Match staff/RO's liability concerns?

[Seth]

I wasn't going to post in this thread, but I figure I should.

I'm was the guy talking with G-man. I have been asked to act first as a co-MD then as MD for a local match. I have given it a lot of thought and one of the concerns was whether I was opening myself up to personal liability just by virtue of taking the job.

I want to approach the offer thoughtfully and not jump in blindly, so when I was discussing it with G-man, he suggested posting on Benos to get a better sense of what others were doing and whether I was concerned without cause.

Obviously, you can't get out of bed without being liable for your actions, but I have to act in a manner than protects my family iff something should go wrong.

Seth

[Rob Boudrie]

Another technique for obtaining insurance is to have a rider added to an existing policy for an event designating a particular individual, or set of individuals, as "additional insureds". The upside is that this can be very inexpensive. The downside is that it takes the existing coverage limit and spreads it over more people.

Check your club insurance as well - sometimes these policies include anyone acting on behalf of the club (and sometimes they don't).

[herky]

At my RO class last year, Perry Wilson mentioned getting insurance from a Sporting Officials Organization which, I gather, is for Referees, Umpires, etc., but does recognize range officers. Of course it is info from over a year ago and my "senior" mind cannot remember the name of the group. Contacting Perry might help with specifics.

[Carmoney]

Boy did I came up with quite a few things to say about anyone who would sue their club and the lawyers that would take the case,,, but I am keeping my mouth shut. I long for the days of good ole personal responsabilty and sometimes #&^% happens

John, most of us feel that way at the gut level.

But in order to really understand the full issue, you have to try to imagine the worst-case scenario......You're at the range shooting a club match with somebody you really care about (let's say your child) and then some idiot (let's say the match director) does something incredibly stupid that causes grave and permanent injury to that child (let's say severe brain or spinal cord injury that puts your child in a wheelchair and ventilator for the rest of his life). Maybe it was some oddball range hazard that was known to the officers of the club, but not the competitors involved--maybe they'd even had the same safety issues crop up in the past but decided not to bother fixing the problem. (Remember, this is the worst-case scenario.) Bottom line, your kid will never be the same, and it truly was somebody else's fault that it happened.

Now you're a hard-working and responsible guy who carries health insurance, but you realize that the medical costs of something so severe will quickly outstrip your family's lifetime medical coverage cap and you'll be left to fend for yourself for a lifetime worth of medical, skilled nursing, and rehab care for your child. Your entire family's financial future is in jeopardy, all for something that could have been avoided if the club officers had applied good common sense. And let's say that gun club happens to be sitting on an extra parcel of land, not yet in use, that had appreciated in value and is worth a couple million bucks.

Given that terribly scenario (unlikely--thank God!--but nevertheless still possible), can you really honestly say that you would choose loyalty to a gun club over your own family's medical and financial well-being? Honestly?

I'm a defense lawyer, John. The only thing I do is civil litigation and trial work, almost exclusively on behalf of clients who have been sued. I fight bullshit lawsuits every day of my professional life. But not all claims are bullshit. The civil justice system exists for a reason. And we all benefit from the fact that we live in a society that has a viable system of civil recourse to compensate those who are wronged--even though (thankfully) most of us will never have a need to personally make use of that system.

[CSEMARTIN]

So....I'm opening up myself for liability if I volunteer to be an RO or SO at a match?

Can Rudy Project be sued if something happens while I'm involved in the operation of a match? What about the other sponsors of the Rudy Project Competition Squad?

If somebody gets hurt and I step up and help them, can I be sued? What if somebody uses one of these medical kits to help somebody, are they liable now?

I think the answer to all of these questions is yes, and it makes me not want to volunteer to help anyone.

Edited December 3, 2009 by CSEMARTIN

[Nik Habicht]

So....I'm opening up myself for liability if I volunteer to be an RO or SO at a match?

Sure --- in the same way you're opening yourself up to liability by participating in a match or by getting out of bed in the morning. There's risk in everything we do; education and attention to detail mitigate risk nicely most of the time.....

Can Rudy Project be sued if something happens while I'm involved in the operation of a match? What about the other sponsors of the Rudy Project Competition Squad?

I'm not a lawyer --- so I have no idea. I'd expect Rudy to know though....

