't thought about it (perhaps a reason this thread was started), and most people have never been on the receiving end of an attorney.

For $200 dollars a year, I was able to take out a rider policy on my homeowners policy for one million dollars in personal liability coverage.

[HoMiE]

I know a lot of gun clubs make you join NRA for the liability protection. I don't even know how much protection that offers though.

[twodownzero]

The vast majority of tort cases are auto accidents. Our sport is relatively safe compared to driving to the range.

Your homeowners' insurance probably would cover you in this case anyway. Insurance doesn't usually cover intentional acts, but you can insure against negligence.

It appears that the dissenter at the intermediate appellate court merely wanted the jury to decide. He didn't conclude that failure to yell "fore" constituted "liability." Read more closely. He dissented from the appeals court affirming the dismissal, because he thought a factual issue existed regarding the general rule about yelling "fore" and where the man was standing. That isn't a conclusion on the merits of the case at all--it's just saying that a judge or jury should have decided whether golfers have a duty to yell "fore" if placed in the same situation, and so dismissing the case without trial was an error. The other judges affirmed the dismissal under the assumption of risk doctrine.

I actually agree with the dissenter. I don't play golf, but if it's common practice to yell "fore," you fail to do so or there is dispute whether you did, and that failure is the cause of some harm to someone else, I'd probably let the jury decide if, under the particular facts in this case, the golfer was under a duty to yell something.

This seems more to me like the RO who doesn't bother to look down range to see if all the squad members are back from pasting and runs another shooter. Is it common practice for the RO and/or the shooter to look downrange and make sure it's safe before issuing "make ready," or to yell downrange to make sure it's clear, or to count squad members behind him? Or is getting shot an assumed risk of setting foot on a gun range?

I actually don't know the answer to any of these questions, and I wonder if a jury would, either. My understanding is that the jury would never know that insurance was in the mix at all, too.

Edited November 17, 2010 by twodownzero

[davidwiz]

The assumption of the risk doctrine has been abolished in a number of states. It really depends on the state. For example, in PA, assumption of the risk only applies to skiing and using a ATV off-road. In South Carolina, it applies to horse back riding (I don't think it applies to anything else).

[sperman]

could an RO be considered negligent

This is why I'm not an RO. I don't want the liability.

When all hell breaks loose after an accident, everybody is going to get blamed and sued.

That must leave you lots of time to paste and reset steel.

[JThompson]

could an RO be considered negligent

This is why I'm not an RO. I don't want the liability.

When all hell breaks loose after an accident, everybody is going to get blamed and sued.

That must leave you lots of time to paste and reset steel.

[Seth]

I made some calls prior to accepting MD at Fredericksburg. The first one was to Dave Thomas. Short story on a local level is there's no coverage for liability. From the club perspective, they carry a fair amount of insurance through various sources which will help. From MY perspective, I act as a volunteer.. I accept no payment of any sort, which helps to separate it from a job relate liability to a personal one. From there, I picked up an umbrella policy...

Beyond that, I'm screwed.

[Neomet]

In the case cited in the article it appears that the court ruled either through a motion for summary judgment or a directed verdict that as a matter of law the defendant was not negligent. The appeal is attempting to set aside the lower court ruling and to let it go to a jury to decide the issue. I will let everyone guess how much it will cost just to defend this case even if the defendant prevails.

[Graham Smith]

I've signed plenty "assumed risk" waivers at shooting ranges and matches

And they are basically worth the price of the paper they are printed on. I used to scuba dive and I used to go caving. Both of these are inherently dangerous sports and I've signed all kinds of assumed risk waivers in my time. And I know of several places that have been sued by people who have been injured. And I know of places that have been fenced and gated with warning and keep out signs everywhere who have been sued by people who have broken in and been hurt.

The fact is that if someone wants to file a suit, they will. And they may or may not win largely depending on how good the two lawyers are. Look up "attractive nuisance" sometime, this doctrine has been stretched well beyond the breaking point many times.

[CSEMARTIN]

could an RO be considered negligent

This is why I'm not an RO. I don't want the liability.

When all hell breaks loose after an accident, everybody is going to get blamed and sued.

That must leave you lots of time to paste and reset steel.

Sperman, I will respect your opinion....even if you won't respect mine. The same goes for you too JT.

[JThompson]

could an RO be considered negligent

This is why I'm not an RO. I don't want the liability.

When all hell breaks loose after an accident, everybody is going to get blamed and sued.

That must leave you lots of time to paste and reset steel.

Sperman, I will respect your opinion....even if you won't respect mine. The same goes for you too JT.

I think we were poking fun at you, but since you seem to be taking it serious, I will leave you with this thought...

It could be seen as hypocritical to participate in a sport where you have concerns for your own liability, but are willing to let others assume that responsibility in your stead....

JT

Edited November 20, 2010 by JThompson

[mgood]

Look up "attractive nuisance" sometime. . . .

I think I dated her.

[CSEMARTIN]

It could be seen as hypocritical to participate in a sport where you have concerns for your own liability, but are willing to let others assume that responsibility in your stead....

JT

Nope.

My actions do not misrepresent my stated beliefs.

[ima45dv8]

Take the personal stuff to PMs if you wish to continue, but let's have no more of it here.

Thanks...