Match staff/RO's liability concerns?

[Carmoney]

Most people are woefully underinsured. Many people are driving around with auto liability insurance limits of 100/300, and have 300 (or less) in limits on their personal liability coverage through their homeowers policy. I have defended a number of clients who got themselves in a situation where they caused significant injuries to others (up to and including death) in which their insurance limits were terribly inadequate. It is not a pleasant situation.

Even if you don't have huge assets, it's a matter of social responsibility. If you cause an accident (and it can happen to anybody) and hurt somebody really badly, wouldn't you feel better knowing that you had enough insurance in place to fully compensate the loss you caused?

A personal umbrella of at least a million should be the starting point. And while you're at it, make sure to raise your uninsured/underinsured limits to at least a million as well. If you get clobbered (and that too can happen to anybody!) at least you have a fighting chance of being made "whole"--to the extent that money can do that, anyway.

Good liability coverage isn't all that much more expensive than mediocre coverage, and it's well worth the incremental increase in premium. Trust me.

[kimel]

Back when I joined USPSA or maybe it when I first got NROI certified they included a flier for these guys:

http://www.naso.org/benefits/insurance.htm

Any opinions from those that know a lot more about liability and insurance than I do?

[G-ManBart]

A personal umbrella of at least a million should be the starting point. And while you're at it, make sure to raise your uninsured/underinsured limits to at least a million as well. If you get clobbered (and that too can happen to anybody!) at least you have a fighting chance of being made "whole"--to the extent that money can do that, anyway.

Yeah, the reality is that they hand out $1M+ settlements all the time these days. It simply isn't "a lot" of money any longer....amazing. I do need to spend some time looking over our coverage now that it's been a while. If I get hit by a cement mixer, my wife is set, but if I get sued for something at the range (recreational) things may not be so easy. R,

[Neomet]

Pay heed to the sage advice Mr Carmoney. Everybody makes mistakes. It's called being human. Be prepared both for yours and for others.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Neomet

[twodownzero]

Even if you don't have huge assets, it's a matter of social responsibility. If you cause an accident (and it can happen to anybody) and hurt somebody really badly, wouldn't you feel better knowing that you had enough insurance in place to fully compensate the loss you caused?

I don't believe in social responsibility. I won't go into the politics of such a topic, but a society cannot have responsibility. Only individuals can bear responsibility.

To the OP,

I don't think an ultra-hazardous activity like shooting fits into the same category as other tort cases (like driving or industrial accidents, etc.). People have already mentioned the doctrine of assumed risk, and I think that's what I'd expect to prevail in a case like this. What kind of rational individual doesn't know that pistol shooting or skydiving is dangerous?

The other question I'd ask about the RO is--what duty does he or she owe you? They are there because the USPSA wants them there, mostly to enforce the rules and keep scoring fair (having trained people to score the matches). Of course there is an unquestionable safety element to their job, but safety rests primarily with the shooter, and even if the RO says "stop," it cannot prevent all disasters. The RO doesn't owe the duty of care--the shooter does. That is, unless the shooter shoots himself, in which case the situation looks different.

Of course I can't say how a jury would look at this, but that's how I suspect it'd go.

[lugnut]

Even if you don't have huge assets, it's a matter of social responsibility. If you cause an accident (and it can happen to anybody) and hurt somebody really badly, wouldn't you feel better knowing that you had enough insurance in place to fully compensate the loss you caused?

I don't believe in social responsibility. I won't go into the politics of such a topic, but a society cannot have responsibility. Only individuals can bear responsibility.

To the OP,

I don't think an ultra-hazardous activity like shooting fits into the same category as other tort cases (like driving or industrial accidents, etc.). People have already mentioned the doctrine of assumed risk, and I think that's what I'd expect to prevail in a case like this. What kind of rational individual doesn't know that pistol shooting or skydiving is dangerous?

The other question I'd ask about the RO is--what duty does he or she owe you? They are there because the USPSA wants them there, mostly to enforce the rules and keep scoring fair (having trained people to score the matches). Of course there is an unquestionable safety element to their job, but safety rests primarily with the shooter, and even if the RO says "stop," it cannot prevent all disasters. The RO doesn't owe the duty of care--the shooter does. That is, unless the shooter shoots himself, in which case the situation looks different.

Of course I can't say how a jury would look at this, but that's how I suspect it'd go.

I don't think you are really considering all aspects of ROing. What if someone accused you of creating a COF that was "more" dangerous than another, what if the RO could have stopped someone because of bad gun handling prior. Don't forget the MDs as well. Point is you can get sued for anything.... anything. And even if it is a frivolous case... it will still cost YOU money.

[G-ManBart]

To the OP,

I don't think an ultra-hazardous activity like shooting fits into the same category as other tort cases (like driving or industrial accidents, etc.). People have already mentioned the doctrine of assumed risk, and I think that's what I'd expect to prevail in a case like this. What kind of rational individual doesn't know that pistol shooting or skydiving is dangerous?

The other question I'd ask about the RO is--what duty does he or she owe you? They are there because the USPSA wants them there, mostly to enforce the rules and keep scoring fair (having trained people to score the matches). Of course there is an unquestionable safety element to their job, but safety rests primarily with the shooter, and even if the RO says "stop," it cannot prevent all disasters. The RO doesn't owe the duty of care--the shooter does. That is, unless the shooter shoots himself, in which case the situation looks different.

Of course I can't say how a jury would look at this, but that's how I suspect it'd go.

Our sport isn't even remotely "ultra-hazardous". Just because you're using a piece of equipment that can hurt/kill you doesn't mean the activity is dangerous. I'm aware of exactly one death due to gunshot at a USPSA match, and it's actually doubtful that the shot in question came from someone actually on the range (nearby can shooter site)....and it was nearly 20 years ago. There are any number of "safe" sports or activities that cause almost infinitely more injuries and deaths than USPSA/IDPA shooting. Soccer is dangerous, USPSA/IDPA is quite safe.

RO's are there primarily for safety. Enforcing the rules and honest scoring is secondary...it's not the other way around. That's why the RO's primary job is to watch the gun.

Edited December 26, 2009 by G-ManBart

[Carmoney]

Even if you don't have huge assets, it's a matter of social responsibility. If you cause an accident (and it can happen to anybody) and hurt somebody really badly, wouldn't you feel better knowing that you had enough insurance in place to fully compensate the loss you caused?

I don't believe in social responsibility. I won't go into the politics of such a topic, but a society cannot have responsibility. Only individuals can bear responsibility.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about a society having responsibility, I'm talking about individuals bearing responsibility to the society. Or more accurately, individuals preparing themselves to take financial responsibility for the harm they may potentially cause to another individual. For those who are not really wealthy (and willing to part with some of that wealth in the event something bad happens), this requires acquiring adequate liability insurance. Those who neglect or refuse to do so are being individually irresponsible.

As I stated before, if I ever accidentally hurt someone, I will feel really terrible--but at least I know I have enough insurance to compensate the harm I caused, at least in most situations. It's not just about protecting my own assets. It's also about doing the right thing.