If somebody gets hurt and I step up and help them, can I be sued? What if somebody uses one of these medical kits to help somebody, are they liable now?

If you know nothing, you're pretty well covered in most places by good samaritan laws. If you know something, or hold a professional certification or license, you're covered as long as you remain within your scope of practice.

I think the answer to all of these questions is yes, and it makes me not want to volunteer to help anyone.

Yeah, I hear that --- but I'll bet that you will anyway.....

[G-ManBart]

I'm worried that I came across a little too strong in my previous post. I hope everybody understands I don't mean to be critical of G-manBart or the others who chimed in. It's an excellent and important question, and it invokes a topic we all need to consider. I'm sure Bart is looking more for general thoughts on the topic rather than specific legal advice.

I just want to be sure everybody understands that relying on internet legal advice is truly a "trap for the unwary" (to quote one of my professors from law school).

Yep, I was just generally curious if others have looked into the issue, explored liability coverage etc. Still, it's a good reminder that you posted that each and every situation is unique and the only reliable advice would come from a legal professional familiar with such matters

[Ron Ankeny]

I long for the days of good ole personal responsabilty and sometimes #&^% happens.

Yeah, and our state legislature feels the same way.

Wyoming Statute 1-1-123. Assumption of risk.

A. Any person who takes part in any sport or recreational opportunity assumes the inherent risks in that sport or recreational opportunity, whether those risks are known or unknown, and is legally responsible for any and all damage, injury or death to himself or other persons or property that results from the inherent risks in that sport or recreational opportunity.

B. A provider of any sport or recreational opportunity is not required to eliminate, alter or control the inherent risks within the particular sport or recreational opportunity.

C. Actions based upon negligence of the provider wherein the damage, injury or death is not the result of an inherent risk of the sport or recreational opportunity shall be preserved pursuant to W.S. 1-1-109.

Of course, the problem we all face is what constitutes "negligence"? As far as getting sued, hell you can be sued at the drop of a hat. I'll bet Carmoney has seen nonsense suits that would make us cringe.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Ron Ankeny

[kgunz11]

Funny, because I work in high risk commercial insurance and I have never seen a range and/or match insured. It wouldn't be a problem to write coverage either for a range or an event but I have no idea if anyone has or what the premium for something like that would be.

Liability waivers in most states have been deemed to be against public policy and as such unenforceable, at least as far as recreational activities are concerned. Waivers for instructional situations are still holding up fairly well.

edited 'cause Jim types faster than I do about waivers. :-)

I can answer this one. For 1 single event, to last 1 single weekend of 1 single year, with the utmost of qualifications in range safety officers and rules pertaining to the match, it costs us $1200.00. There are very few companies that will even write "event insurance" for a firearms related event, and when they do it is expensive. Our annual range insurance is covered under a blanket policy that is written for the hunting club that leases the property. People think we're getting rich when we have 40 guys pay $150.00 each in match fees for a 2 day precision rifle/combat handgun match. Considering we have been buying sheets of AR 500 plate and props each year to add to the match, they are very wrong. The first 2 years, my partner and I gave away about $3000.00 of our own money just so others could come and shoot in a venue like this. You know what they say, no good deed goes unpunished. Our idiot ass' is doing it again in 2010, but maybe this time we won't be out of pocket quite as much. The $30,000.00 prize table is almost 100% donated also. We must be doing something right though, we have a list twice as long as the number of shooters we can take.

[CSEMARTIN]

Yeah, I hear that --- but I'll bet that you will anyway.....

Yeah....I will. There is still something to be said for doing the right thing.

The risk of a lawsuit still pisses me off though. I guess the issue I need to address is whether or not my malpractice policy covers me outside of my office or the hospital.

Sorry for the thread drift. I'll shut up now.

[redmanfixit]

I've thought about this some. Perhaps not as much as others. In Colorado, where I live, posted prominently at the gate and around the premises of equestrian facilities, are signs that say loudly that sports involving horses are inherently dangerous and the participant is there at their own risk. Colorado law apparently supports this in not allowing lawsuits based on mishaps with horses. I have not read the law but I expect that there may be an exception for extraordinary negligence, but otherwise, play at your own risk.

Other than people that are "anti" trying to shut this sport down for all the "reasons" they have, using lawsuits, perhaps as our sport grows we should all start thinking in this direction. I am endlessly impressed with the dedication to safety I see in this sport. As the numbers increase, the laws of probability will move us toward some kind of incident.

Thus, I personally will NEVER react negatively to, or think ill of any official at a match, however picky or un-charming they may be in the moment, in any situation that has to do with safety. I do not want to discourage anyone from saying anything at a match based on an observation they may be making about an issue, even if it seems fussy. I realize from threads I have followed here, that there are many competitors and officials that are really disturbed when observers of a run make loud comments about fingers or muzzles. OH WELL. It's only money or junk (well OK perhaps really nice junk, sometimes) but this is just a game, finally and I can never see it being so important that safety on the range is ever less than the first rule before all others.

As our sport grows, and I'm doing everything I can to get people to come out and participate, We can "weave" this into the fabric as we go.

[Carmoney]

The risk of a lawsuit still pisses me off though. I guess the issue I need to address is whether or not my malpractice policy covers me outside of my office or the hospital.

It's never a bad idea to read your policy.

[Seth]

Sigh.

Spoke to an attorney who basically told me that no matter what disclaimers and releases of liability are in place, no matter what the law is, I'm still at risk. I've asked my insurance agent to look into the clauses in my umbrella, but my atty tells me to expect a firearms disclaimer and probably a disclaimer about sporting events.

I've put a call into Dave Thomas to see what USPSA recommends and I need an answer from the club regarding their own policies that are in place.

[Rob Boudrie]

The folks have what looks like a decent policy:

http://www.naso.org/benefits/download/SOS.pdf

BUT. note that a $1M limit is "per incident", so if 20 people get named as defendants in a suit naming each member of the match staff as a defendant, each is only covered for $50K (although I'm not sure how the coverage divides up if the court finds members liable in different amounts).

Some good news is that they do not deduct defense costs from the policy limit.

In think NROI certified RO's are considered NASO members, or eligible to join NASO (I will find out from Dave Thomas - he made such a deal with an org of this type years ago, just not sure if this is the one).

[G-ManBart]

Now it seems like we're getting somewhere on this...really all I was hoping for.

I'm not sure why the lightbulb never came on before I talked with Seth, but it should have as about 25% of the people I work with are attorneys! R,

[Gary Stevens]

While there is no magic bullet, so to speak, you increase your liability when you deviate from the normal operations or rules. It is better to be able to say "I did it by the book" than to say "well, I sort of did it my way."

My 2 cents.

[lugnut]

In think NROI certified RO's are considered NASO members, or eligible to join NASO (I will find out from Dave Thomas - he made such a deal with an org of this type years ago, just not sure if this is the one).

That would be good information Rob!

[Carmoney]

Spoke to an attorney who basically told me that no matter what disclaimers and releases of liability are in place, no matter what the law is, I'm still at risk.

I don't disagree, but in most jurisdictions a well-crafted liability release will provide some meaningful protections. The courts in my state (Iowa) do generally enforce liability waivers.

However, it's never quite that simple. Here in Iowa, for example, a person can fully sign away his or her own right to sue, but cannot relinquish the rights of third parties who possess a legal interest in the action--surviving spouses and children can still sue for loss of consortium and support.

The good news is that in most parts of the country, the system works pretty well to weed out the ridiculous and completely meritless cases. The news media (and the politicians and special interests who champion the cause of tort reform) always make it sound much worse than it really is. Most of the crazy cases never make it to trial.

This is one reason why I think it is so important for solid citizens to never shirk jury duty. It's the one opportunity most people will ever have to personally participate in our system of civil justice, and we need people with good common sense to serve as judges of the facts.

Or so it seems to me.

[Neomet]

BUT. note that a $1M limit is "per incident", so if 20 people get named as defendants in a suit naming each member of the match staff as a defendant, each is only covered for $50K (although I'm not sure how the coverage divides up if the court finds members liable in different amounts).

Kinda sorta accurate but not exactly. The more accurate way to state this is that the $1M is split up between all claimants per incident. If plaintiff A has an injury that is worth $100,000 and a jury finds that the stage RO was the responsible party out of the 20 defendants the full award would be paid. Your primary concern short of a catastrophic injury is a large number of plaintiffs which reduces the amount of insurance available for each individual plaintiff thus creating personal exposure for the insured(s).

Edited December 5, 2009 by Neomet

[Seth]

I spoke with my insurance agent this AM. My homeowners covers liability up to my preset amount assuming that its not a paid position.

So I have some. An umbrella should cover the rest of my own personal liability.

Better.

[kimel]

The Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance helped write a bill and successfully lobbied the Idaho legislature this year to pass a law which protects ranges and match staff from liability suits. http://www.idahossa.org/ for more info. The core of that group are USPSA shooters and darn nice folks.

I am sure they wouldn't mind if you copied their bill and got it going in other state legislatures as well.

Be very careful when doing medical stuff in the field. Know that state's "Good Samaritan" law (if there is one) and the extent to which you are protected. Just because your medical kit has Celox, sutures, scalpels, I.V. kits and whatnot and there is a Good Sam law in place doesn't necessarily mean you get to perform field surgery. And remember that in most states Doctors and Nurses are not licensed to work in the pre-hospital environment beyond simple first aid stuff. In some states even EMTs & Paramedics can't perform above the BLS (Basic Life Support) level unless they are on duty (for which purpose many agencies basically tell their staff they are always on duty).

Also keep in mind that your first aid kit and skills are far more likely to be called upon for non-gun related issues. Cuts, scrapes, heart attacks, heat stroke, etc. are wayyyy more common on a shooting range than GSWs.

If you don't have First Aid and CPR cards, get them and keep them current. Each class is only a couple hours every few years...well worth the time. Your local Red Cross or Fire/EMS unit can point you in the right direction.

[Rob Boudrie]

Kinda sorta accurate but not exactly. The more accurate way to state this is that the $1M is split up between all claimants per incident. If plaintiff A has an injury that is worth $100,000 and a jury finds that the stage RO was the responsible party out of the 20 defendants the full award would be paid. Your primary concern short of a catastrophic injury is a large number of plaintiffs which reduces the amount of insurance available for each individual plaintiff thus creating personal exposure for the insured(s).

Well said - that is exactly what I was trying to say. My point was that if YOU have a $1M policy that covers the incident, you have $1M worth of coverage. If you are relying on the club's policy and are ordered to pay damages, you may have considerably less coverage for yourself than the stated policy limit.

Also, check the club policy to see if you are covered. Some cover only people on record as officers of the club, whereas others cover anyone "acting on behalf of the club".

This is of particular concern if you are in a state that assesses damages on a joint and several basis and you have documented assets - which allows the plaintiff to extract the full amount from any of the defendants. A defendant found to the 20% responsible could be made to pay the entire amount if the other defendants were judgement proof (no assets to seize).

[Neomet]

I should probably add that the probability of a single incident with a large number of claimants arising from something that occurs at a match is pretty small. The most likely claim outside of a trip and fall is somebody firing a round off when they shouldn't have and putting it through themselves or one other person. Maybe if some big prop collapses on a group of people, or some staff member plows into a bunch of people while on a golf cart while picking up scorecards you could have a lot of claimants but generally speaking these scenarios would be clusters of relatively minor injuries all likely worth substantially less than a mil in coverage.

Yes, it can still happen and those of us in the biz are a bit prone to explain worse case scenarios because we have seen them, and yes everyone should still have a boatload of coverage but the odds of personal exposure if you have a million dollar policy are pretty darn slight. Personally I would worry more about blowing a mil in coverage on my auto policy than I would working a match. But thats just me.

[Carmoney]

I agree.

[Paul B]

Maybe as Neomet said I have seen too many claims (thousands), but in my experience it is not how many people who have to be covered that governs the limit of liability needed but the risk potential coupled with what the market will bear.

What I mean is if an incident happens and the injury is severe - say a spinal injury with paralysis then the suit amount is going to be in the multi-millions. A $1 million club policy will be gone immediately. In fact, the limit will probably be offered up by the carrier right away to lessen their defense obligation. An economist will say the injury is worth probably north of $5 million which means that any and all who were involved will be "strip searched" for their insurance coverage.

In my opinion does this mean the club should carry more? Yes if they can. I always suggest $5 million if it is obtainable and can be afforded by the club. This is usually structured with a primary policy and an umbrella which is a cheaper way to do it.

It also means that if you do any kind of RO or match duties or if you are just a competitor, I would suggest you not have just $300K in personal liability but also a personal umbrella.

The concern is the potential injury not the number of people who split the pie.